Sitting of 19 October 1994

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

    City Centres
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will encourage new investment in and revitalisation of town and city centres.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Yes, through the combination of a strong national economy, sensible planning and specific measures such as city challenge to unlock local commitment.
    Mr. Evennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing problems in the towns of Crayford and Erith in my constituency and in Bexleyheath shopping centre, caused by the proliferation of new out-of-town shopping developments? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we restore and revitalise our town centres so that they do not become ghost towns? We must have more investment, life and jobs in our town centres to make them vibrant once again.
    Mr. Gummer: I have made it clear that I believe that the future development of stores should encourage and enhance town centres wherever possible. We have made that clear in policy planning guidance notes 6 and 13 and I shall be issuing some further directions.
    Mr. Vaz: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to answer the questions that were put to him more than six months ago following the reversal of his discredited planning policy, which has blighted thousands of businesses in towns and city centres? What assistance does he intend to provide to those local authorities and businesses that have had to sit back helplessly during the past 15 years while the Government have slavishly supported the principle of out-of-town developments—a policy which has undermined the effectiveness of local councils and businesses in their attempts to regenerate towns and city centres? What will he do to compensate those councils and businesses for his mistakes?
    Mr. Gummer: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is concerned to climb on board Conservative policy in these matters and I know that he is extremely embarrassed by the fact that he did not think of it first. But the fact is that out-of-town shopping centres have played an important role in the new kind of retailing in which Britain leads. There is a balance to be gained, on which I am determined to insist. I do not want to stop those developments that are there, but I do want
    258
    to ensure that, as far as possible in future, any developments will enhance the city centres. That is a perfectly reasonable balanced policy, but, as such, it is unlikely to attract the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to promote the sometimes novel idea these days that people should live in city centres, so that they do not turn into ghost towns at night and so that we have a mix of commercial premises, shops and residences where they should be, as well as out of town?
    Mr. Gummer: The genius of towns is that they are places where people can live, work, shop and take their leisure together. One of the disadvantages that has arisen in recent years—often as a result of the municipal policy of councils that did not want mixed development—has been that people have been pushed out to the edge of towns instead of giving the life that is necessary to the centre.

    Nitrogen Dioxide
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in recorded nitrogen dioxide emissions since 1984.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): Total United Kingdom emissions of nitrogen oxides, expressed as nitrogen dioxide equivalents, increased from 1984 to 1990 by 540,000 tonnes, and have since declined year by year. Emissions in 1992, the latest year for which validated figures are available, were 110,000 tonnes below the peak values.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Despite that, the Minister knows that air pollution is an increasing problem in towns and that bad air is triggering even more attacks in children who suffer from asthma. Why does not he just accept that money spent on an integrated transport system would not only save many people in Britain from greater discomfort, but would clean up and improve the air for all of us in our city centres?
    Mr. Atkins: I agreed with the earlier part of the hon. Lady's question. I have a daughter who suffers from asthma and I know at first hand in my family the problems experienced by asthmatics, so I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Lady's point of view.
    It is no use assuming that pollution is the Government's fault, however. We all create pollution in one form or another and all use vehicles in one form or another, so pollution is partly of our own creation. But the Government recognise the importance of reducing pollution, which is why we spent money on research and, in conjunction with the Department of Health, are examining ways and means of improving the situation—and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made some interesting and pertinent announcements a week or two ago that will contribute to alleviating the problem that concerns the hon. Lady.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: As vehicle emissions are a major contributor to air pollution and are linked to increases in childhood and adult asthma, will the

    259
    Minister confirm that the Government are arguing for increases in petrol duty above those already planned and for cuts in the road-building programme? Will he back the launch today of the clean air through oxygen campaign for the oxygenation of fuel to cut emissions?
    Mr. Atkins: I cannot comment on matters that are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I am that my right hon. Friend is taking the action to which he referred. As to oxygenation, I am interested—as are our expert advisers—in any schemes or products that could help to reduce pollution. However, the value of oxygenates remains unknown and some claims made for them have not been proven. There is a long way to go before the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests could be known to be helpful.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Government may not be entirely at fault for rising levels of air pollution and asthma, but Government inaction must carry a substantial part of the blame. Why is it that this country has only 34 national nitrogen dioxide monitoring stations? Why did the Government decide recently not to make monitoring a statutory duty for local authorities? Above all, why do the Government refuse to adopt a properly integrated transport strategy, which would be the long-term answer to the problem?
    Mr. Atkins: At long last we have an admission from the hon. Gentleman, as opposed to an emission, that the Government are not wholly at fault. I go further, and suggest that the Government have an extremely good record on emissions. We are meeting all the deadlines that the European Union requires of us and have plans for improvements. As to monitoring stations, I take guidance from my specialist and technical advisers—as would the hon. Gentleman if he were in my position. We are advised that the monitoring devices and their location are as good as anywhere in Europe. I am entirely confident that the results that we are receiving from those devices are entirely accurate and give a fair picture of what needs to be done.
    Mr. Robathan: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that I do not consider that the Government are blameworthy in this sphere —[Interruption]—which makes a change. Will my hon. Friend the Minister support increased research into electric vehicles, which could have a major impact on reducing inner-city pollution? Will he, together with his colleagues in the Department of Transport, further encourage cycling in cities and outside them, and consider the use—particularly in London—of the river, which is totally under-used? That could go some way to reducing congestion and improving air purity in our cities.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend makes some interesting points. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London are made aware of those concerns.

    Local Government Finance
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96.
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96
    The Minister for Local Government and Planning (Mr. David Curry): I discussed the finance settlement with local authority associations on 10 October.
    Ms Church: When the Minister discussed those plans with local authority associations, did he give them an assurance that the report in the Local Government Chronicle on 7 October, to the effect that he did not put up a fight against Treasury plans to freeze local authority expenditure, was untrue? Can he assure the House that the Treasury plans published in the Red Book will not be cut further, leading to additional cuts in vital services and higher unemployment?
    Mr. Curry: The local authority associations had obviously seen that report, and my right hon. Friend, if I am quoting him accurately, said that they should not believe everything that they read in the paper.
    Mr. Khabra: Will the Secretary of State outline to the House what steps he is taking to remove the anomaly that exists in the local government revenue support grant settlement, whereby six outer London authorities have no choice but to pay their teachers the inner London weighting allowance, whereas it is calculated in the standard spending assessments that they must pay only the outer London weighting allowance? That is an anomaly. Will the Minister answer the question, please?
    Mr. Curry: I understand that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) is meeting representatives about that this afternoon. But I can be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. His question touches on the earlier cost adjustment—the sums that are directed towards the south-east area to compensate for higher labour costs. I made it clear to the House last year that I was not satisfied with the way in which those sums were directed in the south-east area, and that I would therefore review the relationship between central London and outer London and the taper towards the south-east. I shall propose changes to that when we announce the rate support settlement, and I hope that they will give some satisfaction to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: Why is it that, in the previous SSA settlement for local government, the Secretary of State did not take into account the Prime Minister's pledge to help people who could not afford to pay VAT? Many of my constituents find that, when

    261
    they apply for a community charge rebate, the assistance that they get for VAT is taken into account. Will the Minister do something about that?
    Mr. Curry: With respect, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the SSA systems. Compensation for VAT has been announced in the context of the pensions measure. As regards the SSA, we try to distribute an amount according to the needs of local authorities and their ability to deliver a standard system. The hon. Gentleman came with representatives from Coventry last year to discuss certain matters. In the present settlement those matters will, of course, have been put right from his point of view, so I hope that he will be satisfied.
    Sir Peter Fry: When my hon. Friend speaks to the local authority representatives, will he make it clear not only that there should be concern over the way in which the area costs adjustment is currently calculated but that fundamental change is needed to prevent the kind of unfairness that currently exists, particularly in counties such as Northamptonshire, which has suffered considerably as a result of not being included in the adjustment?
    Mr. Curry: I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned about that. I have met him and his fellow Members of Parliament from the county, and we have plans for a further meeting quite shortly on the matter. I recognise that the area cost adjustment is, of course, liked very much by those who receive it and that those who do not receive it find it difficult. It is a question of balance. I hope to get the most sensible balance that we possibly can in that area.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I inform my hon. Friend that my constituents are interested not only in how much money is provided but in how it is spent? They are therefore extremely anxious to secure the abolition of the high-spending Lancashire county council, but unfortunately the county has seen fit to spend huge sums of ratepayers' money circulating to every head teacher, every head governor and every Lancashire county council employee a wholly distorted view. We very much hope that the commission will not permit itself to be influenced by that wholly unfair action on the county council's part.
    Mr. Curry: Whether or not moneys have been spent legally is a matter for the district auditor. As regards the future structure of Lancashire, until the Local Government Commission issues its recommendations I have no role to play. When it does so, I have no doubt whatever that my hon. Friend will be one of the first through the doors.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: But is it not the case that Conservative local authorities tend to get less Government grant per head but nevertheless charge the lowest council taxes on average? Is not that best exemplified by Gravesham borough council, which, in its last year of Conservative rule, had the lowest council tax in Kent, yet which, in its first year of Labour rule, already had the fourth lowest?
    Mr. Curry: It is true, of course, that the grant tends to be directed to those inner-city areas with the greatest need. But I am very happy to pay tribute to Gravesham
    262
    borough council for the excellent way in which it administers the funds in north Kent. It plays a very important role in the whole of our strategy for the area.
    Mr. Rooker: When considering the settlement for 1995–96, will the Minister pay attention to the country's second city? Birmingham funded the international convention centre with only its own taxpayers' money and European money, but the Conservative central council will meet there next year only if it receives a £53,000 grant and subvention. The Tory party should pay its own way before using Birmingham's facilities.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that once a local authority has received grant, it can use it for the purposes that it deems most fit for the area. Birmingham chose to devote its funds to the construction of facilities. Contractual relationships between Birmingham and anyone else are entirely a matter for those concerned.
    Mr. Waterson: Is my hon. Friend aware that East Sussex county council, which currently enjoys the benefits of a Lib-Lab pact in its ruling group, appears to have overspent by £1 million so far this year on its social services budget? When my hon. Friend comes to use his powers both in terms of the settlement and by way of capping, will he bear in mind the profligacy of many Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities?
    Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend knows, we issue the rate support grant in consideration of the needs of local authorities; the limits to which they are allowed to spend have no political colour. It is an absolutely objective system, the Opposition party accepts that it is objective and while I hold this job it will continue to be objective.
    Mr. Straw: As objective as it has been in Westminster and Wandsworth, shall we say.
    Does the Minister understand that the universal capping of council budgets is not only unjustified and undemocratic, but has failed to work in its own terms? That, by the way, is what many members of the Minister's own party are now saying.
    Will the Minister confirm that six Conservative associations—including one in Croydon, in the constituency of the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford)—submitted resolutions to this month's Conservative party conference which called for capping to be scrapped? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that so great was the fear that those resolutions might be carried that not one of them was called? When will he recognise that nothing symbolises the over-centralisation of the country more than authoritarian ministerial control over services that local communities should be free to provide?
    Mr. Curry: I am perfectly aware that capping is not popular with all councillors, including some Conservative councillors. I am not ashamed about that; they are quite free to express their opinions. But there are other considerations, such as what the nation can afford and the requirements of public finance. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would tell me whether he intends, in the first year of a hypothetical Labour

    263
    Government, to abolish capping immediately and allow local authorities to spend all the accumulated receipts without restraint. That would be a very important contribution to public finances.

    Retail Industry
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to make the most of the planning opportunities provided by continued development of the retail industry.
    Mr. Gummer: By encouraging retailers to develop forms of retailing which can, where possible, locate in places, such as town centres, where everyone can benefit from the competition and choice that they bring.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Boots Properties is currently finalising plans for exactly the kind of town-centre shopping development that he has recommended? Does he agree that such town-centre shopping provides access for all—both those with and those without cars—and also has benefits in terms of car emissions? Will he give some further information about the timing and content of the planning guidance that he has said that he intends to publish?
    Mr. Gummer: It would be wrong for me to comment on the specific example given by my hon. Friend, because it might be the subject of a review by the Department and by me. I certainly believe, however, that encouraging larger stores to play their part in the revivification of town centres will be good for everyone. It will provide opportunities for those without access to motor cars. That will be a necessary part of any concept of sustainable development in the future.
    I hope to extend the information on the current planning guidance pretty soon.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Secretary of State accept that traditional town and city-centre markets are an important part of the retail industry? Does he recognise that, in their dash for deregulation, the Government propose to remove local-authority market franchise rights? That will cause severe damage in areas such as my constituency in Stoke-on-Trent. Will the Secretary of State instigate an urgent review on this piece of Government dogma before the damage is done to our inner cities and town centres?
    Mr. Gummer: I have looked at this matter carefully because not only the hon. Gentleman but my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and others have raised the issue with me. I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.
    Mr. David Nicholson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the necessary, and probably overdue, issue of planning guidance that protects our town and city centres against out-of-town developments. That is desirable. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the guidance is sensitive enough to enable councillors to object to undesirable urban developments such as the proposed removal in Taunton of the facilities offered by the County hotel and their replacement by retailing facilities?
    Mr. Gummer: I shall not discuss the particular aspect raised by my hon. Friend, but he is right that we are talking about guidance. It does not apply in any
    264
    specific case. There may be good reasons for deciding not to agree to a development. Not long ago, I turned down, on appeal, a development in the centre of Ludlow. I believe that there are cases when the proposed development is unacceptable either for design or for other reasons. We must then take appropriate measures. Generally, most people in Britain would like to see a further enhancement of our city and town centres rather than development outside. They do not object to much that has been built outside because it provides services that people want and has changed the way retailing takes place. However, they do not want it to be overdone.
    Mr. Pike: We welcome the Government's change to supporting our town centres and shopping areas within those centres. However, will the Secretary of State recognise that the change in retailing increasingly means that small corner shops are closing in outer areas of town? Will he realise that people who depend on those shops need public transport? It is essential that we have good public transport to our town centres and retail shopping areas. It is also essential that the needs of the disabled are protected in those new shopping areas because it is increasingly difficult for many disabled people to get round the new type of shops.
    Mr. Gummer: I doubt whether it is increasingly difficult for disabled people. Many of the newer shops provide better facilities for the disabled and I am impressed by some of the changes that have taken place in some of the large retail outlets recently.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that nearly 50 per cent. of the budget of the Department of Transport is spent on public transport when it accounts for only 10 per cent. of journeys.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in England during the last 12 months; how many were living in temporary accommodation at the end of this period; and what were the equivalent figures for 1979.
    Mr. Curry: In the year ending June 1994, 128,000 households were accepted as statutorily homeless by local authorities in England; in 1979, 56,000 households were so accepted. At 30 June 1994, 51,450 households were living in temporary accommodation; no comparable figure is held for 1979.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister recognise that the disgraceful increase in the number of homeless and in the numbers in temporary accommodation, which I can assure the Minister has risen fivefold since the early 1980s, reflects in part the behaviour of certain councils such as Westminster which has been deliberately keeping council properties empty and for sale while leaving homeless families in temporary accommodation? If the inquiry that begins today confirms the district auditor's preliminary finding that Lady Porter was guilty of improper, disgraceful and unlawful conduct, will the Minister be the first to condemn her?
    Mr. Curry: It might reflect also the behaviour of councils such as Southwark which leave some of their social housing empty rather than allow people to come

    265
    from other boroughs to fill the empty houses even though they are in need. The hon. Gentleman needs to look a little closer to home and he will find some of the answers to his questions.
    On Westminster, if there is proven to be any wrongdoing, we will condemn it as we have always said we would. That is a matter for the auditor, not for the Government and I am not involved.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector provides accommodation for many people who would otherwise be homeless? Will he confirm that, unlike the Labour party, the Government wish to support and encourage the development of the private sector?
    Mr. Curry: That is true. The number of households living in the private sector has increased from about 1.6 million to almost 2 million, which is welcome. We clearly wish to sustain that development. It depends heavily, of course, on housing benefit. It may also depend to some extent on people who have empty property and are unable to sell it. We need to keep looking at ways in which we can ensure that the private rented sector continues to fulfil housing needs in Britain.
    Mr. Battle: Will the Minister confirm that. his Department has received the preliminary results of the research it commissioned by Pat Niner at Birmingham university on the homelessness code of guidance? When does the Minister intend to publish that research, or will the Government's intended changes to homeless law be introduced in the next 12 months, regardless of the research and of public comment on it?
    Mr. Curry: We have made it clear that we intend to legislate on those homelessness provisions as soon as parliamentary time permits. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the remarks of the chairman of the Chartered Institute of Housing, Mr. Peter McGurk, at a meeting at which the press were present, where he said that he thought that the Government had got their homelessness proposals about right.
    Mr. John Marshall: As the private rented market was decimated by decades of rent control and as Labour-controlled councils have more than 10,000 empty council houses in London, is not it complete hypocrisy for the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) to talk about this issue?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has put it in much more pungent terms than even I would have been able to do.

    European Environment Commissioner
    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the European Environment Commissioner; and what was discussed at the meeting.
    Mr. Gummer: I last met the Commissioner on 4 and 5 October at the Environment Council. We discussed a wide range of environmental issues.
    Mr. Davidson: The Government still have not used the powers given to them under the transfrontier shipment of waste regulations to ban shipments of toxic waste. When do they intend to use those powers?
    Mr. Gummer: The Government's policy in these matters is under discussion with our colleagues in the
    266
    European Union. The hon. Gentleman will realise that we are trying to ensure that dangerous waste of various types is properly dealt with. In a transitional period, it is necessary to deal with waste rather differently if facilities are not present in some European Union countries. We hope to do that in the future. I am trying to find the best way of dealing with the problems that we have now. Of course, in the longer run we will have an entirely different system.
    Mr. Heald: When my right hon. Friend next meets the Environment Commissioner, will he explain to him the detail of the integrated pollution control system that we will have in this country following my right hon. Friend's announcement last week? Will he press for a European directive to drag the standards of our partners in Europe up to our extremely high standards?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that a number of our colleagues in the European Union accept that what we are doing in integrated pollution control leads the field. I hope that the European Union system will be based on the British system. We are negotiating that at the moment. Some countries, notably Germany, have their reservations, but I believe that in the end what is obviously the best system will win out.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware of the vote in the European Parliament on 30 September opposing South Africa's proposal to resume trade in elephant meat and skin? The Commissioner apparently is not taking that very seriously. Will the Secretary of State impose upon him the need to take it seriously? Will he also give us the views of the British Government on the South African proposal to downlist the elephant from appendix 1 to appendix 2 of CITES?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman and I have been on the same side on whales and I think that the same will be true of elephants. [Interruption.] Uncharacteristically for both of us, we are in favour of large animals. We are trying to use our best endeavours, not just negatively to oppose the propositions that have been put forward, but to find ways in which the undoubted expertise in southern Africa can be used to help other parts of Africa, where the position of elephants is much worse. A real problem exists. There are too many elephants in some parts of southern Africa and far too few in others. I want to try to reap the benefit of what is happening in the south.
    Mr. Skinner: Come on Sabu.
    Mr. Gummer: I would say to those who speak from a sedentary position that many people take this matter extremely seriously, although perhaps not in Bolsover.
    Mr. Dafis: Did the Commissioner and the Secretary of State discuss the Government's proposals for an environmental protection agency, and did the Commissioner express his disappointment at the fact that the Government's draft Bill, which some of us have heard about but few of us have seen, omits any reference to the precautionary principle or to sustainable development? I express my sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, who has had to face the opposition of the Secretary of State

    267
    for Wales, but I assure him that, in this, the Secretary of State for Wales does not speak for the people of Wales, any more than he does in relation to anything else.
    Mr. Gummer: The Secretary of State for Wales has been extremely supportive on these matters. I am concerned to have an environmental agency that will fully meet the promises that we have made internationally on sustainable development. Responsibilities should be based on sustainability and growth— the two must be held together, which is precisely what I am seeking to do. I intend that the draft Bill should be precisely that. I cannot promise to take on board all the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman may wish to make, but I will look at them carefully.

    Water Industry
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the chairmen of the privatised water companies about the future of the water industry.
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend and I have discussions with water company chairmen from time to time on matters of current and future interest to the water industry.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that, more than a year after Ofwat issued guidelines on disconnections, only four companies have complied with them? Disconnections in England and Wales are now twice as high as before privatisation. Is not this another example of woefully inadequate regulation, which results in high disconnections, high prices and high salaries?
    Mr. Atkins: Disconnections have decreased by 33 per cent. on last year, so the hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. I know that the Labour party is committed to doing away with disconnections, but it should realise that it is out of touch with people. In the area represented by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself, North West Water conducted a poll of its customers and found that an overwhelming majority wanted to retain the right to disconnect, bearing in mind that the process, which goes up to a court order, is exhaustive and necessary to protect proper customers from bad payers.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: When my hon. Friend next meets his counterparts in the European Council, will he urge them to adopt European water directives that are based on proper scientific evidence? Our constituents are very concerned about the rate of increase in their water bills, which can be inflated unnecessarily by directives being based on unscientific evidence.
    Mr. Atkins: I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend. There is a suggestion in Europe that water should be of a pristine quality, which seems to be going much too far. The cost of ensuring such water quality would lead to extremely expensive bills in some areas and my right hon. Friend and I are ensuring that our colleagues in the European Union understand that point.
    Mr. Burden: The Minister spoke of the reduction in the number of disconnections. Does he share my concern about the increase in the number of what are called self-disconnections as a result of the introduction of
    268
    prepayment water meters by water companies? Does he agree that the legality of these devices is questionable and that the system needs rapidly to be reviewed?
    Mr. Atkins: I have said many times from the Dispatch Box that it is my view, that of the regulator and, I think, that of many people across the party divide, although I recognise some dissension, that metering is one of the answers, if not the answer, to the payment of water bills in the future. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is only one option— there are others. I take the point that he made about prepayment, but the overriding concern—expressed synthetically by the Opposition — is about disconnections. I remind the House, however, that the disconnection facility was written into a Bill in 1945 that was promulgated by a Labour Government.
    Mr. Nicholls: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of South West Water, will he remind him that water charges were eventually pegged in the south-west only because of the efforts of Conservative Members of Parliament and because of the actions of Ministers in the Department of the Environment? Will he further tell the chairman that he would do better to spend his time welcoming that development instead of scuttling off to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to see whether, even now, he can impose greater price rises on the south-west than is justified?
    Mr. Atkins: I spent some time in the west country during the recess and wherever I went I was astonished at the reaction of many people to the immense efforts of Conservative Members of Parliament, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), to make the case most strongly for the amelioration of water bills, commensurate with the remedial work necessary to improve quality. As ever, my hon. Friend is quite right.

    River Pollution
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with the National Rivers Authority about emissions from abandoned mine workings; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): My Department maintains regular contact with the National Rivers Authority about this and other matters. The NRA report published in March on this matter of concern was taken into account in our consideration of the legal framework for abandoned mines.
    Mr. Mullin: Is not it a plain fact that there is absolutely nothing to stop British Coal or its successors turning off the pumps and walking away and that, if that happens, the River Wear, one of the most beautiful waterways in Britain, and many others will be devastated? Who will pay the costs of maintaining pumping after British Coal has disappeared? What assurance can the Minister give that pumping will be maintained for as long as is necessary?
    Sir Paul Beresford: I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman clearly has not done quite as much homework as his earlier requests, comments and correspondence implied. The NRA is the enforcing authority and the Coal Authority will be responsible for

    269
    the safety and environmental aspects of abandoned mines, including subsidence and effects on the water environment, except where the responsibility rests with the private sector. They have a specific budget for this purpose, and the Coal Authority will maintain all necessary pumping operations to prevent such water pollution; in fact, the appropriate Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry made that clear in another place during the debate on the Coal Industry Act 1994.
    Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the NRA is doing a remarkably good job clearing up such pollution? Is not one of the problems the fact that some of the old mine workings predate even the nationalised coal industry and that we have a major problem in this respect?
    Sir Paul Beresford: That certainly is correct and it is the reason for the approach that we are taking with the NRA and the Coal Authority.
    Mr. George Howarth: I welcome the Minister to his new post, but I must tell him that, in assuming his new responsibilities, he should be aware that everyone, including local authorities in mining areas, the NRA and British Coal, agrees that the present situation is wholly unsatisfactory. Will he accept that it was irresponsible of the Government to pass the Coal Industry Act 1994 without resolving once and for all the grey areas that bedevil the subject and thus ensuring that we all knew how the problems were to be dealt with? Does he realise that if, during the passage of an environmental protection agency Bill, he can come up with a formula for resolving the problems, everyone in the coal areas will be grateful and he will receive the Opposition's co-operation?
    Sir Paul Beresford: Interestingly, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I welcome his forward-looking approach. We all accept that this is a difficult matter, but steps are being made in the right direction. I remind him that the consultation document "Paying for our Past", which is now completed, will allow us to continue our review.

    Isle Of Wight
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has made on the combined standard spending assessments for the new unitary authority on the Isle of Wight.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): We shall announce our proposals for standard spending assessments for 1995–96 shortly after the Budget.
    Mr. Field: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion and thank him on behalf of the Select Committee on the Environment for all his hard work and enthusiasm when he was its Chairman? I understand that he will be replying to my Adjournment debate on SSAs on Monday evening, but, in the meantime, will he confirm to my constituents that he is well aware of my concerns about the level of the SSA for the Isle of Wight's new unitary authority and especially of the problems caused by severance by sea?
    Mr. Jones: One of my vivid memories of the Select Committee on the Environment is the fact that my hon.
    270
    Friend took every opportunity to advance the cause of his constituents, in connection not only with standard spending assessments but with everything else. In expressing my gratitude for his kind remarks, I confirm that we shall discuss those issues next Monday. I look forward to it.

    Local Government Commission
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to present proposals arising out of recommendations of the Local Government Commission for England; and when the proposals for Warwickshire will be reached.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Timing of any orders will depend, first, on when the Local Government Commission makes its recommendations for each county; and then on other factors such as the wider parliamentary timetable. The commission is due to submit its final report for Warwickshire in December.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a substantial number of my constituents and other Warwickshire residents wish to retain the local government status quo and oppose the idea of a unitary solution being imposed on Warwickshire? Is he further aware that there is much cross-party support for the retention of the status quo? Will he therefore join me in calling for a free vote on the matter when it is discussed in the House of Commons?
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend's last question is not, of course, a matter for me. But on his more general point, we have not yet had the final proposal, and he will have every opportunity to try to persuade the commission. After we receive the final proposal, no doubt he and other Members representing Warwickshire will take every opportunity to alert my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to their views.
    Mr. Betts: Is the Minister aware that there is much support among the Opposition for progress towards unitary authorities, despite our reservations about the way in which the commission has operated? However, does he accept that several matters concern us, on which we shall need assurances from him? One of those matters involves potential safeguards for the employees involved. Is the Minister aware that when the metropolitan counties were abolished a generally acceptable scheme was introduced to allow for the transfer of employees and to protect them? Will he give an assurance that he will examine that scheme and consider introducing it for the non-metropolitan areas?
    Mr. Jones: Naturally, the future of the employees concerned is a matter of anxiety for them. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have consulted on the various measures necessary to protect their interests. No decisions have been made as yet, and I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's comments in mind.
    Mr. Alison: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, although the Boundaries Commission expressed no very strong views on how the future boundaries of York city might be drawn, people who live in the villages round York and within the existing city boundaries have extremely strong views? The overwhelming majority believe that any future York city boundaries should be

    271
    tightly drawn and should not extend into the Greater York planning area. If that is news to my hon. Friend, I hope that he will digest it with an open mind, and nudge the Secretary of State so that he may digest it likewise.
    Mr. Jones: Clearly, Warwickshire's boundaries extend rather further than I had thought, but I will certainly bear my right hon. Friend's comments in mind. As he knows, we have not yet come to a final decision on the county of North Yorkshire.
    Mr. Henderson: May I add to the Opposition's welcome to the Minister in his new appointment? Further to the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), does he accept that the matter is not simply a case of dealing with the staff issue as such, but that the staff's anxiety is beginning, wrongly, to influence the whole review? Instead of its being judged on whether we have the right structure, organisational effectiveness or community democracy, in many areas the review is judged according to its impact on the staff. Would not it be right to withdraw that issue and give the assurances that my hon. Friend sought, and then to get on and deal with the review on its merits?
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. As he knows, I was present at a meeting where he and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) raised precisely those issues, and Ministers are still considering them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, an early announcement would be helpful in reassuring the staff, and we are moving towards that.

    Petrol
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the current level of consumption of unleaded petrol in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the environmental effects of the reduced use of leaded petrol.
    Mr. Gummer: Unleaded petrol currently accounts for over 58 per cent. of the market. Since the fuel was first introduced, emissions of lead from road vehicles have been cut by almost 50 per cent. and, at the same time, average airborne lead concentrations recorded in urban, rural and kerbside monitoring sites have fallen by approximately 74 per cent.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the great success of the Government's policy over the past nine years can be measured by the dramatic fall in airborne lead concentrations, which, as he just said, amounts to some 74 per cent? Does he also agree that, as a result of the transfer from leaded petrol to lead-free petrol, there has been an increase in other emissions, especially those such as benzene, which contain carcinogens? On that basis, does he agree that there is still a need to encourage conversion to catalytic converters in more than the existing 15 per cent. of the vehicle fleet in the country to reduce the threat of benzene, which has simply replaced the existing threat of leaded petrol?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of the policy and the way in which there is much less lead in the atmosphere. Perhaps he is
    272
    overstating the matter to say that the problems with benzene are as great or parallel. In fact, there is not much evidence to show that unleaded petrol contributes much to an increase in the amount of benzene. However, he is also right to point to the need for catalytic converters and for the use of, particularly, hot catalytic converters, which work from the first starting of the motor.
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: The Minister will be aware that there is growing concern about benzene and that it is used largely in the sale of super unleaded, 98 octane petrol, where the replacement of the lead content, the octane rating, has been boosted by the addition of benzene. Surely that area, and the whole policy, need to be considered because of the grave health concerns.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right that we should always look at the concerns. I do not think that we should overdo it. The level permitted by the European Community directive is a maximum of 5 per cent. The typical UK content is lower; about 2 per cent. So, already, we are well below the limits which are placed on us. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should keep a very close watch on this and we are doing so. If there is any cause for concern, and I believe that there are ways in which we could meet that concern, I will certainly act.
    Mr. Sweeney: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the amount of not only lead emissions but other pollutants is falling and will he update the House on the controversy over whether unleaded petrol or diesel-powered cars are better for the environment?
    Mr. Gummer: There is a great deal of improvement in many areas, but we must constantly look at ways in which we can do better. I am not in any sense complacent. The problem with diesel really depends on the nature of the journey. When diesel cars are used largely for longer journeys, there is a real environmental advantage. If they are used for stopping and starting in towns, the balance goes the other way. As is so often true about environmental decisions, they are not as clear cut as some would have us think. Our duty is to try to get the best answer and the best balance that is possible. I believe that the Government have a good record, not only in absolute terms, but in comparison with our continental colleagues.

    Local Government Review
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the local authority associations to discuss the progress of the local government review.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: My right hon. Friend met the chairmen of the local authority associations only yesterday. He expects to meet them again on Monday 12 December.
    Mr. Hall: Notwithstanding the discussion that has already taken place in the local government review, may I urge the Minister, when he next meets the local

    273
    government commission, to tell it that the Government are still committed to the concept of unitary local government and to explain the reasons why that concept is still right: it strengthens local democracy, it removes a two-tier system that is quite confusing and it allows councils to be responsive to the needs of the communitiesthat they represent. It is right for towns such as Warrington, Macclesfield and Halton to gain unitary status in the review.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman puts a very persuasive case for unitary authorities, which are right for some if not many areas. But we are not committed to a particular pattern of local government and there will be areas in which public opinion and the recommendations of the commission are incompatible.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: When my hon. Friend next meets local authority association leaders, will he restate the commitment given to me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that when the commission has finished its work on the shire counties, it will have an opportunity to consider the metropolitan areas, such as my constituency, where a strong desire for change has been expressed?
    Mr. Jones: I am happy to repeat that reassurance.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not it about time that this local government review was scrapped? It has already cost the taxpayer more than £1 billion and it will mean the sacking of more than 100,000 people who are engaged in local government work. For the life of me, I cannot understand why some of the people on our side can go down the road of unitary authorities, which will result in more people being added to the dole queues and more quangos as opposed to democratically elected councils. Is not it fair to say that, although 300 towns and cities in this country are represented here, more Members of Parliament come from areas that have a rural character, where villages are miles apart and where a two-tier system is absolutely necessary? The best thing the Government can do is leave well alone and let the status quo remain.
    Mr. Jones: It is part of life's rich pattern that there should be different views on local government and its future. I note that that pattern is more complicated on the Opposition Benches than Conservative Members perhaps imagined.

    Home Ownership
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of home ownership in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: In the period March 1979 to December 1993, the level of owner-occupation has increased from 56 per cent. of all tenures to 67 per cent. in England, from 35 to 55 per cent. in Scotland, from 59 to 72 per cent. in Wales and from 51 to 68 per cent. in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend accept that those figures reflect a deep commitment on the part of the British people to home ownership which the Government have done so much to promote over the years? Did my hon. Friend see a recent survey that showed that, despite the recession, it was the aspiration of most young people
    274
    to own their own homes? Will he therefore endorse and expand those initiatives that the Government have put in place to make that aspiration possible?
    Mr. Jones: I can certainly confirm that the survey to which my hon. Friend referred is one of a series of surveys that show that that is the preferred aspiration. However, it is not the right answer for everyone. We have taken several initiatives to encourage home ownership. If my hon. Friend has any other suggestions as to how home ownership might be made more possible, I shall be happy to consider them sympathetically.
    Mr. Straw: On one of these so-called initiatives to encourage home ownership—the much-trumpeted rents-to-mortgages scheme—will the Minister confirm that in the first six months of the scheme, from September 1993 to March 1994, there were just two completed applications and that that pathetic response was achieved despite the spending of more than £400,000 of the public's money on publicity and propaganda? That is £200,000 per application. Will the Minister therefore confirm that, even by this Government's appalling standards, that scheme has turned into one of the most expensive fiascos on record? Had local councillors been responsible for waste and profligacy on that scale, they would by now have been surcharged and disqualified from office. Should not the same happen to the Ministers responsible?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that the purpose of an information campaign is to inform and that it is very early, in terms of the development of the scheme, to judge the numbers. It takes a long time to go through the legal processes. If we are to judge by the experience in Scotland, the numbers will grow in the weeks and months to come. The hon. Gentleman seems to be implying that any scheme to extend home ownership is something that he is unhappy about. That is rather typical of the Labour party's attitude generally.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: While congratulating my right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends on the great success in getting more people into home ownership, and while urging them to continue to do that, is not there a parallel need to do more to release the private rented sector? If we wish to see a mobile population which is able to take jobs at one end of the country or the other, we must also ensure that people are able to find homes in those areas.
    Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend is quite right. We are committed to choice and diversity, and that includes the private rented sector—directly, through encouraging lettings in that sector, and indirectly, through encouraging the participation of housing associations, to ensure that the number of private lettings increases.

    Waste Disposal
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts concerning the control of waste disposal.
    Mr. Gummer: I have regular contact with my EU counterparts. The most recent discussions I have had with

    275
    them on issues relating to waste disposal were at the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg on 4 October.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Referring to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), does the Minister appreciate that there is a good deal of concern in south Wales about waste disposal, and that the situation has been further aggravated by an application from the American company Browning Ferris to install a plant at Newport? The firm has a rather
    276
    infamous record, so will the Minister consult the Secretary of State for Wales with a view to getting the application rejected? Does he agree that it is wrong to make south Wales the dustbin of Europe?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look at any application properly and without prejudice. In these environmental matters, however, there is a need to clean up the waste that has already been created. We must play a proper part in that if we are to avoid leaving a dustbin that is not cleaned up. The hon. Gentleman owes it to his constituents to explain that fact to them.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that this morning the Home Secretary joined the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Education, the Paymaster General for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Under-Secretary of State to launch a Green Paper on drugs? I can appreciate the embarrassment that this has caused the Home Secretary, because the document appears to accept the need for a comprehensive strategy to tackle drugs and drug-related crime—a strategy which he rejected during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill.
Would it not be appropriate for a statement on such an important issue to be made in this Chamber, so that we can test the document and question whether there has been a genuine change of heart by the Government? Is this not a discourtesy to the House, and a further example of the sort of behaviour by Ministers that you have deprecated in the past?
Several hon. Members: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does it relate to the same point of order? [Hon. Members: "No."] As the House knows, I am always keen for any important statements of policy made by the Government to be made to this House first. I have seen the document, which is of a consultative nature, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. It is, of course, up to the Minister concerned to decide for himself whether he wishes to make a statement to the House or to use some other method.
I do, however, understand hon. Members' keenness to question question Ministers on this subject. I hope that it will not be too long before the issue comes before the House in such a form that we can all consider it and hear answers to some of the questions that hon. Members are seeking to ask.
Mr. John McAllion: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, the Home Secretary announced an additional £2 billion expenditure on anti-crime closed circuit television schemes for England and Wales. Today, I repeatedly contacted the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland asking whether he intended to make an equivalent statement for Scotland—only to be told that no one there knows what the position is.
Have you, Madam Speaker, been approached by the Secretary of State for Scotland to be told that he intends to make such a statement to the House about Scotland? If not, is it within the rules of this unitary Parliament that Ministers should be allowed to announce anti-crime schemes, paid for by taxpayers' money, for one part of the United Kingdom but not for another?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Minister that he seeks to make a statement, but my recollection is that Thursday follows Wednesday, and that Thursday is the day when the Leader of the House
278
announces the business. The hon. Gentleman may be lucky then, although I do not promise that he will catch my eye.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights protects the right of this House to regulate its own proceedings, including the conduct of its members. There are all sorts of historical reasons for that, and no one is likely to dispute the fact that we, not the courts, should do this. It is also most important for the reputation of Parliament that, in regulating our own procedures and the conduct of Members, everything should be seen to be above board, and that there should be as little secrecy as possible.
The point I want to raise with you, Madam Speaker, is as follows: if a Committee has been duly appointed by the House, as it has been, to look into the conduct of two hon. Members, are we in a position to tell the Committee that we are dissatisfied with its sitting in private, and that we believe that it should sit in public for most of the hearings?
Obviously, when it comes to discuss its conclusions, it must do so in private—no one disputes that—but I for one, and many of my hon. Friends, are deeply disappointed that the Committee of Privileges has decided to sit only in private. Are we therefore in a position to tell that Committee that we believe that most of its proceedings should be public?
Madam Speaker: There has been no official report yet to the House; what I have seen has been from the media. As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, all our Committees, including the Privileges Committee, regulate their own affairs. They must be left to resolve the matter. The hon. Gentleman must not look to me as a court of appeal. We have established very important working Committees in the House, and they must be left to conduct their own affairs in carrying out the task with which they have been entrusted by the House.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to written question 222 on today's Order Paper? The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) asked the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about Stratford grant-maintained school. That school is in my constituency, and there is a lot of controversy surrounding it. Would it not be courteous for the reply to the question to be given to the constituency Member concerned, rather than his having to wait until it is printed in the Official Report? It is matter of courtesy, upon which you could advise Ministers.
Madam Speaker: I often have to remind Ministers and Back Benchers that there should be a high degree of courtesy in the way in which we deal with each other in the House. I have always thought that, if an hon. Member tables a question that relates to another Member's constituency, that Member should be informed. I hope that what the hon. Gentleman has said has been heard by the Minister, and perhaps he will be sent the typescript answer to the question. We now must move on to the ten-minute Bill.

Maximum Wage
3.37 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non-managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio.
Before explaining why I think the Bill is worthy of serious consideration, let me clear the ground of three misconceptions that have arisen so far in public discussion of it.
First, it is not aimed at entrepreneurs, the geniuses who invent a new product or service and create companies that make them millionaires. I admire Richard Branson and Anita Roddick. Ms Roddick pays herself £138,000 a year, so she would not be affected by my Bill. I welcome the tall poppies in our business field, and wish that there were many more of them.
Secondly, it is not directly aimed at the scandalous pay-offs to company directors, privatised utility pay-offs, Ministers serving on boards of companies or, indeed, the corruption that The Sunday Times exposed in 10 Downing street in the 1980s.
Finally, my Bill does not proposes a compulsory wage set at any given upper limit. I see a glint in your eye, Madam Speaker, as the boss of all Members of Parliament, at the thought of earning 20 times our meagre salary.
My Bill does not propose to set cash limits, as the Chancellor does with his public pay policy; it represents an effort to a start a national debate about how we pay ourselves as a nation for the work we do and the wealth we create.
The pay that our top executives have been awarding themselves has lost all touch with rationality and the market.
I shall take as an example my constituency of Rotherham. The starting salary for a cashier at Barclays bank there is £7,000 a year; the chief executive of Barclays earns 100 times that amount.
At the Rank Hovis plant in Rotherham, the base rate for an operative is £164 a week. Greg Hutchings, the CEO of Tomkins, which owns Rank Hovis, earns £1.2 million a year–145 times that amount.
The pay of the chief executive of British Steel is 33 times the pay of a Rotherham steel worker.
Some people may say that, if we do not pay those rates, our top managers will disappear to work abroad; but nowhere in Europe do similar pay ratios exist. The head of Thyssen, Germany's biggest steel firm and a much bigger company than British Steel, earns only 16 times the pay of a German steel worker—half the United Kingdom ratio.
Other people will say that those large salaries are justified because many people are employed and big sales are generated. Yet the chief executive of Volkswagen, Europe's biggest car company, which employs 250,000 workers and makes sales of $80 billion a year, is paid 25 per cent. less than the pay last year of the chief executive
280
of British Aerospace, a company with one third the number of employees and one third the magnitude of sales.
If we examine the new growth areas of the dynamic Asian economies, the comparison is even more grotesque. There are eight top managers in Japan with salaries of more than £650,000 a year, compared with the 90 that I have identified in the UK. The earnings ratio between a top executive and an engineering worker in Japan is between eight and 12 to one—compare that with GEC, where Lord Weinstock earns more than 33 times the average male earnings in industry.
That sense of teamwork, that lack of a big gap between top and average pay, is perhaps the reason why Japanese companies have been so much more successful than ours in recent years.
The noble Lord Hanson was quoted recently as saying:
"The labourer is worthy of his hire: but no more than that."
I agree with him, because that corporate greed reflects the last great closed shop in the British economic system—the company boardroom. There, men—it nearly always is men—executive and non-executive directors, meet in private, pushing their snouts deeper and ever deeper into the trough: this Government of sleaze with their boardrooms of greed.
In addition to the low-paid in my constituency, two categories of people are being diddled by that deliberate widening of the wealth gap. The first group consists of shareholders. It may be odd for a Labour Member to defend shareholders, but they have their right to a place in the sun. According to a survey carried out by CM Financial Analysis, nearly one third of top UK companies have given their directors pay rises that outstrip the rate of return to shareholders in the past three years.
The second group that is being diddled consists of middle managers, skilled workers and directors of small and medium-sized companies, who are significantly underpaid in comparison to their European counterparts as a price of the overpayment of top bosses.
What is needed, and what in part my Bill proposes, is to empower shareholders and all employees, so that they have a genuine say in the firm. If trade union reform was the issue of the 1970s, company boardroom reform is the issue of the 1990s. We need to return companies to their shareholders and their employees if we are to reverse the economic decline of the past 15 years.
With the accession—as many Members will know—of the new member states of the European Union, Britain has sunk to 11th place in the per capita GDP rankings in Europe. We have the widest wealth gap of any European or dynamic Asian economy. My proposal is based not on the politics of envy, but on the comparative economics of efficiency. Company executives have conflated salaries, performance pay and stock options in a way that disconnects them from their workers and shareholders.
An English writer, a Member of the House but not a Labour Member, wrote 130 years ago of our country being divided
"into two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different planets."
Once again, we live in a divided nation. The vast majority of members of the Cabinet represent constituencies within commuting distance of London—an

281
M25 Administration who know nothing of, and have no sympathy for, the north and other regions. The greed of some top executives has transferred them to another planet.
My Bill is a modest attempt to bring those people back to earth, to return companies to their employees and their shareholders. But it has a deeper purpose. It is an attempt to reduce the wealth and pay gap, which has grown alarmingly wide. It is an effort to help make again one nation in which all may play a part, and all may have a share.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Denis MacShane, Mr. Ken Purchase, Ms Margaret Hodge, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Peter Hardy, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Ms Glenda Jackson, Mr. Nick Ainger, Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Diane Abbott, Ms Dawn Primarolo and Mr. Gerald Bermingham.

Maximum Wage

  MAXIMUM WAGE
  Mr. Denis MacShane accordingly presented a Bill to fix the emoluments of chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers of private limited companies and public bodies so that their combined annual earnings do not exceed twenty times the average take-home pay of their non-managerial employees save if the said employees agree through a ballot of their non-managerial employees or through their union to permit salaries of their chairpersons, chief executives and senior managers to exceed a 20:1 ratio: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 October, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
  Mr. Michael Shersby: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) referred in his speech introducing his Maximum Wage Bill to "this Government of sleaze". Similar comments were made during the previous remarks of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). Is it in order for Members of Parliament constantly to use that expression? To talk of a "Government of sleaze" is not only bad for the House of Commons, but I question whether it is in accordance with parliamentary convention and the best principles of the House.
  Madam Speaker: It is in order to criticise Governments in that general way, but it is certainly not in order to criticise individual Members. However, I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with me. I remind the House of the wise words of "Erskine May":
  "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."
  We might all remember that at all times, however high our tempers might rise on occasions.

Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  Clause 1

    SECURE TRAINING ORDERS
    Lords amendment: No 1, in page 2, line 16, at beginning insert
    ("Subject to subsection (2A) below")
    3.48 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 21, 188 and 189; and Government motions to disagree.
    Mr. Howard: Part I of the Bill provides for, among other things, a new custodial sentence for persistent young offenders—the secure training order. The order may last for between six months and two years, the first half of which would be spent in a secure training centre and the second half of which would be spent under supervision in the community.
    Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that the new secure training centres will be different from anything tried before. They will be centres housing a specific category of persistent offender, and the regime will be tailor-made for them so as to provide the right kind of training and care within a secure environment.
    Lords amendment No. 2 and its consequential amendments would allow the courts, when making a secure training order, to choose between local authority secure accommodation and a secure training centre for the custodial part of the order.
    Lords amendment No. 4 and its consequential amendments would allow the local authority, when detaining a juvenile subject to a secure training order, to apply to the court for the remaining period of detention to be replaced by a period in other non-secure local authority accommodation, or a period of supervision or a period of detention in a secure training centre.
    Amendment No. 4 would also allow the director of a secure training centre to apply to the court for the remaining period of detention to be spent in local authority secure accommodation or other accommodation, or for a period of supervision.
    The proposals for the new centres were carefully designed to address the problem of persistent young offenders. The amendments would undermine our ability to respond specifically to that serious problem and would make the operation of the new provisions haphazard, inefficient and much less effective.
    Ms Hilary Armstrong: I intervene because it is proposed to locate one of the new centres in my constituency. How long would it take to implement the Home Secretary's proposals, and how long to implement those in the amendments?
    Mr. Howard: I am astonished that the hon. Lady, coming as she does from north-east England, should raise that point, but I will deal with it precisely and expressly.

    283
    The amendments are based on the assumption that local authority secure accommodation would be used instead of secure training centres. I remind the hon. Lady of the attitude of Labour local authorities in her part of the country. At a meeting with directors of social services in the north-east on 19 February 1993, it was agreed that firm proposals to provide the additional 12 secure places assessed as being required would be brought forward by the end of April 1993.
    By the end of July 1994–15 months later—no commitment had been forthcoming from those Labour-controlled authorities. At that point, the Department of Health had to make the decision to transfer the resources elsewhere. I trust that the hon. Lady regrets getting to her feet to ask that question.
    Ms Armstrong: I am seeking a specific response. When would the Home Secretary's proposals be implemented, and when would it be possible to implement the amended proposals?
    Mr. Howard: It is obvious from my remarks that I can give no indication when local authority secure accommodation would be available, because Labour-controlled local authorities, including those in north-east England, have not presented proposals, despite giving firm undertakings to do so. That is a complete answer to the hon. Lady's question.
    In accepting the amendments, much was made in the other place of the alleged flexibility that they would bring to the secure training order. Although that argument has superficial attractions, it does not stand any scrutiny. Secure training centres, in their design and their regime, will be tailored to a specific type of offender of a relatively narrow age range. Only in such a dedicated institution will it be possible to provide the specialised regime needed to tackle the behaviour of that group and the range of educational and training programmes that will meet their individual needs.
    In contrast, local authority secure accommodation cannot provide that focused regime. That accommodation caters for a variety of difficult and disturbed juveniles in a wide age range. Some are serious offenders, others are on remand, and many are not offenders at all. With such a group to cater for, local authority units cannot provide the concentrated, specialised regime that is the aim behind secure training centres.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, for any 12 to 14-year-old to be made subject to a secure training order, it is almost certain that he would already have been the subject of a supervision order? In fact, that is a requirement of the legislation. That would have meant that he would have been in local authority secure accommodation. That would still be available to the court, even with the secure training order—so why do we need this provision?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right when he says that the Bill requires, as a condition of eligibility for the secure training order, that someone should have been subject to a supervision order—and, indeed, had failed to comply with its requirements. So the logic of the situation is that attempts would have been made to improve the
    284
    behaviour of offenders in that category, without obliging them to be detained in secure accommodation, but that those attempts would have failed.
    Mr. John Sykes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that householders in Scarborough are fed up with the activities taking place at the Stepney road children's home, which range from mindless vandalism and theft to arson? Is he further aware that the county council social services department has shown itself utterly incapable of controlling that establishment? Quite apart from the fact that that establishment should be closed down now, does not that case show the importance of my right hon. and learned Friend's amendment?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the particular example he cites, because I do not have any detailed knowledge of it, but the general point made by him shows that, once again, he is the authentic voice of North Yorkshire. He speaks for his constituents and represents their views, in marked contrast, on these matters particularly, to those who contribute to the debates from the Opposition benches.
    Dame Jill Knight: May I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) that that area of North Yorkshire, vital though it is, is not the only area in Britain that is gravely concerned about the misdemeanours of young people who are not properly controlled in local authority homes? I have one such home in my constituency, about which I have battled for at least two years, and all the residents have a long list of problems.
    In the latest incident, a young girl was let out at half past two in the morning; she was involved in a car accident and lost a leg. But no child of that age should be able to roam around outside a home at that hour while in the care of the local authority.
    Mr. Howard: I have great sympathy with the views of my hon. Friend. Indeed, there are many examples in Birmingham of the large number of offences that have been committed by a very small group of persistent young offenders, for whom the sentence is particularly designed.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make some progress.
    Mr. Gunnell: Should not the Home Secretary make it absolutely clear that there is a distinction between the local authority homes, which have just been mentioned, and local authority secure accommodation? Will he acknowledge that Leeds has secure accommodation for 27 children, and that there are plans for its expansion, as he knows? Does he agree that no person has ever got out of that home? Indeed, the Minister of State commented in Committee on the very good standards there. Will he not draw a distinction between children's homes and secure accommodation?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said a few moments ago, he would have heard me explain in some considerable detail why local authority

    285
    secure accommodation is not appropriate for the group of persistent young offenders for whom the secure training order is particularly designed.
    The secure training order will be a sentence of the court. It is Parliament's responsibility to ensure that the effect of any sentence is consistent for all cases. If the amendments are accepted, the secure training order could be served in a wide range of institutions, with varying regimes. Many of the local authority secure units are very small, with places for as few as eight or 12 young people. Persistent offenders will simply not get the training they need if they are dotted around the country in twos and threes in such units.
    In contrast, if all secure training orders are served in secure training centres, the courts will have confidence in the regime involved, as it will be underpinned by statutory rules and set out in the contracts with the individual operators.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very important point. It is a question not only of locking youngsters away, but of giving them proper education while they are there. Is he confident that, if the Lords amendment were allowed to stand, the children would receive adequate education tailored to their particular needs?
    Mr. Howard: Not only am I not confident that that would happen were the amendments to remain in place, but one of my principal points of opposition to them is that it would be almost impossible to provide the high calibre regime of education and training for those young offenders that it is our intention to provide in secure training centres.
    An additional difficulty with the amendments is that they provide the courts with no guidance on which cases should go to secure training centres and which to local authority accommodation. It would be impossible to predict how the courts would use the power to choose between secure training centres and local authority accommodation, or what portions of sentences would be served in custody. It would be necessary to provide accommodation in both centrally provided secure training centres and local authority accommodation, but the proportions would be unforeseeable and there would be a huge element of risk of either under or over-provision in either case.
    4 pm
    As a result, the measures would be rendered unnecessarily expensive and wasteful of resources. Further pressure would also be placed on the local authority stock of secure accommodation, which, even with the planned expansion to take account of other measures in the Bill, will be insufficient to meet the increased demand created by the need to accommodate juveniles subject to the secure training order.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the Home Secretary really saying that he needs to provide guaranteed numbers in order to get the private sector to provide training centres? Is that not the real motive for resisting the Lords amendment, which would not stop the
    286
    setting up of training centres, but might introduce some doubt about whether they would secure the numbers they would require to be economically viable?
    Mr. Howard: I have just dealt with that point. As I said, the uncertainty that would arise if the amendments were allowed to stand would mean that the measures would be rendered unnecessarily expensive and wasteful of resources. We know that the Liberal Democrats do not give a fig for resources or for expense, and that there is no responsibility in their attitude to these matters; Governments, however, must approach them rather differently.
    Beyond the practical issues in the amendments are important points of principle that concern the Government. As I said a moment ago, the secure training order is a custodial sentence, subject to the Criminal Justice Act 1991: in other words, the length of the sentence should reflect primarily the seriousness of the offence, which is a decision for the court at the point of sentencing.
    To allow the courts, in effect, to adjust the length of the custodial part of the sentence at a later date—presumably on account of some change in behaviour or circumstances—would be at odds with that principle. Indeed, it is extremely doubtful whether the courts would welcome such detailed involvement with the future treatment of a young offender after the point of sentencing.
    There may be very rare cases in which a juvenile serving the secure part of the secure training order clearly needs to be moved to other accommodation—when he or she develops a mental or physical illness, or when there are grave concerns about his or her ability to cope with the regime.
    That is partly why the Bill already contains, in clause 2(4), a power for the Secretary of State to transfer an offender
    "where the circumstances of the case require".
    It is not intended to use the power routinely, but it provides an avenue to allow the moving of juveniles in exceptional cases, and goes some way towards meeting the aim of the amendments.
    The Opposition parties have scaled new heights of double dealing during proceedings on the Bill. Both parties abstained on Third Reading, to avoid the public opprobrium that they richly deserved; yet in debates on the detail of the proposals, they have sought to wreck those proposals at every turn.
    The official Opposition, in particular, voted against giving courts the power to lock up persistent young offenders—young people who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out, have been given every possible chance to reform and have refused it. The public must be protected from them, and the Conservative party would provide that protection; the Opposition would leave the courts with no power whatever to act. By their actions on this part of the Bill,

    287
    the Opposition stand condemned as totally out of touch with public feeling, and we shall make sure that the public never forget it.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Howard: I am happy to give way to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).
    There are serious and insuperable difficulties in the amendments—difficulties of both practice and principle. For that reason, I urge the House to reject them.
    Mr. Alun Michael: The Home Secretary read his peroration, which was presumably prepared by Conservative central office, with style and drama. The trouble is that nobody believes him. Nobody believes him when he accuses the Opposition of not wishing to place powers in the hands of the courts.
    Why is the Home Secretary opposing the Lords amendment? Clearly, he has no faith in the magistrates because it simply gives magistrates courts discretion to deal most effectively with the youngsters who come before them. The Home Secretary wants to take away discretion from the courts. The message of the speech that he has just made is that he does not trust the magistrates.
    The Home Secretary should listen to the complaints from, and the concerns of, Conservative Back Benchers. Their complaints and attacks are not about the Lords amendments but about the Government's abject failure to tackle the problems of crime. Is the Home Secretary suggesting that we should leave discretion to him as the only residual way of dealing with inappropriate placements? He must be joking.
    The Home Secretary has blamed others for the lack of local authority secure accommodation, but it is the Government, the Conservative party, who have ensured that such accommodation is not available. The delay in providing secure places has been due to the Government's unwillingness to suit their actions to their words. I can give a simple illustration. Long before I came to the House, I was one of many people who campaigned for the provision of secure places to end the scandal of young people aged 15 and 16 being held in adult prison accommodation. They are still being held in adult prison accommodation because, despite the then Home Secretary eventually promising in February 1991 to provide secure places, they have still not been provided. We now have the promise that some of them may just about be delivered this year, but, because of the confusion between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office, the money was not made available and the support was not provided. The Government are to blame.
    Mr. Howard: How can the hon. Gentleman blame the Government for the delay in light of the example that I gave the House a few moments ago about the Labour-controlled authorities in the north-east, which gave a commitment in February 1993 to provide those secure accommodation places and had failed to make good that commitment in July 1994? They made that
    288
    commitment on the basis of what they knew about the arrangements under which the accommodation was to be provided.
    Mr. Michael: I like the way in which the Home Secretary leads with his chin every time. He has just read again from the script that he gave us a few moments ago. I gave him an illustration that I have followed over the years and which I know about. There are still no secure places not only in Wales but in other parts of the country because the Government have failed to respond to requests from local authorities to make available the necessary resources and to support their applications. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) has knowledge of the position in the north.
    Ms Armstrong: After hearing the Home Secretary, I am almost lost for words. Many local authorities have been seeking to extend and develop secure accommodation while the Government's record is lamentable. At Medomsley, a new kitchen was built on the existing prison in 1986. That cost £2.5 million and was never opened because the Government got into trouble with their prison policy and closed Medomsley. They now want to build one of these new secure training centres there. There is a planning application with the local council, but the Home Office has failed to pay the planning fee so the council cannot deal with the application.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has illustrated once again the way in which this muddled and incompetent Government fail to deal with the problem even when they choose the method to do so. I am surprised that the Home Secretary does not want to apologise for the way in which he has failed to deal with the issues.
    Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the specific example that I put to him and to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) on the precise point of the provision of local authority accommodation? Labour-controlled local authorities in the north-east promised to provide that accommodation in February 1993 and had still not made good that commitment in 1994. What about an answer to that?
    Mr. Michael: What about an answer from the Home Secretary about the fact that the local authority requested the Government to fulfil the promise made by the then Home Secretary in February 1991 and that this year the Government have still not delivered the goods? The Home Secretary is not credible. He comes back with the same form of words. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West has swept him from the board. The Government are responsible for the matter. They have failed to deliver.
    We are dealing with another age group–11 to 15-year-olds—on which the Government are failing the country. That group is dealt with in the part of the Bill that the Lords amended. The Government's embarrassment is illustrated by the disgraceful way in which the Home Office Minister portrayed events on the "Today" programme this morning.
    At every opportunity, Hansard records in the House and in Committee the way in which the parliamentary Labour party has tackled every important issue positively and constructively, including how we deal with young offenders. Those hon. Members who follow the record

    289
    will know that we set out an alternative agenda on Second Reading that would have tackled crime, nipped young offenders in the bud and dealt with the problems faced by our people. We have opposed the bad ideas, supported the good and proposed positive improvements and alternatives to some of the more muddled ideas proposed by the Government.
    Mr. Bermingham: As my hon. Friend said, the Home Secretary has failed. I shall put to my hon. Friend the question that I sought to put to the Home Secretary. What is the position if, having had a child assessed by psychiatrists, educationists and everyone else, all the reports go to the court and the court decides, for example, that the child should go into secure training? What would the position be if it were found that two years were not long enough to secure the re-education and rehabilitation of the child, who still remained a danger to society and needed to be constrained? There is no provision for that.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. If the amendment is rejected, varying the time limits would be in the hands only of the Home Secretary. A limited period is specified in the Bill. The Home Secretary would have sole discretion to vary in any direction.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point that has just been, put to him? In Committee, his party suggested half the length of sentence and a minimum of only one month.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman would have heard my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) if he had not been so keen to intervene with his prescripted question, which is, of course, inaccurate. In one of the amendments to the Bill, we sought greater discretion over the time that youngsters would be sent to secure accommodation to save the Home Secretary from the mess that he is getting into with this legislation.
    Mrs. Barbara Roche: Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer to some of the questions that have arisen are in the section on juvenile offenders that is contained in the unanimous report of the Home Affairs Select Committee on juvenile crime? Many of its recommendations have been warmly endorsed by the Opposition Front Bench. The report considers a new national agency scheme that would take charge of the problem of persistent juvenile offenders. I regret to say that, despite all the warm words of the Home Secretary, the report has been ignored by the Home Office.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. In the past 12 months, the Home Secretary has been concerned only to score one or two points by implementing some of the measures contained in his speech to the last Conservative party conference. He has been seriously unsuccessful in achieving that end. He would have been much better advised to spend time studying the excellent cross-party report produced by the Home Affairs Select Committee rather than trying to implement his own ideas.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) is wrong to suggest that the Home Affairs Select Committee
    290
    concluded that an agency should replace secure training centres? The recommendation was that there should be an agency in addition to secure training centres.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman's loyalty to his Home Secretary knows no bounds— he should receive some reward. I should have thought, however, that he would be more loyal to the findings of his Committee, rather than leaping in to diminish their value and to defend the Home Secretary.
    Mrs. Roche: I took the precaution of bringing the Select Committee's report with me. The recommendation states:
    "We recommend the establishment of a new national agency to manage the custody and supervision of persistent juvenile offenders and others who receive custodial sentences."
    It could not be clearer— even to Conservative Members.
    Mr. Michael: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) wishes to intervene once more to withdraw his defence of the Home Secretary and to defend his own Committee, or does he wish to make no further contribution?
    4.15 pm.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is muddled. The Select Committee decided to assume that secure training centres would be implemented by the Government. We went on to propose that, in addition, an agency should consider the running of all these matters at some stage in the future. To suggest that, in some way, the Select Committee was proposing that there should not be secure training centres along the lines that the Government recommend is complete nonsense. Anybody who asserts that clearly has not read the report.
    Mr. Michael: I suppose that we should expect an expert advocate to be able to twist and turn in that way, but it says little for the hon. and learned Gentleman and I am sure that members of his Committee will be disappointed to find that he has not been more loyal to their findings.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Secretary of State mentioned secure accommodation in the north-east of England. I have just been on the phone to representatives of the social services in Northumberland, who tell me that they are having talks with the Department of Health with a view to trebling the amount of secure accommodation in Northumberland and with authorities in Sunderland and Newcastle on building secure accommodation somewhere in Northumberland. Rather than not doing anything, it looks like the north-east is well ahead of the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Michael: I am afraid that the Government always seek to knock the easy target of local government—usually inaccurately and when the error has been made by them rather than by local government. Labour Members are ready to criticise local government when it fails to do its job, but the Government are always ready to criticise local government, even when it is doing a decent job, despite their failure to support and assist its work.
    The context of this amendment cannot be disguised by the irrelevancies of Conservative Members' interventions. This is an enormous rag-bag of a Bill, which implements a conference speech that itself was ill-considered. Much

    291
    of the Bill is ill-considered and badly targeted. The Government have failed to take part in sensible discussions and to accept common-sense improvements from the Labour party— or even in this case from Conservative Members of the House of Lords.
    The Bill will fail to tackle the real target of reducing crime, speeding up justice, cutting reoffending and making society safer. On a number of issues— custody for young offenders, the protection of innocent people and, above all, criminal injury compensation, which we shall debate later— the Government have handled the programme in a ham-fisted manner and have caused outrage in the House of Lords as well as elsewhere in the country.
    In moving the amendment that the Home Secretary wishes to overturn, Lord Carr made it clear that he did not seek to alter or weaken the sentence of the court. That is an important point to remember. The amendment was passed because it is clear that the creation of colleges of crime for 12 to 15-year-olds will cause further problems and will not be an ideal way of meeting the need for secure places for persistent and particularly difficult young offenders. Their lordships sought to mitigate the dangers of the Government's proposition.
    Even the Government do not pretend that youngsters will be sent away to a secure unit for ever. Those youngsters will return home at some point and it is crazy deliberately to create a regime that makes preparation for that return more difficult and makes it more likely that a returning youngster will reoffend, and in ways that are more serious and damaging to the community as a whole and to individual victims. That, however, is the truth about the system that the Home Secretary wishes to create. If he is determined to press ahead with his colleges of crime, it is only common sense to allow the courts the discretion to be flexible when deciding where a young person serves part of his sentence. That does not mean discretion to social workers, to the Home Secretary, to managers or to accountants but discretion to magistrates, whose responsibility it is to consider the safety of the public.
    The first effect of the amendment would be to enable a court making a secure training order to specify that the period of secure detention is to be spent in local authority secure accommodation rather than a secure training centre. The court could specify that only after consultation with the local authority.
    Dame Jill Knight rose—
    Mr. Michael: I shall give way in a moment. Work by the Dartington social research unit into the benefits of different types of regimes—[Interruption.] I understand from the comments of one or two Tory Members that they believe that taking note of research is odd. Like the Prime Minister, they want to understand a little less before taking decisions that will damage the public and the eventual victims.
    The research to which I referred—
    Dame Jill Knight rose—
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady must contain herself for a moment. Research into the benefits of different regimes reveals that considering the family circumstances of a
    292
    young person is most likely to achieve success, especially as many young people leaving secure units return to their families.
    The Association of Chief Police Officers highlighted the problem with existing secure accommodation in its evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in February 1993. It stated:
    "in areas of the country where secure places are not available, the young offenders are taken long distances, which often reduces the opportunity for. family contacts to be maintained, thus actually increasing the difficulties of the offender and weakening family support when it should be encouraged."
    The Government are intent on pressing ahead with that very type of regime in the centres that they propose. The amendment would not stop them doing so, but it would allow the court an element of discretion, and thereby avoid some of the worst effects of the Government's proposals.
    Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman made great play of people using scripts, but I am not using one; nor was my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald). I note that the hon. Gentleman is careful not to leave his script; perhaps he is afraid that he will not be able find the exact spot when he returns to it. The flaw in his argument is that he seems to think that it is perfectly sensible and sound to send tearaway children into local authority care, but, as is the case in Birmingham, local authorities frequently admit that they cannot control those children.
    Mr. Michael: It is sensible to proceed logically, which is why I did not want the hon. Lady to interrupt me in the middle of my logical speech. She has just woken up to the subject that we were debating a few minutes ago and from which we have moved on.
    Local authorities do sometimes find it difficult to deal with some very difficult young people, and that is why many are frustrated by the fact that the Government have not given them sufficient resources to provide adequate local authority secure places. That is the disgrace. If the hon. Lady does not know enough to appreciate that that is the problem, I suggest that she study the issue with some diligence. I now return to the matter of secure training orders, to which we had proceeded before the she intervened.
    The Magistrates Association said:
    "It is vital that links should be maintained with the child's family and community by a designated social worker so as to facilitate rehabilitation. In the Association's view, this can only be achieved in small, locally based units."
    It is, therefore, sensible to accept the logic that magistrates should have the opportunity, where appropriate—where an application for an order is made and in the limited circumstances dealt with in the amendment—to consider whether it is appropriate to vary where a young person is placed.
    Mr. Stephen: We all know that there are good parents and bad parents. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all too often the parents, because of their own criminal or other deviant behaviour, are part of the problem?
    Mr. Michael: That is sometimes true, and that is the sort of factor that magistrates should take into account in exercising the discretion that the Lords amendments would give them. If the hon. Gentleman considers that

    293
    point, he may find himself in agreement with the sense of the Lords amendment, because it does not fly in the face of his argument.
    Secondly, the courts would be able to decide that the regime in a local authority secure unit, including education and training, would be more appropriate for the young offender than the regime in a secure training centre. There has been considerable discussion on the matter, and there is much evidence to support that case.
    The Minister responding to the debate in the House of Lords suggested that secure training centres would deal specifically with persistent offenders and would therefore be better able to provide a regime to tackle offending behaviour. However—this answers the objections of a couple of hon. Members—the criterion in the Bill for the use of the order is that a young person should have been convicted of at least three imprisonable offences, not necessarily on different occasions. That would include many young offenders who are not very persistent.
    The Minister in the House of Lords also said that the age group would be relatively small, but, as clause 5(2) makes clear, secure training centres will accommodate, young people between 12 and nearly 17. The oldest will be those who were sentenced when nearly 15 to a two-year order, and who have been recalled from supervision to the institution after release. That wide age group, and the likely sophistication of some of the inhabitants of the homes, give us cause to worry that they will develop into colleges of crime, rather than places that will return young people to the community more likely to obey the law.
    The Home Office's research has shown that local authority secure units provide a better quality of regime for young people than do larger institutions. A court may therefore prefer to commit the young offender to a small local authority secure unit that would provide more individual personal attention and therapy, and a less institutional atmosphere, than a larger secure training centre. Such a unit may also be able to prepare the way for continuity when the young person is released.
    Where a court wished a young offender to be held in local authority secure accommodation rather than in a secure training centre, the Lords amendments would give it that choice. Obviously, such a choice would be based on the evidence and the facts, and would be made only in the narrow set of circumstances set out in the amendments.
    There are several circumstances in which the power to exercise flexibility over the period of detention might be used. First, a court may commit a juvenile to a secure training centre many miles from his or her home area, although it feels that detention in local authority secure accommodation would have been more appropriate, if no such place is available at the time of sentence. A local authority place may become available later, and it may be clear to the secure training centre staff that the child would be more appropriately held in such a place.
    That is a simple example of a situation in which it would be common sense for such a variation to be made. It is not adequate to say that the Home Secretary could exercise the power in such circumstances. We all know about the bureaucracy that is involved in getting such a decision to the point of being reviewed by the Home Secretary. Some of the young people would probably be pensioners by the time that process was complete.
    294
    Secondly, a child in a secure training centre may be disturbed or suicidal, and the way in which training and treatment is provided may make a local placement more appropriate. Thirdly, a child in a secure training centre may make excellent progress and respond positively to the regime there.
    Following assessment of a child committed either to a secure training centre or to a local authority secure unit, it may become clear that he or she would be more appropriately placed in an open community home, with foster parents or in some other manner that would be more effective in preventing future offending. Surely that should be our priority—to prevent future offending, to avoid future crime and to protect people who could become victims. Finally, there could be circumstances such as compassionate grounds—for example, the death or serious illness of a close relative—which would make a transfer to accommodation nearer to the home area desirable.
    Those are just a small number of examples of when it would be appropriate to employ the flexibility provided by the Lords amendments. I do not envisage that the flexibility provided by the Lords amendments would be used on that many occasions. That is why I find it difficult to understand why the Home Secretary is so negative in refusing to accept them.
    4.30 pm
    Dr. Godman: I intervened briefly on the Home Secretary to ask for confirmation that the measure or the related measures do not extend to Scotland. I should be grateful for the confirmation of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on that point. We may well be facing something much more formidable in the proposed criminal justice Bill for Scotland, which, I think, will be announced in the forthcoming Queen's speech.
    Mr. Michael: I am always prepared to sympathise with my hon. Friend about likely developments in Scotland, but it is very unwise for an English or a Welsh hon. Member to comment on them. My understanding is that we are talking about a matter that will affect England and Wales. It will be interesting to see what legislation there will be in the next Session and whether the Home Secretary will succeed in blocking the bringing forward of a Bill to provide a body to deal with miscarriages of justice or whether the Lord Chancellor will succeed in pressing for that legislation, which was one of the 27 points which, still, have not been delivered. With my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I shall look with interest to see what is set out in the Queen's speech.
    In practice, it seems that the directors of secure training centres, which, of course, will be run by private commercial organisations that have a direct financial interest in maintaining high occupancy, may not often apply to a court to move a child elsewhere. Nevertheless, the amendments, if accepted, would introduce a desirable element of flexibility, subject at all stages to court decisions, into the operation of the secure training order. Our objective should be to ensure that the secure training order, in view of the Minister's insistence in proceeding with it, is as workable as possible.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the contents of the whole part of the Bill under discussion

    295
    were a poor attempt to bring real care and training to the young who offend and re-offend? It was once again a hurried measure, by a hurried Home Secretary, who has hurried ideas and who hurriedly fails every time.
    Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is quite right. The measures were put into a statement in the House without thought, and even without consultation with the Department of the Home Secretary's predecessor, who, unfortunately, did not have the sense or gumption to think things through, to listen to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and to come up with something a good deal more sensible. The problem today is that we are able only to consider the Lords amendments, which provide a limited opportunity to introduce a little flexibility and common sense into the measures that have already passed through the House. For the acceptance of that little bit of common sense, rather than simply to look for a quick fix or a quick headline, I appeal to the House. That little element of flexibility would not undermine or damage what the Home Secretary seeks to do. It would simply provide a little common sense—
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Michael:—which would allow the system to be slightly better targeted and less damaging than it could otherwise become. I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman if he can hold his breath until I get to the end of a sentence.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I wish that he had held his breath a little longer. Will the Labour party give a commitment to implement the agency that was recommended by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and about which the hon. Gentleman has said much this afternoon?
    Mr. Michael: It took a long time for the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee to think up that question and to return to his feet. We would be far more interested if he would tell us whether he would press his Home Secretary to implement that recommendation—or, has he so little confidence in the recommendations of his own Committee that he is not bothering to do so, and so little interest in the recommendations of his own Committee that he did do not even know that that recommendation was there until my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green produced the evidence? During the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, we made clear the constructive alternative strategy that we would adopt. That strategy would succeed in dealing with problems of crime, which are not even addressed by the Home Secretary or the Government.
    I understand why the Government and their tame Back Benchers wish to distract attention from the wording of the Lords amendment. They want to do that because the amendment is modest. Indeed, it was tabled by a Conservative peer in an attempt to prevent the Government from digging themselves even deeper into difficulties in future. That is why the House should accept these modest amendments which were passed in another place.
    Mr. John Greenway: The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), tried very hard to disguise the fact that the Labour party is opposed to secure training units and to the provision in the Bill, but he failed. The public, who are crying out for something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders—
    Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Greenway: No, I have hardly started my speech.
    The public, who are crying out for something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders, will note the Labour party's attitude. I want to bring a more dispassionate approach to the issue because, although we can have party political arguments in this place, people of all parties want something to be done about persistent juvenile offenders. That is what the Bill attempts to achieve.
    Ms Armstrong: Is it not true that none of the centres will be built or in operation before the next election? Is not the real reason why the Home Secretary refused to answer my earlier intervention that nothing in relation to the secure training orders will be up and running before then? The Government cannot even get round to paying the planning fee to make progress with the planning application.
    Mr. Greenway: I have some sympathy with the idea that it is taking too long to get the secure training units up and running. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) and the Labour party that it might have been helpful if, when the legislation was passed a year ago, the House had accepted it with enthusiasm. Instead of its taking a year to get the measures through Parliament, we could then have had the legislation on the statute book six months ago and—for reasons which will become obvious—that would have been very helpful in a particular case.
    I said that I wanted to try to take a dispassionate view of the matter. In supporting what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary wants to do, I want to refer to the case of a 14-year-old boy who appeared at York youth court on Monday. That 14-year-old has acquired the nickname "Blip Boy" because of his effect on police crime statistics in the York area. He has already been convicted of 38 burglaries and thefts. At York youth court on Monday he admitted a string of further offences which included five burglaries and attempted burglaries, theft and handling, aggravated vehicle taking, assaults, possessing controlled drugs and possessing an offensive weapon, all—and this is the point—while he was living in social services accommodation in North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.
    Lady Barron, wife of Sir Donald Barron who is much respected and a very senior public figure in the York area—as is Lady Barron—and apolitical in the extreme, said that she would have liked to have given that 14-year-old boy a custodial sentence, but she could not do so. All she was able to do was to give him a two-year supervision order—but had it been within her power to give a form of custodial sentence, that would have been the court's preference.
    I want to refer to some of the things that that young man has done. A 65-year-old woman required hospital treatment after she was assaulted by the boy when she

    297
    spotted him burgling a neighbour's house. The youngster has also assaulted social workers who tried to restrain him in social services accommodation.
    I am told by York magistrates court that the young man in question fulfils all the conditions set out in the Bill for a secure training order. He has already been the subject of several section 25 orders and has a long record of absconding from local authority secure accommodation. A senior figure at the court told me this morning that it is highly probable that, as long ago as six months, the court would have preferred to give the youth a custodial sentence, because it was perfectly obvious that every other measure had failed—and not for want of trying. The social services had tried everything without success. I do not criticise them for that; indeed, the House should commend the work of social services departments that are trying to deal with these juvenile offenders. The fact is that they cannot always succeed, however. The task is beyond them. We need something else, and that is why the secure training orders are so important.
    Mr. Beith: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that, with the Lords amendment, such a person could be made the subject of a secure training order as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, when an obligation would be placed on a local authority to keep the person in secure accommodation? If the amendment is not agreed to, we shall have to wait until one of these centres has been built before anyone can be given a secure training order.
    Mr. Greenway: I understand that, but we are dealing with legislation that will have to apply for a long time to come, not just the next six months or so. I do not therefore believe that we should take the route proposed in the Lords amendment. Magistrates, after all, will not be compelled to sentence a juvenile offender to a secure training order. They will still have at their disposal the whole current range of sentences, including a supervision order, or a requirement to be in local authority social services accommodation, or a section 25 order: none of that will change.
    We need a clear-cut alternative that goes beyond what is currently available. The Select Committee report mentioned 200 or 300 youngsters in this context, although that report was referred to today with considerable inaccuracy by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. When we scrutinised this matter early last year, we were told that 200 or 300 places would probably be required, and there will have to be specialist care, education and training in them. I do not see such care being provided in local authority accommodation. It will require a special kind of unit, and that is what the Government want to provide.
    The hon. Member for Durham, North-West talked about the speed with which the system could be put in place. It is clear to me that the secure training units need to be built as quickly as possible. If my right hon. and learned Friend catches your eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will tell us how quickly he believes the units can be established. This matter has nothing to do with whether magistrates or police officers support the Conservative party, another party or no party. They all genuinely believe, with the public, that magistrates do not now have at their disposal what they need to deal with these youngsters. So we should give secure training units a try. If people are watching our debate this afternoon, they will see that, once again, the
    298
    Government have come up with an imaginative idea to respond to public concerns, but that the Labour party has confirmed yet again that it does not have a single policy on how to deal with these youngsters.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Beith: I do not think that the conclusion of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) followed from his argument. His argument was that there is an urgent problem, which he instanced by a case from his area. He then failed to recognise that a more immediate way of dealing with that problem is to allow secure training orders to go ahead under the terms of the Lords amendment, which would allow them to be brought into effect straight away using existing local authority secure accommodation. The Government have belatedly provided for more such accommodation and for an increase in the number of places available in it.
    It ought to be common ground that such measures arise because of genuine public concern about the fact that there are at least some young offenders who have frequently absconded from the accommodation in which they were placed and who have persistently reoffended. There is certainly a small number of very persistent young offenders who have received a great deal of press attention and who present the public with serious problems. There is therefore genuine anxiety on the part of the public, who want reassurance that the courts, empowered by this House, can put such people in places from which they cannot abscond and then reoffend. They should also be given the right training and education while they are locked away in the right sort of accommodation.
    How one sets about that is the subject of some public argument at the moment—what should the legal framework be? The Lords have genuinely considered the Government's approach; they have not thrown it out of the window, but have sought to modify it and to give the courts a choice. A reason offered for legislative action in this area has been the belief that the courts did not have enough options open to them. One hears magistrates say in private that they feel that their hands are tied. One effect of the Lords amendment is to untie their hands and to give them more than one way of applying a secure training order.
    Listening to the Home Secretary, one might imagine that the amendment was the product of rabid anarchists. In fact, it was moved by, and carried with the support of, members of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party—indeed, the amendments were moved by one of his distinguished predecessors in the course of a responsible discussion of a difficult problem. The amendments came about because of the considerable experience of some Members of another place, several of whom served in Conservative Governments.
    Listening to the Home Secretary, one might also imagine that the amendments will affect a large number of young offenders and will, if left in the Bill, undermine work with a large number of them and delay its effectiveness. None of those suggestions is true. We are talking about only 200 young offenders who could be the subject of such orders—that at least is the maximum number of places that will be initially provided.
    If the Lords amendments are not agreed to, there will be delay and no chance of bringing in secure training orders until the places in the private sector institutions are provided. With the amendments, the Bill could be

    299
    effective from the moment of Royal Assent, and the orders could be used as a means of dealing with young offenders.
    One could also be forgiven for imagining, from what the Home Secretary said, that the Government have a clear picture of the kind of regime of supervision and training that will do the trick in the institutions. Several times the Home Secretary said that, with their 40 young people each, the institutions will enjoy the right supervision, training and education regimes. That betrays a degree of knowledge about what we are going to do with these people which neither I nor many professionals in the field claim to share. There is no such certainty about what measures will effectively help some young offenders to lead useful lives and to abandon the ways of crime into which they have entered at such an extraordinarily early age.
    There is a great deal of professional discussion of such issues. All the experience of recent years suggests that Home Secretaries who come along with solutions turn out not to have them at all. What happened to the short sharp shock that was supposed to be a proven method of dealing with young offenders? We have it no more because it did not work. The borstals and approved schools went because gathering together large numbers of persistent young offenders in such regimes did not appear to work. It was not that Ministers thought they were unpleasant or undesirable institutions; they simply had a high reoffending rate and other means had to be sought to deal with the problem. The Home Secretary should not glibly use phrases such as "an appropriate regime of education and training" as though there were a known and recognised answer to the problem.
    Clearly, improving youngsters' education so that they have the opportunity to make a useful life must be part of the exercise. Some young people who become involved in that level of crime appear to be pretty intelligent and shrewd about how to carry out crimes and how to evade them. They have energies which need to be channelled effectively. A number of them are clearly in need of discipline and a framework in which they can begin to understand that they have obligations to others.
    One can see some of the elements, but pretending that one has the right answer has been the mistake of successive Home Secretaries. The present Home Secretary would be wise not to make that mistake, particularly given that his own Department's research casts such doubt on the matter. The Home Office research and planning unit paper No.66, entitled "Juveniles Sentenced for Serious Offences", published in 1992, states:
    "The study also found that offenders who had been in secure units in the local authority community home system were significantly less likely to have been reconvicted two years after release than those released from young offender institutions."
    The research evidence does not suggest that there is an alternative regime in a different institution which we know will work. We are arguing only about how we can guarantee the security that the public require; there is no menu of better methods of providing training for young people readily available.
    The professionals working with this age group in local authority homes and social service departments or with the next age group in young offender institutions are
    300
    trying with great difficulty to deal with changes that society has thrown at them. It is an extremely challenging task to which there are no simple answers.
    Clearly, in some cases there are arguments strongly in favour of the smaller local authority home with secure places. A larger institution may offer less prospect of building up stable relationships with staff for children of 12 or 13 who have had no stable home relationships and for whom a purely institutional environment with no stable relationships with other people may offer no way out of the way in which they have traditionally reacted to the lack of stability in their lives.
    Mr. Stephen: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, local authorities have had secure accommodation for quite some time. Could he explain why they have not so far succeeded in solving the problem?
    Mr. Beith: I do not think that anyone has the solution to the problem; that is the burden of what I am saying. Nor should the Home Secretary pretend that he has the solution. One result of our discussions is that it will be possible and accepted for local authorities to apply greater security in their own secure accommodation places, and the new institutions, when created, should also be secure, but that says very little about the effectiveness of the regimes within them.
    Young people will not be in those places for long. Two years later, they will be out in the community with the possibility of committing many more crimes. Indeed, they will be entering the peak ages at which young people commit crimes and they will pose a threat to many more potential victims of crime if they do not come out with a better attitude than that with which they went in. That is why, in particular cases, the court is entitled to examine whether it is likely that a particular young person might be better placed in a small local authority home, which has secure accommodation with the prospect of building up stable relationships, than in a large institution where that child might become the prey of many other hard young offenders, perhaps with greater criminal experience and tendency than him or her.
    There is also the problem of distance. The secure training units will be limited in number and may be so far from the homes of some young people that making plans to readmit them into the community at the end of the order or sentence will be difficult. Parental, family or friend contact, which may be crucial in getting them back into society, cannot be achieved.
    Clearly, the circumstances may vary. The Lords amendment is asking only for the opportunity for the court to choose in the light of the various circumstances. Indeed, it provides the opportunity for the court to be convinced by the initial experience of private sector secure training units that they offer a better regime for certain youngsters. I remain to be convinced of that, but there seems no good reason why the court should not have the option to place the child in one or other type of institution.
    I return to the point that I made to the Home Secretary in an intervention. His resistance to the Lords amendment is driven by the belief that he has to offer the private sector a tempting deal. He has to be able to say to the private sector, "Do not worry. The courts will not be able to send them anywhere else. They will have to send them to you, so your capital will not be at risk. You will have a guaranteed number of places." That is one of the

    301
    difficulties—and there are a number—about relying on the private sector to provide crucial facilities for custody and for taking away liberty because someone represents a threat to society.
    We have great reservations about the privatisation process in the prisons. Taking away people's liberty for the good reason that their liberty poses a threat to society is something that the state does in limited circumstances and over which the state ought to exercise firm authority and control on everyone's behalf.
    The Lords amendment is a reasonable compromise with the Government's position. The associated amendments, which provide opportunity for subsequent movement from a local authority place to a secure training centre or vice versa, represent a useful element of flexibility for the court, but not for the Home Secretary or social services departments.
    If the Home Secretary were not so worried about the need to offer the private sector a financially reliable deal, he would accept the Lords amendments and recognise that his faith in the secure training units could be tested against the possibility of local authority places being more appropriate for some youngsters.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Was not the response of the Opposition to my right hon. and learned Friend's exposition of the justification for secure training orders amazing? It was utterly wide of the mark, it was wrong in comprehension, and one can only assume that it was delivered in a state of panic, because the words of their leader—"tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"—is so manifestly contrary to the way in which the Labour party has behaved in the House over the past 15 years.
    If the Labour party were tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, it would have supported the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, it would have supported the various Criminal Justice Acts, Public Order Acts, and Prevention of Terrorism Acts. The embarrassment of the Labour party is in realising that it has opposed all those measures because it can not carry its supporters in the House, while the public are totally on the side of stronger action being taken to reduce terrorism and crime in all its forms. That embarrassment causes the Opposition to behave in a totally illogical and incomprehensible way when we propose reasonable, sound and sensible suggestions.
    Mr. Michael rose—
    Mr. Bermingham rose—
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He must have an opportunity to respond. I should like to hear whether his response is any different from the responses we have heard when the same accusation has been made before.
    Labour opposition to the secure training centre and to the secure training order shows that the words "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" were just an act; they are just empty words meant for television.
    Mr. Michael: I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman can summon up rather greater accuracy than he has so far. Will he explain why he followed the Home Secretary into voting down a variety of proposals that were made in Committee—such as the idea of a national strategy to deal with drugs and drug-related crime and
    302
    measures to deal with weapons and a variety of other issues? His case is the one that the Conservative central office puts out, but it is not accurate.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: When the Government make proposals, they make practical proposals. When the Opposition make proposals, they make absolutely impractical proposals, which are often complete and utter nonsense, even though they continue saying that they will be tough on crime.
    I would not be allowed to take up the time of the House in replying in detail to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, but so many of the proposals are completely impracticable nonsense. If they had had any merit, the Government would have supported them. Proposals are not made by the Labour party only; the Government always consult many organisations before reaching conclusions.
    We have just heard nonsense about the Home Affairs Committee report. There has been a total misunderstanding. It shows that the Labour party is flailing again. It is as though members of the Labour party think that, by flailing their arms about and trying to attack, they give the impression that they are being tough on crime. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), who no doubt will make her contribution, confused herself, but certainly the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth confused himself.
    5 pm
    When we proposed a new national agency to manage the custody and supervision of persistent juvenile offenders and other people who receive custodial sentences, we were suggesting its introduction over a longer period. It was not meant to be an immediate replacement for our suggestion of secure training orders. We made that clear in our report:
    "on the assumption that the Government does intend to press ahead with its present plans for secure training orders, there are a number of points which we believe to be crucial."
    We then suggested ways in which the secure training orders might be improved; some of the suggestions have been taken up by the Government. We suggested that there should be a qualifying threshold and we suggested certain provisions, some of which the Government have adopted.
    We spoke about the size of the centres and concluded that
    "there should be a wide spread of units each containing no more than 15 inmates, though in large centres of population it may be possible for more than one unit to be sited together."
    We spoke about intensive staffing of those secure training centres, recommending that
    "a staffing ratio of at least two staff to each inmate should be the norm."
    We spoke about education and training in the secure training centres, and we said that we believed that
    "the emphasis of any custodial regime for young people must be more educational and therapeutic than punitive."
    We spoke about the length of time to be served and we recommended that
    "there should normally be a minimum period of six months served in custody"—
    a recommendation which was rejected by members of the Opposition—

    303
    "following which, according to his or her response, the individual should be … freed to intensive community supervision".
    We spoke about aftercare in the secure training orders, recommending
    "intensive supervision for those sentenced to secure training orders as soon as they are judged fit to return to the community".
    We recommended
    "that the Home Office learn from the lessons of private sector involvement"—
    I emphasise that—
    "in the prison service before granting any contracts to the private sector to run centres where secure training orders will be served."
    All that is on the basis that there is to be a secure training order. It is not on the basis that there should be no secure training order. It is nonsense to suggest the contrary, and it misleads anyone who is listening to the debate.
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, but it is obvious that he is completely muddled himself—not for the first time. If the hon. and learned Gentleman reads the report carefully, he will see that, leaving aside the issue of secure training orders, which the Committee did not consider one way or the other, the Committee entitled that section of the report on the new national agency "A more radical" approach.
    I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) why we had not heard from the Government and the Home Secretary when they would implement that more radical approach, which they appeared to have welcomed cautiously when our report was published. It appears that the hon. and learned Gentleman has completely muddled the entire subject.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: If that is what the hon. Lady intended, it is not what she said. Certainly, it was not what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth understood the hon. Lady to say. If she is going on to say that we did not even consider the secure training orders, I have just read out page after page of our report in which we suggest certain measures that the Government may take with their secure training orders.
    Furthermore, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has the effrontery to take the position that the Government should respond to the youth agency proposal, when his party refuses to commit itself to that. If one wants a classic example of the Labour party's total confusion and flailing about, what better example than that?
    The hon. Gentleman asks why the Government do not accept the proposal of the Home Affairs Select Committee to create that agency and, when asked whether he would implement it, refuses to answer the question, simply because he cannot say yes, will not say yes and does not want to say yes. If the Opposition believe that the public will be impressed by that performance, they have another think coming to them.
    The basis of our proposal for secure training orders is that the public are fed up with the hard core of persistent juvenile offenders who have gone on and on committing offences, and the magistrates and Crown court judges have asked repeatedly for a means of tackling the problem. Local authority provision has never been adequate to deal with hard-core persistent juvenile offenders, of which there are not many.
    304
    When the Home Affairs Select Committee went to America, we asked, "How do you deal with your hard-core persistent juvenile offenders?" They asked us, "How many are you talking about?" We said, "Two or three hundred." They asked, "Which town are you talking about?" We said, "That is in the whole of the country," and they said, "We have 300 or 400 hard-core persistent juvenile offenders in every town and city in the United States of America."
    However, we learned from the Massachusetts experiment, which we went there to watch. We drew conclusions, and we recommended that, in the fullness of time, one agency should control the sentencing of all young offenders. However, we cannot implement that in the short term.
    Opposition Members ask why we have not implemented all that already. It will take even longer if we follow an agency route, which will take many years to develop. I hope that we shall do that in due course. The Government have not ruled it out.
    Mr. John Greenway: Was it not also the case that, under the Massachusetts experiment, any youngster, from the age of 12 or 13, who was sentenced to one of the orders, which would put them under the control of that agency, would be under the control of that agency until the age of 18, and could be recalled to custody by those who ran the agency at any time during that five or six-year period? Would not that be a radical departure from everything that Labour Members have said this afternoon?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Another radical departure would be the recommendation—with which we do not agree—that one cannot re-programme children's minds, if they are going badly wrong, in as little as six months. One may need years. We may have to bite that bullet in due course. Young offenders who are taken out of circulation because they are persistently evil and go off the rails time and again may need longer than six months, even under secure training orders, for the full weight of re-programming facilities to be brought to bear effectively on them.
    However, that is for another time. For the moment, let us do what we can, as efficiently and as effectively as possible, to tackle the public's worry about the persistent hard core of juvenile offenders who have committed so many of the appalling crimes that we have heard about recently, and for which the secure training order is a positive solution.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: What really upsets my constituents is that so few people commit so many offences, and that, while they are not in custody, they are leading local gangs. One per cent. of those in the age group commit 60 per cent. of offences. In a market town in my constituency, a custodial sentence was imposed on some youngsters which meant that they were out of circulation. While they were out of circulation, they were not committing burglaries.
    If they have a tough custodial regime, they come out not as the Opposition would suggest, but with pride in themselves, because they have learnt something. They

    305
    have become healthy. They have found that they can do something and achieve something in life. That is the point—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a long intervention.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: But it was a good intervention, with which I agree.
    Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will my hon. and learned Friend note that, in the Vale of Glamorgan, close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), there is a council home from which young offenders have been able to wander at will and commit further offences, such as taking without consent? My constituents are crying out for the provision of secure units to which young offenders can be sent. When a couple of offenders from Llantwit Major in my constituency were sent away by the court to an institution in England, there was an immediate dramatic drop in the offender rate in that small town.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I agree with my hon. Friend. It touches on another point that we learned in Massachusetts. One of the important requirements for giving secure training to young offenders is the need to separate them from their bad influences, from the gangs and perhaps from their bad families. It is all very well having institutions close to where their families and friends with bad influence can visit, but Massachusetts told us that they must be put a long way away, so that they are totally removed.
    The Government are not proposing to do that. They have a humane attitude to this—although they may have to adapt that attitude in due course. I am not saying that our suggestions are 100 per cent. perfect. That kind of change may be needed if what is proposed does not work. As we say, we will suck it and see.
    Perhaps the Government are right and Massachusetts is wrong. If the Government are right, we can carry on with such close co-ordination between the secure training centres and the family homes from which the young offenders come. That is an important point, which I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind.
    We have said, "This is the problem, and this is a positive solution, which has general support." When we go round and explain it to our constituents, whether Conservative or not, they say, "Good, excellent, splendid." They simply cannot understand the Opposition being opposed to it.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that those who are calling most for such a provision are judges, recorders, assistant recorders and magistrates, as well as the rest of the population? They have been crying out for years for more secure accommodation for the worst of the young offenders.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, of course. I am sorry that I put that point so badly earlier that my hon. Friend had not accepted it then.
    The Lords amendments will undermine a provision which is sensible, practicable, and which has the support of the overwhelming majority of people, including the judges. The amendments suggest what the Labour party has always suggested, which is that its own power base,
    306
    the local authorities, where it is often in a substantial majority, can deal with the question of young offenders much more effectively than any other institution. Apart from the fact that that has never been proven in the past, which is one reason we have come to this situation, it is totally impracticable.
    5.15 pm
    Opposition Members do not seem to have grasped the point that what we want to do with young offenders, to re-programme their minds by education and training and one-to-one hands-on help, cannot be done in local authority care. One reason is that local authority institutions are not just for persistent hard-core juvenile offenders: they are for all other kinds of juvenile offenders, who might be much less to blame and have done much less wrong than the hard-core persistent offenders.
    To put the two together in the same institution will only make the less bad worse, because the persistent hard-core juvenile offenders are what we say they are—hard-core, hard-bitten; it has gone into their souls. We must somehow get hold of their souls and change them. They will be the strong ones influencing those who have done wrong, but not so much wrong.
    Those local authority institutions have children in care who have done no wrong. Why should they be locked in secure accommodation with hard-core persistent offenders who will teach them their bad ways? There is no way under the existing situation, preferred by Opposition Members and Members of the other place who supported the amendments, that we can hive off those who are less guilty of crime and those who are guilty of no crime at all from those who are persistent hard-core juvenile offenders, unless one has a new institution for the last group.
    It is not just that that is impractical; it is that the heart of local authorities has never been in dealing with the worst kind of offenders. When one goes round, they say, "We are local authorities. We are social services. We are not here to punish the bad. We are not even here to educate. We cannot. We do not have the resources, the powers or the facilities to do so." Their heart is not in it.
    Their solution to the hard-core persistent juvenile offender has too often been to give them a holiday, send them to Center Parcs or on safari; let them see what the good life is and perhaps they will be good in order to get the good life rather than bad. But as so many offenders have said when they have come back from such holidays, "They must be joking. Whoever thought that I would change after I had been to Center Parcs or on safari somewhere in Egypt? They must be mad."
    Mr. Bermingham: What has that got to do with the amendment?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: That is the kind of attitude that the local authorities have to dealing with persistent juvenile offenders. It is no good, it does not work and it is not what the public want. It is certainly not the sort of remedy that judges, whether magistrates or Crown court judges, want to pass by way of judgment.
    Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that this very day listening to this debate is a group of parents who have come all the way down from Scotland, from the Strathclyde and

    307
    Dumbartonshire area, where 500 young children have been killed in the past five years by dangerous drivers, many of whom are juveniles? They think that six months' detention is a totally inadequate punishment for the bereavement that they have suffered.
    Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has clearly not read the Bill. It does not apply to Scotland.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, but my hon. Friend was making a point which applies as much to England and Wales as to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is a general point. People are concerned, and it is because of that concern that the Government are doing something concrete which the Opposition do not wish to see done.
    Not only is the local authorities' heart not in it, but we can see that local authorities are not anxious to be involved from the interesting point that my right hon. and learned Friend made about the meeting of the Labour-controlled local authorities in February 1993 at which they suggested action by July but nothing happened.
    No action is being taken because their hearts are not in it. They do not believe that local authorities or social services exist for that purpose. Members of the Home Affairs Select Committee visited some facilities. At one of them, we were told that the cost to the local authority of caring for one person was in excess of £3,000 per week. If that is the best that a local authority can do with taxpayers' money in dealing with hard-core, persistent juvenile offenders, it requires another think, more management and a different organisation.
    The Government do not intend to introduce a new form of borstal, approved school or glasshouse—all of which institutions, I agree, have not proved successful. They propose nothing less than the re-programming of children's minds when they have gone off the rails. That requires education, training, care and love, as well as punishment and discipline. That cannot be done by local authorities, but only by a specially dedicated organisation, which the Government are establishing.
    Opposition Members say that local authorities could provide a satisfactory alternative, but all the evidence shows that that alternative has never been and can never be satisfactory. Their proposals would only undermine what the Government will achieve by taking a positive step to deal with hard-core, persistent offenders. It may not be 100 per cent. good, but it is 80 per cent. good. We can continue to improve it, and it will work. To do other than to reverse the amendments and to give the plan a chance would be madness.
    Ms Ann Coffey: The amendments would give a court making a training order the discretion to specify that the period of detention should be served in local authority secure accommodation rather than in a secure training centre. That appears to be a reasonable and flexible amendment. Clause 2(2) seems to allow the court to commit an offender, if a place is not available at a secure training centre, to a local authority-registered children's or voluntary organisation home. It does not
    308
    stipulate that it should be a secure place. I am sure that it would not go down particularly well with some hon. Members if young people sentenced to a secure training order were, because of a lack of sufficient appropriate accommodation, placed in children's homes. That would create the problems complained of this afternoon. Perhaps the Home Secretary will clarify whether that could happen.
    The Government are trying to deal with the complex problem of juvenile crime with a simplistic solution and are paying little attention to its likely effectiveness. To put juvenile offending in perspective, the number of juvenile offenders in Stockport in 1990 totalled 1,600 and in 1993, 1,400. The major offences were shoplifting, youth car crime, public order transgressions and nuisance—basically, kids on the street. A small group was involved in drug dealing and protection. All those are of great public concern—especially car crime and shoplifting, which cause higher insurance premiums and food prices.
    A study by Stockport's Youth Justice team of all juveniles who appeared before Stockport juvenile and Stockport youth courts between 1 January 1990 and 31 March 1994 revealed that from a total of 1,500, four boys regally fitted the terms of the secure training order. At the time of sentencing, the magistrates could have imposed a custodial sentence on three of the boys but did not do so. That leaves only one boy who could have been committed to a secure training centre, which would have made little impact on Stockport's crime statistics and would not have greatly improved its residents' quality of life.
    A fraction of the juveniles who come before the courts merit supervision orders. I mention that because breach of a supervision order is one precondition for a secure training order.
    Youth offenders have complex problems. School exclusions have rocketed and there are high illiteracy rates, complex problems at home and lack of parental control. Parents who seek help have little preventive support until the problem becomes so acute that there is statutory intervention. It is largely a question of resources being applied to stop juveniles offending. Perhaps statutory responsibilities on local authorities under the Children Act 1989 need to be properly funded and monitored. One cannot disentangle the provisions of that Act from legislation on juvenile justice.
    The Home Secretary announced new national standards for supervision orders.
    Mr. John Greenway: Good for him.
    Ms Coffey: Exactly—well done, but making sure that supervision orders work is labour intensive and time consuming. The Home Secretary has not put the necessary resources behind those new standards, which is a pity because supervision orders can be effective. Some 80 per cent. of those who serve custodial sentences reoffend, but only 55 per cent. of those who undergo non-custodial treatment do so. One does not need to be a genius to know why. If children are kept in a normal environment, they will mature. If they are placed in an institution that contains a criminal sub-group, all that they will learn are further criminal attitudes and values. That is why community treatment is much more effective than custodial sentencing.
    Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Lady agree that one reason why juveniles who serve custodial sentences reoffend is

    309
    that in this country, a young person is not placed in custody unless he or she has exhausted almost every other way of being dealt with? We are dealing with the hard core who are put into custody, and it is hardly surprising that they reoffend.
    Ms Coffey: Even in the case of hard-core offenders, all the statistics show that placing them in prescriptive custodial care does not help them in the long run, if one wants to avoid such offenders spending their juvenile lives in custodial care and their adult lives in gaol—something that no hon. Member wants.
    Mr. Edward Garnier rose—
    Ms Coffey: I must press on. Crime must be tackled early. Children must be kept in education, because their exclusion from school is not helpful. A preventive duty on local authorities must be given high priority, bail support schemes should be properly funded, and youth provision must be re-examined because that is a cornerstone in crime prevention.
    Perhaps children should be placed in children's homes as part of a preventive strategy. I view that as community treatment, in an effort to stop children offending before they become eligible for custodial sentences that include secure training orders. However, local authority children's homes are closing because of budget pressures, and recommendations to improve residential care in the public and private sectors, national standards and training have not been implemented by the Government. Perhaps the Home Secretary will talk to the Minister with responsibility for children's homes about introducing new standards for them, to complement the right hon. and learned Gentleman's national standards for supervision.
    Unless standards improve and there is increased availability of appropriate places to meet children's needs, the amendments—welcome as they are—would still compel local authorities to place children hundreds of miles from their homes, with placements dictated by cost rather than needs. The cost of crime to the public is high. Preventive measures also cost money, but crime prevention is complex, and the measures that I have mentioned will reduce crime, to the benefit of the community. That is what it is about. Opposition Members know that there are children who need control, who need to be placed away from home, and who need to be in secure accommodation, but let not Conservative Members pretend that that is a solution to the problem of juvenile crime. It is not and it is not enough.
    Mr. Bermingham: I sought to intervene some six times on the Home Secretary to ask him a simple question: what if the miscreant needed more than two years' retraining? He did not let me intervene. I suspect that he guessed that the question was coming. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is the Opposition spokesman, allowed me to intervene, and he did know the answer. It does cover it. That is the problem with this part of the Bill.
    5.30 pm
    I have been on the Home Affairs Select Committee for the best part of 10 years. I have been a practising barrister and declare an interest. In that time, I have had the opportunity to look time and again at the problem of juvenile crime. In 1986, the Committee went on a trip to America. When we announced where we were going—to
    310
    Massachussetts, to look at how juvenile crime was dealt with there—the Home Office sent the Minister of State, with a couple of officials, to have a look. Nothing happened. We produced a report on drugs and other things. On another occasion, the Home Affairs Select Committee went again. Things had moved on a bit in the years since I was there. I did not go that time, because I did not want to see, at the expense of the state, something that I had already seen—once officially and two or three times privately. But back came the information. Things had changed slightly in Massachussetts, but what had not changed there was the effectiveness of the programme. It reduces reoffending.
    In his speech at the Blackpool conference last year, the Home Secretary made 27 points. One has been implemented so far, and one of them was to be tough on crime. I have a suspicion that the Home Secretary will not like what I am about to say. On Second Reading—I did not serve on the Committee that considered the Bill—I made the point that the Home Secretary has still not got it right. He has tinkered with it. He has gone for it on the cheap. He has not gone for it effectively. There are not 200 persistent young juvenile offenders in this country; the figure is probably nearer 500 or 600. Not a single institution has been built to provide the treatment necessary. When will he provide an institution to deal with the first 12 or 15? Please, Home Secretary, tell me, because I have an awful feeling that it ain't going to be for quite some time.
    The Home Secretary was, in his day, a very good planning lawyer, but his Department cannot even pay its planning fees, we hear, so it has not even started. One would have thought that the Home Office would think about what society wants. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, to go on and on in his 20 minute-plus speech. If one says something, at least try to make a point. The point is that there is a persistent problem. There are people from Scotland in the Gallery whose children have died. If we are to protect the children of England, we must contain the persistent offender.
    Mr. Garnier: I would be grateful for a little explanation. Is the hon. Gentleman advocating, in principle, support for the provision of secure training units, but regretting their lateness in coming? I am confused by the difference between his opinion and that of the Labour Front Bench.
    Mr. Bermingham: If the hon. Gentleman had waited a little longer, he would have found the answer to the question. It is very simple: there is a need for containment of the persistent offender, who can be as young as eight, nine or 10. Let us not walk away from it. Anyone who has practised—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who has much experience in these matters, will agree with me—recognises the existence of the problem. The question is how to deal with it. This measure, for reasons that I will come to in a moment, is not the answer. It is a partial answer, but, unfortunately, it will not be effective in the weeks and months that lie ahead. The persistent young offender may, for various

    311
    reasons, have problems that cannot be ironed out in six months, nine months, 12 months, 15 months or two years. It may even take longer.
    Mr. Stephen: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore saying that he would have supported the amendment that I tabled on Report and Third Reading, which would have made secure schools available to children from the age of 10 to 18?
    Mr. Bermingham: I go back to the point that I have made constantly in the House over 10 years. Provision needs to be made for the persistent offender to be contained. Then, as they progress in the training, retraining and education, they earn their way out of it. So the containment becomes less stringent as one goes forward, until ultimately one is rehabilitated into society. That is what happens in Massachussetts—or did 10 years ago. The outcome was not 74 per cent. reoffending, which this country had at that time, but 28 per cent. That is an enormous amount of crime solved. I am saying that, if we had that system, the hon. Member for Sedgefield [Laughter.] Not Sedgefield—[HON. MEMBERS: "Forgotten him already!"] No, it is the face of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) which beams across the Committee Room at me week after week. His was the constituency I sought to remember. His example at York would have been dealt with by the system that I have been advocating for 10 years.
    Let us take what the Government have now proposed. I have said that it was a hurried measure, hurriedly thought out and hurriedly implemented. It produces a two-year package some time in the future. It will not become effective with the Royal Assent, because the Home Secretary has not had the units built. The money for that is not available yet. I am hoping that he will say that he will have the first unit available on 1 January next year. I suspect that he cannot.
    There is a little nasty in the Bill—put out to private tender. Why does the Home Secretary object to the amendment? It has positive benefits.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: It is a wrecking amendment.
    Mr. Bermingham: It is not. If the hon. and learned Member for Burton would occasionally try to understand that some people do things for a non-political purpose, because they care about the safety of citizens in this country, I would be grateful.
    The amendment enables the court, whether it be a judge or magistrate, to select the option. They could be in a position—they have had all the reports—to select accordingly. If the amendment is passed, the Home Secretary will know, from the date of Royal Assent, that courts can bring secure training into effect simply by using the local authority avenue. It is a possibility.
    So, once again, the Government have not thought through the matter of dealing with persistent offenders, which society demands. They have brought a measure to the House which they cannot implement immediately, and we are left with no solution to the problem for some time
    312
    to come. The Home Secretary will tell me that the bulldozers are moving, the bricklayers are working, the money is pouring in, and the training units—
    Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
    Mr. Bermingham: The Home Secretary shakes his head because he knows that they are not there. He knows that the money is not there for it at the moment either.
    I am sorry to say that the measure is a sham, designed for publicity. It is not a practical, working measure that could be brought into effect tomorrow. The Lords amendments give us some hope that something can be done. I urge the House to support the Lords tonight.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise for not being able to listen to all the speeches at the beginning of the debate.
    This is not the time to go into a full review of juvenile justice or why people offend. We should accept that the reason for the clauses and amendments that we are discussing is the fact that a small minority of people behave abominably: they may be troubled children, but the trouble that they cause to society is enormous.
    I do not want to open up the issue of whether children should be sent to the equivalent of gaol, which is also a debate for another time; I will say that, if the secure training centres are established, there will be nothing like the concentration of numbers that has occurred in institutions set up in the past. I welcome that. I have some doubts about whether a total of up to 50 people will be manageable, but I do not wish to delay the debate by going into details.
    I speak as a former chairman of the Church of England Childrens Society, which used to look after some most troubled children, and I have observed how difficult and important it is to achieve progress in individual children. We are not concerned now with what to do with children for six months or two years; we are concerned with helping to reconstruct their lives—with redemption and resurrection, and the re-creation of a life of worthwhile activity.
    Only five centres will be available to the courts. I may receive advice from more knowledgeable people, but I hope that it will not be possible for magistrates to send young offenders to those centres for periods of at least six months; I hope that such offences will be deemed serious enough to warrant a Crown court hearing.
    Are we right in regarding at least Lords amendment No. 15 as a wrecking amendment? I do not think that it is. I am convinced by those who argue that it extends the powers of the courts, and I do not think that we should limit those powers if Lords amendment No. 15 contains additional opportunities. Unless I hear convincing arguments to the contrary, I intend to support Lords amendment No. 15 or an equivalent to it.
    Mr. Gunnell: It is welcome to hear positive comment from a Conservative Member. Part of the problem during the debate has been their persistent confusing of local authority children's homes and local authority secure accommodation. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) suggested that a young criminal in York had escaped from local authority secure accommodation; I think that that is most unlikely. That young person was probably in a children's home. As the Home Secretary knows, the regulations governing children's homes,

    313
    introduced by the present Government—I think that the latest regulations were introduced in 1990—insist that children cannot be locked up in such homes.
    The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) painted a farcical picture of local authorities. It was, in fact, a serious criticism of the Home Secretary's expenditure. The Home Office is paying for more than 20 of the occupants of a local authority secure home that I know in Leeds, and was involved in the capital expenditure involved in its creation; it would not be paying some £70,000 a year per child for the accommodation unless it was effective. In Committee, the Minister of State said that he had visited that facility in Leeds and accepted that it was doing a good job. Leeds also runs the "bed bureau" dealing with local authority secure accommodation throughout the country, and knows about the nationally available facilities.
    Lords amendment No. 15 puts the point very clearly. Why is the Home Secretary not prepared to allow choice? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) said that judges and magistrates did not like the proposal, but that is nonsense: it will allow them 'to choose, the accommodation that they consider suited to the individuals with whom they deal, knowing their offences and background and how far they live from the five available centres.
    Why does the Home Secretary say that magistrates and judges should not have the power to decide? In my view, there are only two possible answers, one of which was given at the outset by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Either the Home Secretary does not trust magistrates to make the right decision, or he believes that, if they have the powers to make that decision, there will not be enough clients for his centres. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested, he needs to bolster the numbers.
    5.45 pm
    We must eliminate the notion that local authorities provide accommodation that is not secure, and houses a multiplicity of types of children. As the Home Secretary knows, to enter secure accommodation young people must have committed offences for which they would receive a 14-year custodial sentence: the offences must be very serious. The children in secure accommodation in Leeds have indeed committed grave offences—offences as grave as murder in some cases. They are in secure accommodation because society and the local authority rightly believe that they need to be there, and that the public need to be protected from them.
    I do not think it right to categorise local authority secure accommodation as collecting all sorts of young people, and to suggest that those entering it are likely to corrupt or be corrupted by those already there. I support the amendments because I believe that the "colleges of crime" argument is a strong one, and that we are creating another cause of crime when we put together 40 serious juvenile offenders in care that is at the very least untried, because we have not tried privatising accommodation for children of that age who have committed such offences. I believe that we should give magistrates the choice, and I believe that the Home Secretary's real reason for not wanting to give them that choice is less that he does not
    314
    trust them than that he does not think that the new centres will get off the ground unless a clientele is collected fairly promptly.
    We should be concerned not just with the period of accommodation, but with rehabilitation and the prevention of persistent reoffending. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) gave the statistics—figures of 80 per cent. and 55 per cent. for two different types of treatment. I feel that we are opting for the type which, so far, has been shown to have the worse record.
    If the private sector is to bid not only to provide accommodation and care but to provide aftercare, the position will become extremely difficult. If an offender is given a secure training order, say, in Cornwall and then goes to Oxfordshire—that being the site of the nearest centre—how will the same person in authority be able to provide aftercare back in Cornwall, where I believe the regulations state that the offender would have to be seen just once a month? How will it be possible to provide the level of aftercare needed to integrate the offender back into the community? If he stays distant from his community, the chance of his reoffending will be all the greater.
    I feel that the Lords amendment gives us a chance to improve the Bill, and to improve the position for many of the young offenders who will come before the courts. I am very sorry that the Home Secretary seems determined not to let it stand.
    Mr. Hawkins: I shall speak very briefly, just to deal with a matter which Opposition Members raised time and again in Committee, and which has now been raised again by the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell). He suggested that different past treatments for offenders showed differences in reoffending rates, but he was not comparing like with like. Opposition Members repeatedly make that mistake. Often the most serious juvenile offenders, whom I used to prosecute over many years at the Bar, received the most serious sentences. They were precisely the hard-core offenders who would reoffend. One is not comparing like with like because those who commit less serious offences are given supervision orders and are less likely to reoffend.
    In order to deal with the most serious juvenile offenders, we need sensible, secure provision. The only Labour Member who seemed to understand that is the only one with real experience over many years at the Bar, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). He recognises that there is no point in sending the most serious young offenders on safari holidays because it simply sends a signal to those offenders that they are being rewarded for their crimes. What about the law-abiding children whose parents cannot afford to send them to Center Pares or on safari holidays? We need secure training centres because while those juveniles are in those centres they are not breaking into old ladies' houses and that is what the public want to see.
    Mr. Howard: With permission I should like to respond to the debate.
    We knew that we would have to make allowances for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). We knew that he would go to any lengths to curry favour in the elections taking place today. Clearly, his approach is that the best way to perform effectively in those elections is to put as much distance as possible

    315
    between the truth and the remarks one makes. That was the principle that he adopted and, for all I know, it may be the most effective technique for election to the shadow Cabinet.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth suggested that the Opposition have always adopted a constructive attitude to these matters. Has he forgotten that in another place the Labour party, led by the noble Lord McIntosh, voted to take out of the Bill the whole of part I which would have deprived the courts of any powers to send young offenders to secure institutions of any sort? The hon. Gentleman responded enthusiastically to an intervention from his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who suggested that there should be scope for a longer period to be spent in a secure training centre. He had no answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who pointed out that the only amendment from the Labour party in Committee was designed to shorten the time to which people could be sentenced to a secure training centre, not to lengthen it.
    The hon. Gentleman behaved disgracefully—there is no other word for it—to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Select Committee, who gave him chapter and verse on how the Committee recommended an agency in addition to the provision of a secure training centre. Without the slightest foundation, he accused my hon. and learned Friend of twisting and turning when my hon. and learned Friend was simply pointing out the truth.
    The reality behind the approach of the Labour party and the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was revealed when in his closing remarks he said that one of the things that are wrong with the provision is that it assumes that anyone who has committed three offences is a persistent offender. That is the attitude which the Labour party brings to consideration of these matters and it is as well that everyone should know about it.
    We heard an interesting speech from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I welcome him, somewhat belatedly, to his new responsibilities. I hope that he holds that position on the Opposition Benches for a long time, particularly if he makes a habit of making the sort of speech that he made today. He attributed to me opinions that I have never expressed, he attacked me for arguments that I have never advanced and he constructed his speech on a basis that did not deal with the points that have been made in the debate. We had splendid speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, who explained precisely why the provisions are necessary and why the amendments from another place should be rejected.
    The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) advanced statistics on reoffending that have been comprehensively answered in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). The hon. Lady attacked our proposals for secure training centres on the basis that they are not the whole solution. I accept that they are not the whole solution and we have never advanced them as the whole solution. However, they are an important part of the solution and we have to have them. We shall have them as soon as possible.
    316
    Local authority secure accommodation is no alternative, for the reasons that I gave in my opening speech. It is no use pretending that there is local authority secure accommodation available that would enable the courts to pass sentence the day after Royal Assent. It is not available in sufficient quantities. It is not available largely for the reasons that I put to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong). I gave her the specific example of Labour local authorities in the north-east that have not been providing the accommodation and she had no answer to that point. She replied with the pathetic point about non-payment of the planning fee and I shall deal precisely with that issue.
    It is true that we have not paid the planning fee in respect of our application for planning permission for a secure training centre. We have not done so because it would be improper for us to do so before we obtain Royal Assent. Had we sought to disburse moneys before Royal Assent, the Labour party would be the first to complain that we were flouting the will of Parliament, behaving improperly and seeking to spend taxpayers' money without proper permission to do so. That is the simple truth. I would that we could make greater progress, but we must abide by the proprieties, as we always do. That is why the planning fee has not been paid.
    Ms Armstrong rose—
    Mr. Howard: I do not know what the hon. Lady is going to say.
    Ms Armstrong: Why did the Government apply for planning permission some weeks, if not months, ago and ask the local authority to deal with it immediately?
    Mr. Howard: We are not allowed to spend money until we have Royal Assent—[Interruption.] It is extraordinary that the Labour party, which tells us daily of its aspirations to government, is so completely unaware of what the proprieties demand in relation to these matters.
    The hon. Member for St. Helens, South criticised us for not yet having a secure training centre in being. Of course we do not have such a training centre. That is what the legislation is about. We want the legislation in order to be able to provide secure training centres. That is why we are here.
    I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was not here at the beginning of the debate. I hope that, had he heard my opening speech, he would have understood why we are not prepared to accept the amendments from another place. We believe that we are dealing with a discrete group of persistent young offenders. We believe that they need a particular remedy that is tailor-made for them. They need a high-calibre regime of training and education, which we intend to provide in our secure training centres. That is why we think that that is the right sentence for the courts to pass on them. That is why we think that the amendments that were passed in another place should be rejected.
    For those reasons and for the reasons that I gave in my opening remarks, to which the Labour party has not responded, I invite the House to reject the amendments.
    Mr. Michael: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply.
    The laughter that greeted so many of the Home Secretary's comments showed the ridicule into which he has brought his high office. I suppose that we should be

    317
    pleased that the Home Secretary returned the loyalty of the Chairman of the Select Committee. However, he is as inaccurate as the Chairman in the account that he gave of these matters.
    I remind the House that a vote against the Lords amendments is a vote to refuse discretion to magistrates and a vote against a commonsense approach to the prevention of reoffending. That is what it is about.
    6 pm
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 272.

    Division No. 306]

    [6.00 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Colvin, Michael

    Alexander, Richard

    Congdon, David

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Conway, Derek

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Amess, David

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Ancram, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Cran,James

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Ashby, David

    Davis, David(Boothferry)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Day, Stephen

    Atkins, Robert

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Devlin, Tim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Dicks, Terry

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Baldry, Tony

    Dover, Den

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Duncan, Alan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bates, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Batiste, Spencer

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Beggs, Roy

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bellingham, Henry

    Egger, Tim

    Bendall, Vivian

    Elletson, Harold

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Booth, Hartley

    Evans, Roger(Monmouth)

    Boswell, Tim

    Evennett, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Faber, David

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bowis, John

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Forman, Nigel

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Brazier, Julian

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Forth, Eric

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Budgen, Nicholas

    French, Douglas

    Burt, Alistair

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Butcher, John

    Gale, Roger

    Butler, Peter

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Butterfill, John

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Garnier, Edward

    Carrington, Matthew

    Gill, Christopher

    Cash, William

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Churchill, Mr

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Clappison, James

    Greenways, Harry (Ealing N)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Greenways, John (Ryedale)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    318

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hague, William

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hannam, Sir John

    Nelson, Anthony

    Harris, David

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawkins, Nick

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heald, Oliver

    Norris, Steve

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hendry, Charles

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hicks, Robert

    Page, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Paice, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Horam, John

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

    Pawsey, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jack, Michael

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Richards, Rod

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Riddick, Graham

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Key, Robert

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Rowe Andrew, (Mid Kent)

    Knapman, Roger

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Sackville, Tom

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Knox, Sir David

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Shaw, Sir Gilles (Pudsey)

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Legg, Barry

    Shersby, Michael

    Leigh, Edward

    Sims, Roger

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Lidington, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin(Belfast S)

    Lightbown, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Lord, Michael

    Spicer, Michael(S Worcs)

    Luff, Peter

    Spicer, Sir James(W Dorset)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spring, Richard

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Sproat, Iain

    MacKay, Andrew

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Maclean, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Madel, Sir David

    Steen, Anthony

    Malone, Gerald

    Stephen, Michael

    Mans, Keith

    Stern, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Stewart, Allan

    Marlow, Tony

    Streeter, Gary

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sumberg, David

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mates, Michael

    Sykes, John

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    McCrea, Rev William

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Merchant, Piers

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Thomason, Roy

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Thurnham, Peter

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

    319

    Tracey, Richard

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Tredinnick, David

    Whitney, Ray

    Trend, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Trimble, David

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Trotter, Neville

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wilkinson, John

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Willetts, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Wilshire, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Walden, George

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Wood, Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Yeo, Tim

    Ward, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Watts, John

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

    Wells, Bowen

    Mr. Simon Burns

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Corbett, Robin

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ainger, Nick

    Corston, Jean

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cousins, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Cummings, John

    Alton, David

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Anderson, Ms Janet

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    (Ros'dale)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Armstorng, Hilary

    Dalyell, Tam

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Darling, Alistair

    Banks, Tony(Newham NW)

    Davies, Bryan(Oldham C'tral)

    Barnes, Harry

    Davies, Ron(Caerphilly)

    Barron, Kevin

    Denham, John

    Battle, John

    Dewar, Donald

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Dixon, Don

    Beith, Rt Hon A.J.

    Dobson, Frank

    Bell, Stuart

    Donohoe, Brain H.

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dowd, Jim

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Benton, Joe

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Eastham, Ken

    Berry, Roger

    Enright, Derek

    Betts, Clive

    Etherington, Bill

    Blair, Tony

    Evans, John(St Helens N)

    Blunkett, David

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Boateng, Paul

    Fatchett, Derek

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Boyes, Roland

    Fisher, Mark

    Bradley, Keith

    Flynn, Paul

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Brown, Gorden (Dunfermline E)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

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

    Foulkes, George

    Burden, Richard

    Fraser, John

    Byers, Stephen

    Fyfe, Maria

    Caborn, Richard

    Galbraith, Sam

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Galloway, George

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gapes, Mike

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Garrett, John

    Campbell-Savours, D.N.

    George, Bruce

    Canavan, Dennies

    Gerrard, Neil

    Cann, Jamie

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Chidgey, David

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Godsiff, Roger

    Church, Judith

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clapham, Michael

    Graham, Thomas

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clelland, David

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Gunnell, John

    Coffey, Ann

    Hain, Peter

    Cohen, Harry

    Hall, Mike

    Connarty, Michael

    Hanson, David

    Cock, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hardy, Peter

    Cock, Robin (Livingston)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    320

    Harvey, Nick

    Morley, Elliot

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Henderson, Doug

    Morris, Rt Hon A.(Wy'nshawe)

    Heppell, John

    Morris, Rt Hon J.(Aberavon)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mudie, George

    Hodge, Margaret

    Mullin, Chris

    Hoey, Kate

    Murphy, Paul

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Home Robertson, John

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hood, Jimmy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Olner, William

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hoyle, Doug

    Parry, Robert

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Patchett, Terry

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Pendry, Tom

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hutton, John

    Pope, Greg

    Ingram, Adam

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Janner, Greville

    Prescott, John

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)

    Purchase, Ken

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Radice, Giles

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Randall, Stuart

    Jowell, Tessa

    Raynsford, Nick

    Keen, Alan

    Redmond, Martin

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Reid, Dr John

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Rendel, David

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Rogers, Allan

    Lewis, Terry

    Rooker, Jeff

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Rooney, Terry

    Litherland, Robert

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Salmond, Alex

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Loyden, Eddie

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Macdonald, Calum

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Short, Clare

    Maclennan, Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    MacShane, Denis

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Madden, Max

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

    Maddock, Diana

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mahon, Alice

    Snape, Peter

    Mandelson, Peter

    Soley, clive

    Marek, Dr John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Stevenson, George

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Stott, Roger

    Martlew, Eric

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    McAllion, John

    Straw, Jack

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    McCartney, Ian

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McFall, John

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McKelvey, William

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McLeish, Henry

    Timms, Stephen

    McMaster, Gordon

    Tipping, Paddy

    McNamara, Kevin

    Turner, Dennis

    McWilliam, John

    Tyler, Paul

    Meacher, Michael

    Vaz, Keith

    Meale, Alan

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Michael, Alun

    Wallace, James

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Walley, Joan

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Miller, Andrew

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Watson, Mike

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Welsh, Andrew

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wicks, Malcolm

    321

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Wray, Jimmy

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Winnick, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wise, Audrey

    Mr. Eric Illsley and

    Worthington, Tony

    Mr. John Spellar

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Government motions to disagree agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 32

    EFFECT OF ACCUSED'S FAILURE TO MENTION FACTS WHEN QUESTIONED OR CHARGED
    Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 21, line 12, after ("questioned") insert ("under caution")
    Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 1, after 'caution', insert—
    ',and after being given the opportunity to be legally represented,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): 'With this, it will be convenient to take the following:
    Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 1, after 'caution', insert—
    'and after being informed that he has a right to legal advice'.
    Lords amendment No. 299.
    Mr. Michael: The Lords amendment would add the words "under caution" and would provide the protection that, before comment can be made on silence, the suspect should have been cautioned.
    Our amendments would ensure that the suspect was given the opportunity to be legally represented or, at the minimum, informed that he has the right to legal advice.
    The reason for our amendments is very simple. The sophisticated crook will be aware of his rights, will insist on being legally advised and represented, and will not be caught out by these provisions. Without the protection of legal advice, as proposed in our amendment, the vulnerable and the innocent will be put at risk.
    We can quote excellent authority for our proposal, because we share the view expressed by the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which said:
    "The majority of us believe that the possibility of an increase in convictions of the guilty is outweighed by the risk that the extra pressure on suspects to talk in the police station, and the adverse inferences invited if they do not may result in more convictions of the innocent."
    We have already gone far further than the royal commission envisaged, because the Bill would allow comment on things that were said long before a suspect reached the police station. Given the strong views of the royal commission, our amendment is the minimum acceptable to protect the innocent.
    The royal commission went on to say that it believed that it would be not the professional criminal who would be most likely to be affected by the change proposed in the Bill but
    "the less experienced and more vulnerable suspects against whom the threat of adverse comment would be likely to be more damaging."
    In discussions on the general issue of the right to silence, we proposed an alternative that would have more accurately hit the target that the Government said they
    322
    were after—the possibility of ambush defences—at an early stage. I shall not reopen that question, because we are dealing with a very narrow point, which is to ensure that people receive the necessary protection under the Government's proposals.
    Having failed to persuade the Government to change their mind, we have consistently sought to add safeguards to the Bill to ensure that the protection provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applies. It is odd that the House should swing from trying to build in protection for the innocent to the very opposite—providing no protection at all.
    In view of the Government's chosen direction, we seek to ensure that the protection offered by the previous legislation applies, especially in respect of vulnerable and innocent people. We believe that the provisions should operate only when the accused is in the police station, and that he should have access to properly qualified legal advice.
    When we discussed the issue on Report, the Home Secretary felt that no additional safeguards were needed. Indeed, he said:
    "I disagree with the proposition that inferences should be restricted to the period after cautioning"—[Official Report, 13 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 281.]
    However, that is the point that the Government were forced to concede in another place, and it is the import of the amendment that we are discussing.
    The Minister must consider carefully the vulnerable nature of many people accused of offences. It is right that someone who is guilty should be convicted even if he is of lower than average intelligence or ability, but it is also right that we should take account of his circumstances and ensure that there are appropriate protections.
    The problem was highlighted in a recent study of 160 suspects held at two police stations. Work prepared for the Royal Commission on criminal justice revealed that their mean IQ was 82—well below the average of 100—and that one in three scored 75 or below, equivalent to that of the bottom 5 per cent. of the population. My point is that such issues have been carefully considered by a royal commission; a large sum of public money was spent on ensuring that research informed the considerations of the royal commission.
    The Government have taken policy decisions—what the House agreed before the Bill went to another place—but, despite those decisions, it remains appropriate for the Government to consider protection for the vulnerable. For that reason, I urge the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) to accept our amendments.
    We are proposing that the suspect should have been given the opportunity to be legally represented before inferences could be used. The suspect may not wish to exercise his right, but he should at least have the opportunity to seek legal help and to know that that opportunity is his as a right. As I said, the sophisticated crook—the person who has been involved in offences before—will have that knowledge in any event. The people at risk will be the unsophisticated and, indeed, the innocent.
    The protection we seek is all the more necessary because it is likely that many suspects will not have understood the new caution. Is that surprising, as it is. hardly an object lesson in clarity? We must remember that

    323
    we are dealing with not only guilty but innocent people; and who, at a time of stress, will understand the convoluted wording of a caution which will very often be read to them speedily? It reads:
    "You do not have to say anything, but if you do not mention now something which you may later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial."
    Let us consider the innocent, vulnerable person, as distinct from the sophisticated crook. The innocent, vulnerable person—indeed, the innocent person of some intelligence—may find it difficult to understand what he is being told. The sophisticated crook will not need to understand the caution, because he will have already worked out what he is going to do. We should be under no illusion that the sophisticated crook is a reason for refusing the amendment.
    The codes of practice under PACE currently require the police to inform a person of his right to legal advice after he arrives at a police station. People questioned before they arrive are in danger of their silence being used against them without their having been informed of their right to legal advice. In addition, the Bill as drafted would mean that if the police failed to inform a person of his right to legal advice once he or she had arrived at the police station, the court could still take into account the person's silence despite the breach of the codes of practice.
    Our amendments, therefore, provide the innocent suspect with the safeguards necessary to ensure that he is not convicted and which the sophisticated suspect will always have. I commend them to the House as a means of providing a protection only where a protection is sorely needed, not as a means of taking us back to earlier arguments. I hope that the Minister will accept them.
    Sir Michael Grylls: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that, because of a demonstration in Parliament square, people cannot leave the Norman Shaw building and that, equally important, internal mail cannot be brought here. Surely it cannot be right that such a demonstration should be allowed to interfere with the proper workings of Parliament.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms to make inquiries.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Before deciding to move amendments Nos. 30 and 299 in another place, the Government reflected carefully on what was said in a full debate in Committee in another place on safeguards and on the provision dealing with inferences drawn from silence. The debate focused especially on clause 32, which allows inferences to be drawn from the failure to mention a fact on which the defendant later relies for his defence and which he could reasonably have been expected to mention when questioned.
    A number of opinions were expressed, and the Government agreed that it should be made a condition for the drawing of inferences that a person had been warned about the possible consequences of his silence. Lord
    324
    amendment No. 30 amends the Bill accordingly. Amendment No. 299 would make corresponding changes to Northern Ireland legislation.
    Regrettably, I must advise the House to reject the two amendments to Lords amendment No. 30. I have already advised the House to agree to the Lords amendment as it stands, and I have explained what the Lords amendment is and is not intended to do. Clause 32 provides that, when a defendant puts an explanation before the court which he has not previously mentioned to the police, the court can draw proper inferences from that fact.
    It is based on the proposition that if an innocent person has an explanation to give, he can usually be expected to give it at the first reasonable opportunity, not store it up for use when the proceedings have developed as far as a trial. If an explanation is withheld at the earlier stage but offered at the trial, we believe that the courts should have the opportunity, which is at present denied them, to consider all the circumstances and to draw sensible conclusions.
    It is common ground between the two Houses, and between the Government and the Opposition, that that process must be subject to some safeguards. The only question is how far the safeguards should extend and how far they can reasonably extend without depriving the clause of its effectiveness. The issue has been extensively discussed in both Houses.
    In this House, explanations were given by the Government of the safeguards already inherent in clause 32 as drafted, in the procedures for which provision is made in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and in the codes of practice issued under it. The House decided that clause 32 should be added to the Bill in its original form and a number of amendments, including some similar in effect to those now proposed by the Opposition, were defeated.
    The debate on safeguards was naturally renewed in another place and, again, a menu of comments and suggestions was made. Even among those who believe that some amendment was needed, there was no unanimity about what form it should take. The Government and the House of Lords itself had a choice to make—should any amendment be made and, if so, what route should it follow?
    Eventually, however, a clear decision was reached, and it is expressed in Lords amendment No. 30. That decision was to include a requirement that a person must have been a suspect under caution but not to include further requirements similar to those now proposed by the Opposition. This House's earlier decision not to include such amendments was a deliberate decision, not a mere oversight.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: I should be grateful if the Minister would explain how the new provision will apply to questioning by someone who is not a policeman. As the Minister will be aware, the clause covers questioning not only by the police but by other people, such as store detectives and possibly private security staff. Will he explain how a caution will work in such cases?
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Maclean: The amendment that we are accepting from the House of Lords, which I am recommending, applies to all the categories of people specified in the Bill and in earlier legislation. We do not seek to change the

    325
    categories of people who, whether they be in Customs and Excise or in private security, may at times question suspects.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) explained why, even at this late stage, he favours the Opposition amendments—or at least, he explained why he favours one of them. I shall explain briefly why I advise the House to reject both the Opposition amendments. The essential question at issue is when the possible drawing of inferences should start.
    The scheme of clause 32 is to enable the court to inquire into and to draw conclusions from any contrast between what a defendant says to the court and what he said or did not say earlier. The question is: how much earlier? In the form in which clause 32 left the House for another place, the answer was: from the first moment when a person was questioned by the police. If we add Lords amendment No. 30, as I advise the House to do, the answer will be: when a person is clearly being treated as a suspect and has been given due warning.
    However, if we took one of the Opposition's amendments, in effect the answer would become: when the suspect is formally interviewed at a police station, having had an opportunity to talk things over with a lawyer. I must advise the House that I consider that unnecessarily restrictive. In some situations, it could prevent clause 32 from having the desirable and sensible effect of enabling the courts to look at all the circumstances.
    In some situations, what a suspect says or does not say to the police immediately after being cautioned will be a good deal more telling than what he says or does not say after receiving legal advice. It is not only the Government who believe that amendments such as those urged by the Opposition would be too restrictive. The various options were carefully considered in the debate in another place, and Lords amendment No. 30, although moved by the Government, was designed to give effect to points put during that debate by the Lord Chief Justice.
    On 23 May, the Lord Chief Justice said in the House of Lords:
    "As we have already heard, there are some … who would limit the comment on silence under that clause"—
    that is, clause 32—
    "to the police station, where all the safeguards of the defence lawyer being present and tape recording are in place. That is a somewhat too limiting restriction.
    As I have suggested, there are cases in which silence at or near the scene of the crime is particularly important."—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1994; Vol. 555, c. 523.]
    I emphasise the Lord Chief Justice's words:
    "at or near the scene of the crime".
    That was the issue at stake when the Lords discussed the amendments before them, and that is the issue at stake today.
    I advise the House to accept the Government's view, shared by the Lord Chief Justice and others in another place, that there is no injustice in allowing inferences to be drawn from an exchange that took place at or near the scene of the crime, provided that the person is on notice that he is a suspect, and that the circumstances were such that he could reasonably have been expected to offer his explanation at the time.
    Mr. George Walden: I do not claim to be a great expert on the subject, as many of my colleagues
    326
    are, but like many other people in this country I have a certain instinctive reservation when I hear about the right to silence being abolished—that is how the measure has been described—because we all think that a fundamental liberty is somehow at stake. Then we look into the matter more closely, and discover that it relates to inferences being drawn, and so on. So we are taken even further into the subject.
    I have listened carefully to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and to my hon. Friend the Minister. For non-experts, the matter boils down to the simple fact that we have all had drawn to our attention an increasing wave of petty crime—at least, I assume that most hon. Members have had that experience. My constituency, notably its chief town, Buckingham, is no exception.
    Having listened to the Opposition spokesman and to the Minister, I approach the problem from the point of view of my local police station, where I say to the police, "What shall we do about the rising tide?" I do not want to exaggerate, because that does not help anyone, but there is a rising tide of petty crime in my constituency, as in many others. My local police give me frightening examples showing how their hands are tied, or at least one hand is tied behind their backs, when they try to arrest the people responsible and to achieve convictions.
    I believe that the Opposition previously attempted to restrict the measure so that it did not affect magistrates courts, but that that amendment has now been dropped. That leads me be a little suspicious of their position on the subject. I start from the premise, not that there is a huge serious crime wave in my constituency—there is not—but that there is a wave of petty delinquency. The local police often know who is responsible, but they can do little about it, often for reasons connected with the right to silence.
    Mr. Michael: It is only fair to clarify the situation. We proposed adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, as an alternative to the Government's approach. That would have meant a pre-trial review, which would have enabled comment to be made on issues that had not yet been raised.
    The Government did not accept that, and since then we have sought to build in protections to ensure that, in attempting to catch the guilty and sophisticated—a target at which we all wish to aim—we do not accidentally catch the innocent and vulnerable. It was in order to manage that balance that we tabled the amendment, and that is the narrow point with which we are concerned.
    Mr. Walden: I take note of that. We must all be frank about the fact that there have recently been serious miscarriages of justice in our country. So what the hon. Gentleman says about striking a balance is uppermost in my mind when discussing the narrow measure before us.
    What swings me in favour of the Government is the fear that, if we try to refine the matter too much, we shall come down on the side of the possibly—I stress the word "possibly"—guilty. As I keep saying, I have no expert knowledge of the higher legal arguments, but I know about the local arguments.
    Common sense must guide some of us in such discussions. Last week, I was faced with a deputation of 12 local shopkeepers thinking of leaving the town of Buckingham because of a combination of low sales—I

    327
    cannot blame those on anyone now in the Chamber—and the physical insecurity of their premises. When that happens, one begins to think that things are getting a little out of hand.
    When one talks to the police, one finds that perhaps they could do something more effective about the problems if their hand were strengthened a little. Without being sentimental, I must say that I do not think that the police I know in Buckingham would take undue advantage of the legislation to browbeat supposed offenders.
    The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth read out the caution. Certainly the speed at which he read it could be slightly confusing for someone in the emotion of the moment. On the other hand, the caution is couched in fairly simple English, and one would hope that the legal officers concerned would read it plainly and slowly. I fail to see quite how the sense of that caution could be conveyed in more simple language.
    The Government are right to resist the amendment—not because the Opposition are in any way trying to undermine the intention of the Government to ensure that criminals are brought to book and so on, because that is a slightly simplistic debate, but because, as the Minister said, there is a risk that, if we lean a little too far in the wrong direction, we could prevent this important amendment to the law from having its full effect.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am very disappointed that the Government are insisting on proceeding with changing the right of silence. If the Government had merely insisted that people could not produce ambush defences when a case had gone to court, I would not complain at all. But if the Government are to change the rights of someone before a case reaches trial, they must demonstrate overwhelmingly that there is a need to do so.
    Quite frequently I hear evidence from police officers alleging that guilty people get off and that more guilty people get off than innocent people are wrongly convicted. But it is very difficult to demonstrate that. I understand why police officers feel like that. When they are absolutely convinced that they have got the right person and the jury finds against them, they are bitter and frustrated because professionally they have failed. It therefore makes a substantial impact on them. Obviously, they are not conscious of the miscarriages of justice in the other direction, so they have tended, over a period of time, to suggest that there is a major problem. I do not see a major problem and the way in which the Government are attempting to tackle the issue is unfortunate.
    If we are to change the law, we must provide the protection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, for people who may be described as vulnerable. I do not think that the Minister has grasped what often happens to my constituents. They are not well-organised people. They do not have a diary secretary who keeps a list of where they should be and organises their lives. Their lives are fairly disorganised. Their memories of what happened a week or a fortnight ago are not exact and precise, and if they are in a difficult situation, they are not likely to come up with a sensible and rational explanation. They are not
    328
    likely to be able to balance one defence against another and they may end up by weakening their genuine defence because their first reactions are ill-considered.
    Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is making his argument in favour of the Opposition amendments in terms relating to the vulnerability of particular suspects. Does he agree that the legislation merely enables a court to draw inferences from silence, but only those inferences which are proper? The circumstances in which the people being questioned—the accused—find themselves and the vulnerability of those persons would be highly relevant to what is considered a proper inference. So the hon. Gentleman is advancing matters that are already adequately provided for in the proposed legislation.
    Mr. Bennett: I do not think that they are adequately provided for in the proposed legislation. If one considers certain circumstances—I was about to describe some—such as a person's response with hindsight, in many cases, one wonders why on earth that person did not give the same explanation initially. However, consider, for instance, someone who has just been chased by an alsatian dog. The alsatian grabs the person by the leg. The police officer who is handling the dog comes over and brings the dog off. There is a fair chance that, under the present proposals, the caution will be administered at that point. The first question that the police officer will ask is what the person was doing on that piece of land or what he was doing behind the building which the police officer assumes someone has just burgled and is running away from.
    Afterwards, I would have thought that if it was drawn to the attention of a jury that the individual answered "I do not know", or made some other relatively irrational comment, it would be difficult to convince them that the person's genuine reason for being there was correct. If the reason was not put forward at the first possible opportunity, it would become an argument in the court. To get across to a jury that under the stress of just having been chased by an alsatian dog, somebody would not react—
    Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman does not trust juries.
    Mr. Bennett: It is not that I do not trust juries. I think that it is difficult to put the jury into that frame of mind. Juries are supposed to be comprised of average citizens who have experienced things, but not many jurymen will have been chased by an alsatian dog and at that point had to produce rational explanations.
    6.45 pm
    There is the same argument when considering the whole matter of putting forward an alibi. Many of my constituents, if asked where they were on a particular occasion, would find it extremely difficult to react at that moment. Again, I suggest that many people on a jury would find it surprising, if a substantial crime was committed at a particular time, that someone could not at that immediate instant put forward their alibi. In fact, it may take quite a time for that individual to work out the circumstances. I do not agree that there is evidence of the change being necessary.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I confess to being rather ignorant about much criminal procedure. However,

    329
    as I understand the right to silence, it is not merely exercised at the point of caution. It is persisted with, right up until the last possible moment and to that degree. It seems that most juries who were confronted with somebody who at the time said, "I would rather not say anything, but when I have had time to collect my wits and stop panting from being pursued by the alsatian, I will tell you as much as I can", would think that that person was in a very different position.
    Mr. Bennett: As I said at the beginning of my speech, as far as I understand it, there is no difference between the two parties in saying that before a matter comes to court, it is reasonable that the defence should put forward its case. In other words, we are taking away any ambush that the defence can produce of an alibi, which it is difficult at that stage for the prosecution to check. There did not seem to be any disagreement over that. The problem arose over at what stage the inference may be drawn. The Opposition have been suggesting that as long as someone has put forward his defence at some pre-trial conference, it would be sensible to draw the line there, whereas the Government have been insisting on moving it further and further forward so that the right to silence is removed at a very early stage. That seems to be where the disagreement lies.
    My final administrative point is that one of the problems for the police is that we have continually changed the rules. It is all right for us legislators to imagine what will happen, but the police officer on the beat has to turn it into something practical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth suggested, the proposed caution does not seem to be practical. One fears that the entire procedure will not be especially practical. It will give the police officers extra problems in administering the procedure and, therefore, it will not help us to catch more criminals. The fundamental problem is that we do not catch enough people—it is not that those people who are brought before the courts are let off. If the Government had addressed the problem of ensuring that more people were caught rather than worrying too much about the legal processes after they are caught, we would have done a lot better.
    Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has not made a good case. Is not he aware that, frequently, the problem is not that of catching the criminal, but of bringing that criminal to retribution when he is in court and is, in fact, guilty?
    I want to make two brief points. A very strong case was made for a change in the law a few months ago when a man and a woman who without any question had murdered their child walked free from the court because of the right of silence. That was only the latest of many similar cases and there was much publicity about that case at the time.
    We should not concern ourselves so much about the wild alsatian. The points made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish were more a red herring or a wild goose chase. It is absurd to suppose that a jury in a British court of law could not differentiate when given the right to
    "draw such inferences from the failure"
    to speak up—
    "as appear proper."
    330
    We are concerned about an essential change in the law. Justice is about not only catching criminals, but protecting the public from criminals and ensuring that criminals receive their just desserts.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the parents went free totally because of the right of silence. It has more to do with the fact that if the evidence is consistent with one as with another, the burden of proof has not been discharged and it is not possible to say which of the two parents is responsible for the killing. That is another problem.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, I support the Government's proposals on the right of silence. I have advocated the removal of the right of silence for the many years that I have been a Member of this place because I wanted tape-recorded interviews. My colleagues will be aware, as I have said so on many occasions, that I am unhappy with allowing evidence to be adduced of any confession on the way to the police station unless it has been tape recorded.
    Having said that, I am not completely happy with the Government's refusal to accept the Opposition's proposals. I am unhappy about having to agree, even vaguely, with anything that the Opposition suggest on law and order, for reasons that I have given on many occasions.
    By excluding the right to legal advice, we are giving a suspect the opportunity to say, "I didn't explain what I was doing because, quite frankly, I was scared and I wanted a solicitor to be there to ensure that when I explained it to the police, they got it right rather than wrong." The effect of that would be that a point would be made to the jury which might make the jury say, "Well, we are not happy about this."
    As the object of the exercise is to ensure that more of the guilty people are convicted, that would be better achieved by removing an excuse that an accused person will, after this, be able to use by saying, "I was scared and I needed someone to be there." That is an impressive jury point.
    However, I find myself driven to the conclusion that it is inevitable that we make this kind of exclusion, although I say that reluctantly, because of the nature of the change that we are making to the right of silence and the ability to make a comment. I take on board the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). It is up to the jury. I simply want my hon. Friends to realise that it will not help us to obtain more convictions of the guilty.
    Mr. Beith: I have reflected on the situation described by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). Might not it be just as likely that an accused person will say, "I didn't reveal my explanation at the time because I didn't know what it would mean if I admitted to another crime, perhaps a lesser crime than the one that I was involved in; I certainly didn't want to say anything about that without legal advice"? The point that would then be made to the jury is that they should not believe anything that man says because he must clearly have other convictions.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: That raises other problems and the right hon. Gentleman's comments do not meet the point that I am making. I am making a much simpler point and I need not repeat what I have just said. I am unhappy

    331
    about this, but I understand that it is inevitable. Therefore, I reluctantly go along with the Government's response to the Opposition's suggestion.
    I should like clarification on two points. First, speaking frankly and openly, we have been worried by the fact that too often solicitors may have told accused people to say nothing when, on many occasions, what they may have said could have been helpful to the defence. I wonder whether the problem of what solicitors shall say, bearing in mind the new caution, has been sorted out by the Law Society and its ethical committee. How far have those considerations progressed with the Law Society? Is it changing its rules and ethical obligations to conform with the changes proposed in the Bill?
    Secondly, regardless of how the caution works in Northern Ireland, no one can deny that it is quite convoluted. It can be simplified. I wonder whether the proposed caution is set in stone or whether it is open to wider consideration which might produce a shorter and simpler version. Modesty forbids me from suggesting one now, but I will quietly, perhaps in a letter, propose alternatives to my hon. Friend the Minister, and I hope that others will do likewise. It is obviously sensible that we should have as simple and as straightforward a caution as possible, particularly if we are not going to allow legal representation in certain circumstances.
    Mr. Peter Hardy: In this brief intervention I want to refer to a constituency case which may be interpreted as suggesting that the right of silence should be expunged, but which I hope will convince the House that it is not that which should attract attention, but the need for common sense in the legal process.
    Not very long ago, a man was caught breaking into the house of a constituent of mine. The police responded to a call with enormous speed and the man was caught red-handed burgling my constituent's home. When the police accosted him, he said "I am exercising my right of silence." When the papers went to the public prosecution office, it decided that it could not prosecute because that man was exercising the right of silence. The Minister may recall that I had correspondence with the Home Office on the matter which led, I believe, to its being reviewed.
    It is not the existence of the right of silence that was wrong. What was wrong was that the court was denied the opportunity to hear that charge and perhaps ensure that the criminal who was sheltering behind the right of silence secured a rather tougher sentence for wasting public time and causing mayhem than was the case.
    I suggest that the Minister should advise the Crown Prosecution Service to allow the court to have the opportunity to exercise its judgment rather than remove a freedom which may be of considerable historic importance.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—
    The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 286.

    Division No. 307]

    [7.00 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Allen, Graham

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Alton, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    332

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Foulkes, George

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Fyfe, Maria

    Ashton, Joe

    Galloway, George

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Gapes, Mike

    Barnes, Harry

    Garrett, John

    Barron, Kevin

    George, Bruce

    Battle, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Bell, Stuart

    Godsiff, Roger

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Graham, Thomas

    Benton, Joe

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Berry, Roger

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Betts, Clive

    Grocott, Bruce

    Blair, Tony

    Gunnell, John

    Blunkett, David

    Hain, Peter

    Boateng, Paul

    Hall, Mike

    Boyes, Roland

    Hanson, David

    Bradley, Keith

    Hardy, Peter

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Harvey, Nick

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

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Henderson, Doug

    Burden, Richard

    Heppell, John

    Byers, Stephen

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Caborn, Richard

    Hinchliffe, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hoey, Kate

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Home Robertson, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Hood, Jimmy

    Chidgey, David

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Church, Judith

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hoyle, Doug

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clelland, David

    Hutton, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Illsley, Eric

    Coffey, Ann

    Ingram, Adam

    Cohen, Harry

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Janner, Greville

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Keen, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

    Darling, Alistair

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davidson, Ian

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Denham, John

    Lewis, Terry

    Dewar, Donald

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Dixon, Don

    Litherland, Robert

    Dobson, Frank

    Livingstone, Ken

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Loyden, Eddie

    Eastham, Ken

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Enright, Derek

    Macdonald, Calum

    Etherington, Bill

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Fatchett, Derek

    MacShane, Denis

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Madden, Max

    Fisher, Mark

    Maddock, Diana

    Flynn, Paul

    Mahon, Alice

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Marek, Dr John

    333

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Rogers, Allan

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Martlew, Eric

    Rooney, Terry

    McAllion, John

    Rowlands, Ted

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ruddock, Joan

    McCartney, Ian

    Salmond, Alex

    McFall, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McKelvey, William

    Sheerman, Barry

    McLeish, Henry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McMaster, Gordon

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Short, Clare

    McWilliam, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Meacher, Michael

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Meale, Alan

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

    Michael, Alun

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Snape, Peter

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Soley, Clive

    Milburn, Alan

    Spearing, Nigel

    Miller, Andrew

    Spellar, John

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Stevenson, George

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Stott, Roger

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Straw, Jack

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mudie, George

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mullin, Chris

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Murphy, Paul

    Timms, Stephen

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Tipping, Paddy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Turner Dennis

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Tyler, Paul

    Olner, William

    Vaz, Keith

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Parry, Robert

    Wallace, James

    Patchett, Terry

    Walley, Joan

    Pendry, Tom

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Wareing, Robert N

    Pike, Peter L.

    Watson, Mike

    Pope, Greg

    Welsh, Andrew

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Prescott, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Winnick, David

    Purchase, Ken

    Wise, Audrey

    Radice, Giles

    Worthington, Tony

    Randall, Stuart

    Wray, Jimmy

    Raynsford, Nick

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Redmond, Martin

    Reid, Dr John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rendel, David

    Mr. Jim Dowd and

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Mr. John Cummings.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Bellingham, Henry

    Alexander, Richard

    Bendall, Vivian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Amess, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Ancram, Michael

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Arbuthnot, James

    Booth, Hartley

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Boswell, Tim

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Ashby, David

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Atkins, Robert

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Brazier, Julian

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Baldry, Tony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Bates, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    334

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burt, Alistair

    Hawksley, Warren

    Butcher, John

    Hayes, Jerry

    Butler, Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Butterfill, John

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hendry, Charles

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hicks, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Horam, John

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Cash, William

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

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clappison, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Jack, Michael

    Coe, Sebastian

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Colvin, Michael

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Congdon, David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Conway, Derek

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Couchman, James

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Cran, James

    Key, Robert

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

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Davies, Quentin (Starnford)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Knapman, Roger

    Day, Stephen

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

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Devlin, Tim

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Knox, Sir David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Dover, Den

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Duncan, Alan

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Dunn, Bob

    Legg, Barry

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Leigh, Edward

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Eggar, Tim

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Elletson, Harold

    Lidington, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lightbown, David

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lord, Michael

    Evennett, David

    Luff, Peter

    Faber, David

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fishburn, Dudley

    MacKay, Andrew

    Forman, Nigel

    Maclean, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Malone, Gerald

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Mans, Keith

    Forth, Eric

    Marland, Paul

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Marlow, Tony

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Mates, Michael

    French, Douglas

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Fry, Sir Peter

    McCrea, Rev William

    Gardiner, Sir George

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Garnier, Edward

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Gill, Christopher

    Merchant, Piers

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mills, Iain

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hague, William

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hannam, Sir John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Harris, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    335

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Norris, Steve

    Steen, Anthony

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Stephen, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Stern, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Stewart, Allan

    Page, Richard

    Streeter, Gary

    Paice, James

    Sweeney, Walter

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pickles, Eric

    Thomason, Roy

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

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

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Tracey, Richard

    Richards, Rod

    Tredinnick, David

    Riddick, Graham

    Trend, Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Trimble, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Trotter, Neville

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Viggers, Peter

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Walden, George

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Sackville, Tom

    Waller, Gary

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Ward, John

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Whitney, Ray

    Shersby, Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Sims, Roger

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Wilkinson, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Willetts, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wilshire, David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wolfson, Mark

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Spring, Richard

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sproat, Iain

    Mr. Bowen Wells and

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mr. Timothy Wood

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  New clause
  Child testimony
  Lords amendment: No. 43, after clause 45, to insert the following new clause—Video recordings of testimony from child witnesses—
  In section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in section 32A(5)(b) the word "adequately" shall be inserted after the words "dealt with".")
  Read a Second time.
  7.15 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, leave out from 'section 32A(5)(b)' to the end of line 4 and insert—
  'the words ", in the opinion of the court, has been dealt with in his recorded testimony" shall be omitted and the words "has been dealt with in his recorded testimony unless the judge grants leave,
  336
  such leave to be granted only where he is of the opinion that an examination in chief is necessary to clarify matters not adequately dealt with in the witness's recorded testimony, or that an examination in chief would be in the best interests of the child" shall be inserted in their place.'.
  In moving the amendment, which deals with the video recording of the testimony of child witnesses, I wish to thank the NSPCC, of which I am a trustee, for doing most of the work in researching the need for such an amendment.
  Section 54 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 added a new section 32A to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 after section 32, which deals with the giving of evidence through television links. Section 32A(5) has been amended by the other place during the passage of the Bill by the insertion of the word "adequately", so that it now reads:
  "Where a video recording of the testimony from a child witness is admitted in evidence, the child witness shall be called by the party who tendered it in evidence and that the witness shall not be examined in chief on any matter which in the opinion of the court has been dealt with adequately in the recorded testimony."
  The original purpose of the provision when it was inserted into the 1991 Act was to protect the child witness from having to give an oral examination in chief which would then be scrutinised and compared with the recorded testimony, leading to cross-examination of the child on trivial differences between the oral and recorded testimony. The legislation prevented an oral examination in chief and there would, therefore, be no second telling of the child's story which could be microscopically compared with the video recording.
  The addition of the word "adequately" has dealt with one previous difficulty with the legislation as it stood. As a result, where a taped interview is flawed because issues have not been properly brought out, or because some issues have been missed out altogether, the prosecutor can now seek to clarify those matters so that relevant evidence is no longer prevented from coming before the court. However, the provision still prevents the prosecution from refreshing the child's memory or giving the child witness an opportunity to warm up before cross-examination through a succinct examination in chief.
  The only alternative is for the child to view the taped interview. For a young child to watch a long interview on video is, at best, a tedious experience; at worst, the child may refuse to watch it. The child witness, therefore, faces a hostile cross-examination which leaves him thinking that the whole process is pointless as no one believes him. The amendment would allow a judge to grant leave, having regard only to the welfare of the child, for the child to be examined in chief, even though matters have been adequately dealt with in the recorded testimony.
  The NSPCC tells me that six judges support reforms of the legislation. Mr. Justice Kay wrote to the Home Secretary on 6 July 1994 about a trial in Swansea involving a paedophile ring. His letter states:
  "My concern as to Section 32A(5) is limited to the effect that it had on the children. The procedure meant that the child saw me briefly on their monitor at the start of each session and thereafter they saw counsel for the defence who was cross-examining, but no-one else. Under the Act, since it was not suggested by the prosecution that matters had not been dealt with either adequately or at all in the video, I had no power to allow any questions by the prosecution before this process began.
  The children were thus confronted for days at a time by hostile counsel putting questions to them, as they were obliged to do on their instructions, that almost every word they uttered was untrue.

  337
  They saw no other person in court and had no opportunity to see that there were others present who did not share the views apparently being expressed in the court.
  As the process continued, the children became more and more frustrated. Some declined to answer questions making it clear that they saw no point in doing so if everyone doubted every word they said.
  I am sure that a number of lessons need to be learned from the Swansea trial. One that seems to me obvious is that the children would have found the giving of evidence far less of an ordeal if before they were subjected to cross-examination they had had the opportunity to answer a few questions from prosecuting counsel who would have appeared to them to be accepting their answers and not challenging them.
  I am totally against any idea that the prosecution should be given a free range to ask questions in addition to the video and that the time a child spends in the witness box should in any way be prolonged. I am equally firmly convinced that some questions from a friendly counsel would be beneficial to the child in many cases. I urge that further consideration be given to this aspect of the matter and that the experience of those witnessing the consequences for children of this provision should be drawn upon."
  There can be no doubt that a court process that intimidates children carries the risk that relevant evidence will not come before the court. The amendment has the safeguard of judicial discretion to ensure that it will be used only in a small number of cases in which the child's welfare calls for it. I cannot pretend that the amendment will solve the problems that confront children in giving evidence in court.
  I strongly support Lords amendment No. 43, but I and many other people believe that the further amendment will help to relieve the strain on children and to prevent even the strongest case of abuse collapsing in the courts.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I wish to add my anxieties to those that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I declare an interest as an honourary consultant to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children on law and policy matters.
  The Minister knows that I introduced an amendment, couched in not dissimilar terms, in Committee. I recall his remarks at that time, but I think that he and the Government have been overtaken by events. The Government were then asking for clear evidence that the operation of section 32 was causing the difficulties to which the hon. Lady has referred.
  The NSPCC provided that evidence. Evidence has been provided by judges, who communicated with Members of the House of Lords. Additionally, the powerful and, in my view, exceptional letter was written by Mr. Justice Kay following the case in Swansea. In my experience, it is extraordinary for the Home Secretary to have received such a detailed letter, outlining the anxieties of a judge about the operation of that section.
  It is important to understand what the judge was complaining about. He was dealing with a situation in which a child was giving evidence by way of the video link. Therefore, the only person whom the child saw throughout the time of giving evidence—let us remember that one of the children gave evidence for a full week—was the defending counsel, who challenged every word that the child said. The judge argued that a more balanced view would have been given in the interests of the child if a discretion had been available to the judge along the lines that the hon. Lady proposes in amendment (a).
  338
  When I mentioned the matter in Committee, the Government's view was that there was not really a problem. It has now been made clear that, in many instances, children suffer as a result of the interpretation of that section. We have the evidence of that not simply from the NSPCC, which is active in that sector, but from judges.
  I well recognise that the Government would wish to have properly researched information on which to act, but the Government must on occasions respond to the requests of the judiciary, based on their practical difficulties in operating that enactment. There is not a jot of difference between the intentions of the Government and those of the Opposition in relation to the matter. Surely everyone in the House wants the courts to be as user-friendly for children as possible. That is the reason why the original enactment was passed.
  I express my anxieties to my hon. Friend the Minister, and ask whether he will give close attention to the observations that have been made by members of the judiciary, especially in the exceptional letter from Mr. Justice Kay, following his practical experience of the paedophile case in Swansea.
  Mr. Beith: Is added my name to amendment (a) because I share the worries that have been expressed, especially in the light of two cases that have occurred in the north-east and the many others throughout the country.
  Many parents are worried that when their children have been the subject of abuse—that is not in doubt in the type of case to which I am referring—their evidence is not heard by the court. The secondary consequence is that accused persons may be unable to demonstrate or prove their innocence or be found innocent by the court. Therefore, many parties remain aggrieved at the end of abortive trials and investigations in cases of that type. Unless we can find a satisfactory basis on which children's evidence can be admitted and appropriately considered by the court in cases where there may be, in the nature of the event, a lack of other corroborative evidence, we shall spread that sense of injustice.
  The greatest fear is that it will become impossible to bring people to trial for the sexual molestation of young children as long as they can ensure that the event takes place where there is no witness. That is a very worrying state of affairs, which has certainly given anxiety to parents in my constituency and elsewhere.
  The issues have been given focus by a case that took place in the Newcastle upon Tyne Crown court: Regina v. Lillie and Reed, and the judgment of Mr. Justice Holland in that case. It is worth giving the House at least a flavour of what led the judge in that case to feel that the children's evidence was inadmissible. The judge spent a long time looking at the video recordings and made many comments on the reasons why he did not feel able to allow the jury to see those video recordings and treat them as evidence.
  "The very length of the recordings, together with the marked variations in her story, reflect exactly what one would expect of a 4 year old, namely, an inability to give an intelligible account of events, certainly of those events that are relevant to these proceedings.
  That incapacity, I emphasise, was no reflection whatsoever upon"
  the child,

  339
  "merely a reflection of her age, of the subject matter, of its emotional impact on her and, perhaps above all, of the delay between the events under investigation and the interview itself.
  Second, granted that"
  the child
  "will be a year older when she would be exposed to cross-examination in any trial in this matter, I am quite satisfied that her capacity will not materially be improved."
  All the circumstances that I have mentioned—the very young age of the child, the difficulty in producing a sequential story properly set out, and the fact that time will elapse between the offence and the making of the video and between the making of the video and the cross-examination—are common to cases of that type, and they increase the fear that it will not be possible to proceed in very many such cases.
  I give the House another example from the judgment:
  "She cannot, therefore, appreciate the premise upon which an important line of cross-examination must proceed, namely, the variation between accounts given at differing times in the course of recordings."
  Those are hurdles that children of three and four will not be able to overcome. We are therefore contemplating a situation in which it will not be possible to secure convictions of guilty persons in such cases if so rigorous a test is applied in all instances.
  Before that judgment was delivered, but after it had been ruled in court that the video evidence would not be admitted in that case, a case went to the Crown Prosecution Service in my constituency in which there were some similarities. It was clear that an offence had occurred, corroborative evidence was lacking and the Crown Prosecution Service had to decide whether it could proceed, and whether the evidence of the video interviews with children involved was a sufficient basis on which to do so.
  I wrote to the Attorney-General to express the fear that the Newcastle case might influence that case and others, and that it might lead the Crown Prosecution Service to be extremely cautious. That case did not proceed, and there may be many others in the same situation now.
  Therefore, I express the hope that a combination of the wording of the Lords amendment and consideration of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), with the assistance of the NSPCC, might eventually give us a more certain basis of proceeding in cases of that type. Clearly, it will be difficult and a great onus will rest upon the court and the jury in considering whether they can rely on what the child says on the video recording, together with the evidence that an offence occurred—that feature is common to most of these cases—and such other evidence as can be adduced. If the child cannot be heard, the sense of grievance among parents, and the sense of anxiety that it is no longer safe to put a child in a place such as a nursery where such an offence could occur, would be great.
  7.30 pm
  Common to the two cases to which I have referred is the fact that both relate to public nursery institutions—nursery schools or nursery classes. One can imagine the anxiety of many of those working in the sector if the fear becomes greater and greater, as well as that of parents
  340
  who have had the shattering experience of knowing that their child has been the subject of sexual molestation and having no way of bringing that child's evidence to bear.
  I hope that the Minister understands and recognises the depth of concern on the issue. I appreciate the difficulties, but we must find some way to ensure that such matters are properly brought to trial and innocence proved when there is no evidence of guilt.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) care deeply about the way in which the criminal justice system treats child victims and witnesses. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has made clear his similar feelings.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor spoke deeply and passionately in Committee, but not at great length—thank goodness—on the subject. He has been persistent in hounding the Government to move along the route that he thinks appropriate.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme moved amendment (a) with the eloquence and sincerity that the House has come to expect from her. It is an interesting amendment and I have some sympathy with the points that she and other hon. Members have made, but, for several reasons, I have to advise the House that, although the Government agree with their lordships in amendment No. 43, we cannot at present support its further extension in the hon. Lady's amendment (a).
  Both amendments operate on section 32A(5)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That section provides that where a child witness has given evidence in chief by means of a video recording, the prosecution may not then examine the child on any matter dealt with in that recording. The purpose was to protect the child from repeated cross-examination designed to expose discrepancies between the video recording and the child's examination in chief.
  It appears that that provision may hinder the prosecution in one respect. Where an issue is mentioned but not fully explored in the video recording, the prosecution is unable to question the child any further about that issue. That may prevent the prosecution from bringing a relevant and important point to the attention of the court. During the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which introduced that provision into the 1988 Act, we took the view that it was sufficient to deal with that danger. We were happy to put the matter beyond doubt by accepting an amendment to this Bill in another place which allows the prosecution to conduct a limited examination of the child to bring out points not adequately dealt with in the video recording.
  The hon. Lady's amendment restates in slightly different terms that clarification of the law, but it goes further, in providing that the prosecution may examine the child on any matter dealt with in the video recording, whether adequately or not, if the judge believes that that is in the best interests of the child. As the hon. Lady has pointed out, it would enable the prosecution to refresh the child's memory, or give the child an opportunity to warm up before the cross-examination by the defence. It might make the whole process a less intimidating experience for the child witness, and we are all in favour of that.

  341
  The hon. Lady's amendment raises some rather difficult issues. The whole purpose of the provision in the 1988 Act is to prevent a child from having to go through the trauma of repeating the evidence already given in the video recorded interview. If the hon. Lady's amendment were accepted, there is a danger that some prosecuting counsel would use the opportunity to cover the same ground in a different way, in the hope that the child's testimony over the closed-circuit television link would persuade the jury in a way which the video recorded evidence in chief did not. It allows the prosecution a second bite at the cherry. Nothing in the hon. Lady's amendment would prevent the video recorded evidence in chief from becoming an alternative to an examination in chief rather than replacing it, as the 1991 Act envisaged.
  We also remain concerned about some practical matters. A capacity for the prosecution to warm up a witness at the beginning of cross-examination may not deal adequately with the problems faced by children who have to undergo very long cross-examination. A few simple, warming-up questions on Monday morning would not be much comfort to a child who is still being cross-examined on Friday afternoon. If the intention is to allow the prosecution to warm up the child on more than one occasion—I am sorry about that expression, but it seems to be the one in common parlance—perhaps at the beginning of a new day in court, or when the defence moves on to questions relating to a second count on the indictment, that would not only prolong the trial but could also prejudice the defendant who might reasonably feel that his counsel's examination was being unfairly hampered and interrupted. If it is simply a matter of putting the child at ease at the start of questioning and preventing bullying or unfair cross-examination, the judge is already well placed to look after the child's interests.
  In short, I am not persuaded that the benefits of the hon. Lady's amendment would outweigh the disadvantages that I have described. I should be happy to consider any proposals that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor, who has long since considered those matters, might have for overcoming those difficulties. In any event, further reforms of the law in this sector would be premature at this stage. I am sure that my hon. Friends would advise me that, much as we welcome the opinion of one learned judge, it would not be acceptable to change the law on the basis of one case or one letter from however respected a judge.
  The House and the hon. Lady will know that we have commissioned research by Professor Graham Davies of Leicester university into the effectiveness of the children's evidence provisions introduced by the 1991 Act. We expect his report at the end of the year. In the light of that, we will consider afresh what further changes may be needed. Therefore, although I have listened with great
  342
  interest and respect to the cases made, I must advise the House to reject amendment (a). However, we can agree with their Lordships on amendment No. 43.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Can such changes as my hon. Friend has in mind as being possible, if the evidence that he receives is of an appropriate kind, be made without legislation?
  Mr. Maclean: Primary legislation would most likely be required if we wished to amend the 1988 Act.
  Mrs. Golding: I am saddened by what the Minister has said. The Government seem to be more interested in locking up children than they are in finding a way to give justice to children.
  Mr. Maclean: That is unfair.
  Mrs. Golding: I feel strongly about it. The way in which children give evidence in court is the result of shoddy compromise. We have gone from one Criminal Justice Bill to another, patching up, adding bits here and amending there, instead of devoting one large section of the Bill to enabling children to give evidence easily in our Courts. I am saddened that the Minister has not taken the opportunity tonight to help children to give evidence by reducing the strains and stresses that they feel.
  It is not true that only one judge has said that that needs to be done. Mr. Justice Holland said that he would not subject small children to a confrontation and cross-examination as their first encounter in court. Many judges hold that view, and it is time that the House listened to the people who must deal with such children and know of the stress that they suffer. I am sorry that the Minister could not go further tonight.
  Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 58

    POWERS TO REMOVE PERSONS ATTENDING OR PREPARING FOR A RAVE
    Lords amendment: No. 47, in page 44, line 13, after ("apply") insert ("—
    (a) in England and Wales,")
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 48, 51, 56 to 63 and 173.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Existing powers in Scotland were previously deemed to be adequate to deal with any problems likely to be encountered in controlling unlicensed raves. We were mindful of the fact that in extreme cases the police already have powers to seize music-making equipment and that those powers may serve as a deterrent to persons who might otherwise be inclined to hold illegal raves. Furthermore, there was a limited measure of control in respect of raves that enabled local authorities to require a licence for the use of premises as a place of public entertainment. In another place, we

    343
    undertook to review whether those powers were sufficient, in a preventive capacity, to stop growth in illegal raves in Scotland of the type experienced in England.
    The outcome pointed to the possibility that persons who arrange such events may turn their unwelcome attention to the north if prevented from mounting raves south of the border, thereby causing misery to local residents. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland concurs with that view.
    7.45 pm
    Amendment No. 173 will have the effect of extending to Scotland prevention powers in relation to raves and the power to retain and to charge for seized vehicles and property, including musical equipment under clause 59. Although the existing rave scene in Scotland can adequately be contained, it may not be able to deal effectively with any increases in such events if organisers decided to exploit the potentially lucrative market in Scotland. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who tabled relevant amendments in Committee. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) also raised the issue.
    Incidentally, in case any hon. Member does not know, a rave—for the purposes of clause 58—is a large gathering in the open air at which incredibly loud music is played during the night, likely to cause serious distress to local people. We are not in favour of unlicensed uncontrolled raving. In contrast, a licensed rave is a form of entertainment including dance and music that is approved by local authority licensing procedures and which, by definition, is unlikely to cause serious distress to local people.
    Mr. Beith: The Minister may be encouraged to know that plans were made to hold a rave of the first kind in my constituency, within one mile of the Scottish border. That was desisted from after strong local opposition. I am relieved to inform the Minister that the organisers did not proceed to stage the event immediately north of the border, as they might have done.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman's point reinforces our argument that pre-emptive measures are necessary. I commend the amendment to the House.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 70

    INTERIM POSSESSION ORDERS; FALSE OR MISLEADING STATEMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 70, in page 56, line 19, at end insert—
    ("() A person commits an offence if, for the purpose of resisting the making of an interim possession order, he—
    344

    (a) makes a statement which he knows to be false or misleading in a material particular; or

    (b) recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular.")

    Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments No. 71, Lords amendment No. 72, amendments (a) and (b) thereto and Lords amendment No. 73.
    Mr. Michael: As I understand it, the effect of this group of amendments will be that a person will commit an offence if he or she makes a false statement to resist the making of an interim possession order. In a sense, it is the mirror image of the offence of obtaining an interim possession order using a false statement.
    Our concern is that we are confronted by two sets of legislation—civil law and criminal law—relating to the same situation. In tabling this amendment, the Opposition seek clarification of the position and difficulties in which a person could find himself.
    When the issue was debated in the other place, the Lord Chancellor was still in the process of finalising the details for making interim possession orders through civil law. There was to be an opportunity for legitimate occupiers, in limited circumstances, to make representations against the making of an order. The Lord Chancellor's decisions appear in a document issued by his Department in late July. In fact, it is a consultation paper on the proposed rules and forms of new procedures to combat squatting in housing, shops and other buildings.
    That document states that the Government concluded that the determination of rights of occupation should continue in the civil courts but with an accelerated procedure and criminal sanctions available for non-compliance with an interim possession order. We have in view the situation in which an order is sought by an occupier to recover property. Obviously the most acute situation arises where the property is a house or a flat, but it relates also to other types of property. The former case concerns us most.
    The new procedure will enable a person, referred to as "the applicant", who is entitled to immediate possession of a building, or part of a building, to apply to a county court for an interim possession order, provided that notice of an intention to commence proceedings has been given to the alleged squatter, known as "the occupier". The applicant will be required to attend before the judge, who will decide whether to make an order.
    The important point is that the occupier will not be given notice of the hearing; nor will he or she have a right to attend. Therefore, a decision may be made in the civil proceedings without the occupier necessarily being aware of those proceedings and without the occupier having a right to be present. The court is expected, in the guidance given by the Lord Chancellor, to receive undertakings to protect the occupier in the event that the order is set aside.
    My experience with housing—particularly inner-city housing that is in multiple occupation and where there is a great movement of people in and out of bedsits—is that, frequently, there are circumstances in which landlords go to the edge of the law and beyond in seeking to influence what takes place. I have seen people moved out of properties in which they should have been able to protect

    345
    themselves and remain. Protecting the rights of people is an area of considerable difficulty. Although there is a requirement on the court in terms of the evidence that must be produced and the satisfaction that the court must seek, we are dealing with an area in which, often, vulnerable people are in considerable difficulty, sometimes having to accept a flat or bedsit in unacceptable circumstances which are outside the requirements of the law. That makes them even more vulnerable. That is a grey area that concerns me, and is one which may cause people considerable difficulty.
    If the order is made, it will require all occupiers to leave the premises within 24 hours of service of the order. Failure to obey the order will constitute a criminal offence. That is the point where we move from what is a civil process. Failure to obey an order made under that process becomes a criminal act. In circumstances in which somebody is occupying a property to which they have no right, or in circumstances in which they really should get out, I can understand why the Government seek to give that criminal sanction.
    But where a house in multiple occupation is being dealt with by the landlord at the edges of the law, or perhaps in contravention of the law, we must ensure that there is some way of protecting the vulnerable individuals, as they are often young people. Sometimes they are young people who have come out of care. Sometimes they are young couples with a baby who have had to find accommodation at short notice. On some occasions, perhaps—as a lawyer friend suggested to me yesterday when we were examining these circumstances—members of a family may have fallen out. In such circumstances, the situation is far from clear-cut. It is certainly not as clear-cut as the circumstances that I understand the Minister seeks to target.
    In the situations set down by the Lord Chancellor, an occupier who believes that he or she has a right of occupation may apply to have the order set aside. What is that person's situation? My understanding is that he or she will have committed a criminal offence if, in the meantime, he or she enters or seeks to continue to occupy the property. In other words, even though an order may be set out at a later stage, because of the existence of that order, that person will have committed a criminal act by continuing to assert his or her rights of occupation. That is a reasonably clear situation, which arises out of the overlap of civil and criminal law.
    It is certainly the case that the individual would be uncertain of his or her situation. If the person believes that he or she has a right of occupation and at a later stage goes to have the order set aside and is unsuccessful, that person will have committed a criminal act, albeit with the belief that he or she was not committing a criminal act during the life of the order, because it is sustained. It is arguable that that person may have been committing a criminal act, even if the order is set aside, but obviously it is less likely that that will be pursued or stand on the record. It is possible that it could stand on a record somewhere, because I have yet to find the process set out anywhere by which the individual is found guilty or where that person can clear himself or herself of the offence. The problem is that the offence seems to be automatic.
    My understanding is that, with a criminal offence, there must be a process of deciding, hearing and making a finding of guilt, but that does not appear to be the case in the overlap of criminal and civil law. It seems to be that
    346
    the making of the order and the contravention of the civil order is automatically a criminal offence, even when dealing with an individual who has a right to continue in occupation. The problem is that, if a person has that right, it is not necessarily sustained by the court, because the court will not come to a decision on every occasion. There might be marginal decisions, especially in the circumstances to which I referred, where a tenancy or family arrangement is not in the definitions that are sanctioned and clear in law.
    I come back to the point that there is a danger in such a state of affairs. The Opposition amendments offer protection and, unless they there accepted, there will be a danger that somebody could find himself or herself guilty of a criminal offence as a result of a civil procedure of which he or she is not aware and despite being in the honest belief that he or she is not committing any offence and has the right to occupy the property. If the person enters the premises, which he or she is entitled to occupy, that person is, presumably, committing an offence. How does a person become guilty of the offence in the circumstances envisaged under the Bill? What proof is required? What is the capacity for proving the innocence Of somebody who asserts that he or she is not committing an offence in those circumstances? Might not we risk making an innocent person guilty of a technical offence and therefore giving them a criminal record, when, in fact, we are simply dealing with a vulnerable person whom the law should protect?
    I hope that the Minister will accept that, in the circumstances that I have envisaged, there are dangers that vulnerable people—the very people who would be least likely to know their rights—could be in difficulty. It is for that reason that I have tabled my amendments. Amendment (a) seeks to insert words that would make it clear that the onus of proof shall lie on the person who obtained the interim possession order. That, with the protection that is in the legislation against people making a false declaration, seems to me to help to some extent.
    Amendment (b) would insert another exemption. Somebody would not be committing an offence in the circumstances described if that person were able to produce evidence to a court that satisfied that court of the entitlement of the person to occupy the premises other than as a trespasser. That is something which the individual could seek to do immediately, without delay, even if he or she was unaware. That person would not have to wait until the date of making the return to the order to produce evidence and would therefore not put him or herself at risk of committing a criminal offence during the period to the return date.
    I hope that the Minister will see that I am not trying to interfere with the general intention of the clause or, indeed, to interfere with the general intention of their lordships in their amendment. I am simply trying to bring in further protection, which could apply only in the sort of circumstances that I have outlined and could not therefore obstruct the use of the Act in the way intended by the Government. I hope very much that the Minister will feel able to accept both amendments, but particularly amendment (b).
    Mr. Maclean: I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and I think I understand his worry. I accept that he is not trying to wreck the proposals—these are

    347
    certainly not wrecking amendments—but I think that he has misdirected himself slightly; or, to be really fair as I always am, perhaps the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) misdirected him slightly. I hope that I can show that the amendments are unnecessary.
    8 pm
    Amendment (a) would place the onus on the property owner to prove that someone found on premises subject to an interim possession order was a trespasser. It is not right, however, for a fundamental element of the establishment of a criminal offence—proving that the defendant was a trespasser—to be removed from the burden on the prosecutor and placed in the hands of the person who obtained the interim possession order. That person must satisfy a civil court that he is entitled to obtain the order; once he has obtained it, if someone is found on the property or subsequently enters it, that may be a criminal offence. It is the duty of the prosecutor to satisfy a criminal court later, and satisfy the requirement of the normal criminal burden of proof, that that person was trespassing. We cannot lay the burden on a person who is not the Crown prosecutor.
    Mr. Bennett: The majority of my constituents do not want to risk committing an offence. They want certainty; they do not want the worry involved in letting someone else prove the case.
    In the area that I used to represent, people who had bought biggish houses on mortgages would put in four or five bedsits, often illegally. At some point, the mortgagee would foreclose and repossess the dwelling, leaving the occupants of the bedsits in a difficult position: having, in some cases, paid a month's rent in advance, they would suddenly be told that they were out on the street. In such circumstances, it would surely be unfair to tell the occupants that they were not entitled to return to their bedsits and take possession of their own property, but it seems that the Government's proposals would land them with the worry that by going back in they would commit a criminal offence.
    Mr. Maclean: That is a civil matter for the civil court to determine in the first instance, when an application is made for an interim possession order. The civil court must be satisfied at that point. I understand the purpose of the Opposition amendments, and I do not condemn them as wrecking amendments, because they clearly are not.
    Mr. Bennett: The people whom I described—the occupants of the bedsits—knew nothing about the proceedings of the giver of the mortgage and the owner of the property. They simply returned to find that the ownership of the property had changed, and they were locked out on the street. In such circumstances, people's natural reaction is to try to break down the door to get back into a bedsit that they believe they have a legal right to occupy.
    Mr. Maclean: It is proposed that the occupant will be informed of the intention to apply for an interim possession order by whoever is involved. The Lord Chancellor clearly wishes to cover that in his rules, so that the occupant is informed that someone—whether it is the person he believes to be the landlord, or the Timbuctoo property company—is trying to gain possession of the
    348
    property, so that he can make written representations to the court. That is a civil matter. The burden of proof, if and when an interim possession order has been granted, is another matter entirely. We cannot have "civilians"—that is, those who obtain interim possession orders—taking on the burden of proof in a criminal case; that is the Crown prosecutor's duty, and if he does not carry it out he will fail.
    Mr. Michael: The Minister's comments are quite helpful. They are beginning to clarify the procedure that will apply.
    In the civil procedure, the court would presumably require evidence that an order had been served; but it would presumably be up to the applicant to produce that evidence. I can envisage circumstances—as, clearly, can my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)—in which a court might be misled. The real problem arises, however, with the shift into the criminal part of the proceedings. How is the criminal case determined? How is it triggered by the sort of breach that would cause worry to constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, or to the people whom I cited in my earlier illustrations?
    Mr. Maclean: The Bill is clear in this respect. A criminal offence could be committed if a person granted an interim possession order found people on the premises in breach of that order—or, if the original people had left, a new bunch came in five minutes later. Those are the basic makings of the offence. The Crown Prosecution Service would have to decide whether, in its judgment, an offence had been committed, and advance its findings to the court; the court would then have to make the ultimate decision that the offence had been proved to its satisfaction, according to the full criminal law.
    As the provision stands, a prosecutor would have to prove in any criminal proceedings that the defendant was a trespasser; in the same way, he would have to prove all the other elements of the offence. Moreover, the prosecutor would have to prove that to the satisfaction of the court—that is, beyond all reasonable doubt. There is therefore no risk that a legitimate occupant would be wrongly convicted of the offence, which is the eventuality against which the Opposition wish to safeguard.
    Mr. Stephen: Is not the crux of the matter the fact that the criminal court would not be bound to assume from the mere fact of an order's existence that the occupier was a trespasser? It would be an absolute defence for the occupier—that is, the defendant in the criminal proceedings—to show that he was not in fact the trespasser.
    Mr. Maclean: That is the next point with which I shall deal.
    Mr. Michael: I understand the example given by the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen). The law may be clear, but the situation is not clear to a person who goes into a property believing that he has a right to do so. In the circumstances cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, when there are locks on the door, is that person entitled to enter a property to which he has an legitimate right, or is he putting himself at risk because it may be decided later that the civil court does not accept

    349
    that he has a legitimate right to enter the property, even to recover his possessions? In such circumstances, people will put themselves at risk of gaining a criminal record.
    Mr. Maclean: It is clear that, once an interim possession order has been granted, the possibility exists that a criminal offence will be committed by people who breach it if, later, a criminal court is convinced that an offence has been committed. If the criminal court subsequently discovers that the person concerned is not a trespasser but a legitimate tenant—or has a right to be on the premises for another reason—the prosecutor will have failed to prove his case, and the person will not be convicted.
    Mr. Michael: Let us suppose that a large company, with a bureaucratic organisation that may therefore be inaccurate, locks up a property that it believes itself to have legitimately repossessed. Those in occupation are unable to enter the premises without transgressing the order; they are therefore unable to do anything until the return date of the order, which they can then challenge.
    Amendment (b) would allow such people to appear before a court immediately and to say that they have evidence—a rent book, an agreement or a letter from the previous owner, for instance—enabling them to go back into occupation without committing a criminal act. They could not do that gratuitously or at will. Without such evidence, surely there is no opportunity for them to resume occupation.
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman's scenario ignores one point. Under the Lord Chancellor's rules, the occupiers would have to receive notification that a property company, for example, was applying for an interim possession order, and have a chance to make representations to the court. Before the court could grant the interim possession order preventing the occupiers from entering the property that they considered to be theirs, it would have to be satisfied that the person applying for the order had a legitimate right to do so. That is the first safeguard.
    The hon. Gentleman's amendment is not tacked on to the part of the Bill that the hon. Gentleman thinks it is. The effect of the amendment is that someone found on premises subject to an interim possession order would not be guilty of an offence if he could prove to the satisfaction of the court that he was lawfully entitled to occupy the premises. With respect, that is unnecessary since in its own definition the offence applies only to trespassers and cannot catch someone who legitimately enters the property. If a person proves to the court that he has a right to enter the property, he is not a trespasser and, therefore,
    350
    no offence is committed. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tried to put in place a safeguard, but the safeguard is already in the wording of the law.
    Mr. Michael rose—
    Mr. Maclean: We are making heavy weather of this.
    Mr. Michael: It is important to get this clear. Can the Minister tell me how, in advance of the return date of the order, that person would persuade anybody of his legitimate right of occupancy?
    Mr. Maclean: I apologise. Will the hon. Gentleman please repeat his question?
    Mr. Michael: Prior to the date of the return of the order, how would that individual persuade a court—it could be a magistrates court; it would not have to be a civil court that had made the order—that he has the right to occupy the premises and therefore avoid any accusation that he is committing a criminal act?
    Mr. Maclean: A trespasser would not be able to avoid that allegation. Many people cannot avoid allegations that they have committed crimes, but that does not make them criminals by any means, thank goodness. If the police decided that someone was on property in breach of an interim possession order, they would presumably want to apply the criminal offence. The prosecution would have to prove to the court that the person was there illegally as a trespasser. If, in the mean time, the civil court has decided that the person is not a trespasser—that is a telling point in a criminal prosecution—the prosecutor would not be able to succeed. The prosecutor would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt—the normal standard in a criminal court—that the person was a trespasser. If, in the hon. Gentleman's hypothetical scenario, the person is not a trespasser, he cannot be found guilty.
    I fail to see where the problem materialises. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raised these amendments because he was worried about the effects of the law in this area. However, the law is quite clear. The hon. Gentleman's amendments are unnecessary. I give the hon. Gentleman credit for trying to ensure that people are not wrongly convicted by trying to impose the new criminal burden of proof in a civil matter, but, as I have said, that is not appropriate. The hon. Gentleman's second amendment is not appropriate on the basis that a person cannot he convicted of a criminal offence unless he or she is a trespasser. One does not need to add that anyone who is not a trespasser cannot be convicted.
    Mr. Michael: I accept that the law may be clear, but the risk at which somebody can find himself put as a result of the decision of a civil proceeding at which he need not be present and at which he has no right of hearing is a risk which we should not take. We need only provide the ability for him to avoid that doubt by going before a court and saying, "There is no doubt and here is the evidence of my right to possess." Nobody without that evidence would be able to persuade a court, so there is no risk that it would weaken in any way the provisions of the Bill in regard to either the civil proceedings or the criminal element.
    Mr. David Ashby: I have been listening carefully to the arguments. Does not this

    351
    apply to every criminal act? The issue is whether the prosecution can prove the case or whether there is doubt. It happens in every criminal act.
    8.15 pm
    Mr. Michael: No, it does not. That is wrong. The possibility of having committed a criminal act arises only as a result of a civil order being made in which the person most directly affected is not concerned. The doubt is real and it should be capable of being cleared if evidence can be produced. We should not have to wait until the end of the civil proceedings in order to clarify a person's criminal standing.
    I appreciate that the Minister has tried to respond positively to the points I have raised and we have had a genuine debate. I shall not seek to press amendment (a) because the Minister's point about the responsibility for producing evidence is reasonable. However, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to press amendment (b) to a Division.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No 71 agreed to.

  Clause 71

    INTERIM POSSESSION ORDERS: FAILURE TO COMPLY AN OFFENCE
    Lords amendment: No. 72, in page 56, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
    ("(2) Subject to subsection (2A), a person who is present on the premises as a trespasser at any time during the currency of the order commits an offence.
    (2A) No offence under subsection (2) is committed by a person if—

    (a) he leaves the premises within 24 hours of the time of service of the order and does not return; or

    (b) a copy of the order was not fixed to the premises in accordance with rules of court.

    (2B) A person who was in occupation of the premises at the time of service of the order but leaves them commits an offence if he re-enters the premises as a trespasser or attempts to do so after the expiry of the order but within the period of one year beginning with the day on which it was served.")
    Amendment proposed to the Lords. amendment: (b), in line 9, at end insert—
    '(c) evidence is produced to a court which satisfies that court of the entitlement of the person to occupy the premises other than as a trespasser.'. —[Mr. Michael.]
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House proceeded to a Division—
    Dr. John Gilbert(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have to report to you, Sir, that access to the House is being impeded by certain members of the Metropolitan police. Cars are being allowed down Whitehall, the Embankment and Victoria street, but I was advised to walk through Birdcage walk to make the Division. I had to get out of my taxi and walk quickly. No doubt there may be other hon. Members who will not know of the police activity. I explained to the policeman that I was a Member of the House and that there was a Division pending.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have had a
    352
    report from the Serjeant at Arms that there are difficulties, and I have asked for a further report. We will make a judgment when we see what happens. I am relying on hon. Members' ingenuity at the moment.
    The House having divided: Ayes 250, Noes 290.

    Division No. 308]

    [8.17 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Denham, John

    Ainger, Nick

    Dewar, Donald

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Dixon, Don

    Allen, Graham

    Dobson, Frank

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Anderson, Ms Janet

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    (Ros'dale)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Eastham, Ken

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Enright, Derek

    Ashton, Joe

    Etherington, Bill

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Barron, Kevin

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Battle, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bell, Stuart

    Foulkes, George

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Fraser, John

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Fyfe, Maria

    Benton, Joe

    Galloway, George

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Gapes, Mike

    Betts, Clive

    Garrett, John

    Blair, Tony

    George, Bruce

    Blunkett, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Boyes, Roland

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Bradley, Keith

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Godsiff, Roger

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Graham, Thomas

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

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Burden, Richard

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Byers, Stephen

    Grocott, Bruce

    Caborn, Richard

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hall, Mike

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hanson, David

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Hardy, Peter

    Canavan, Dennis

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Cann, Jamie

    Henderson, Doug

    Chidgey, David

    Heppell, John

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Church, Judith

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Hodge, Margaret

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hoey, Kate

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Home Robertson, John

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Coffey, Ann

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hoyle, Doug

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Corston, Jean

    Hutton, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Illsley, Eric

    Cummings, John

    Ingram, Adam

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mofln)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Darling, Alistair

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Davidson, Ian

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    353

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Radice, Giles

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Randall, Stuart

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lewis, Terry

    Redmond, Martin

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Reid, Dr John

    Litherland, Robert

    Rendel, David

    Livingstone, Ken

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Loyden, Eddie

    Rogers, Allan

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Rooker, Jeff

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Rooney, Terry

    MacShane, Denis

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Madden, Max

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mahon, Alice

    Ruddock, Joan

    Marek, Dr John

    Salmond, Alex

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Martlew, Eric

    Short, Clare

    McAllion, John

    Simpson, Alan

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCartney, Ian

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    McFall, John

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

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McLeish, Henry

    Snape, Peter

    McNamara, Kevin

    Soley, Clive

    McWilliam, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Meacher, Michael

    Speller, John

    Meale, Alan

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Michael, Alun

    Stevenson, George

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Stott, Roger

    Milburn, Alan

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Miller, Andrew

    Straw, Jack

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Morley, Elliot

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Timms, Stephen

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Tipping, Paddy

    Mudie, George

    Turner, Dennis

    Mullin, Chris

    Tyler, Paul

    Murphy, Paul

    Vaz, Keith

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Walley, Joan

    O'Neill, Martin

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Wareing, Robert N

    Olner, William

    Watson, Mike

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Welsh, Andrew

    Parry, Robert

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Patchett, Terry

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Pendry, Tom

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Winnick, David

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wise, Audrey

    Pope, Greg

    Worthington, Tony

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Prescott, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Mr. Gordon McMaster and

    Purchase, Ken

    Mr. Jim Dowd

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Atkins, Robert

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Alexander, Richard

    Atkinson, Pete (Hexham)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Amess, David

    Baldry, Tony

    Ancram, Michael

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Bates, Michael

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Ashby, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Bendall, Vivian

    354

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Garnier, Edward

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gill, Christopher

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Booth, Hartley

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Boswell, Tim

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Bowis, John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Hague, William

    Brazier, Julian

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Bright, Graham

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hannam, Sir John

    Brown, M. (Brigg " Cl'thorpes)

    Hanson, David

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Harris, David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hawkins, Nick

    Burns, Simon

    Hawksley, Warren

    Burt, Alistair

    Hayes, Jerry

    Butcher, John

    Heald, Oliver

    Butler, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Butterfill, John

    Hendry, Charles

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Hicks, Robert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Horam, John

    Cash, William

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Chapman, Sydney

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

    Churchill, Mr

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clappison, James

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hunter, Andrew

    Congdon, David

    Jack, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Couchman, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Cran, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davies, Quentin (Starnford)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Key, Robert

    Devlin, Tim

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Dover, Den

    Knapman, Roger

    Duncan, Alan

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

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knox, Sir David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Elletson, Harold

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Evennett, David

    Lidington, David

    Faber, David

    Lightbown, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lord, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Luff, Peter

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacKey, Andrew

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Maclean, David

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Madel, Sir David

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Malone, Gerald

    French, Douglas

    Mans, Keith

    Gale, Roger

    Marland, Paul

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Marlow, Tony

    355

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Soamas, Nicholas

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    McCrea, Rev William

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spring, Richard

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Sproat, Iain

    Merchant, Piers

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Mills, Iain

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Steen, Anthony

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Stephen, Michael

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Stern, Michael

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Stewart, Allan

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Streeter, Gary

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Sumberg, David

    Moss, Malcolm

    Sweeney, Walter

    Nelson, Anthony

    Sykes, John

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Norris, Steve

    Thomason, Roy

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Thurnham, Peter

    Page, Richard

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

    Paice, James

    Tracey, Richard

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Tredinnick, David

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Trend, Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Trimble, David

    Pawsey, James

    Trotter, Naville

    Pickles, Eric

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Viggers, Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Walden, George

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Richards, Rod

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Riddick, Graham

    Waller, Gary

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Ward, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Waterson, Nigel

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Wells, Bowen

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Whitney, Ray

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Darne Angela

    Whittingdale, John

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Sackville, Tom

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Willetts, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shersby, Michael

    Yeo, Tim

    Sims, Roger

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Timothy Wood and

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Derek Conway

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

  Clause 75

    REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS RELATING TO GIPSY SITES
    Lords amendment: No. 79, in page 60, line 24, at end insert—
    ("() This section is subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) of section 152.")
    8.30 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 157, 160, 169, 315, 316 and 335 and the Government motions to disagree.
    Mr. Jones: Clause 75 would repeal the gipsy site provisions of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, including the duty placed on local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies in their areas. It would also repeal the Secretary of State's powers to designate local authority areas and to direct authorities to provide sites or additional sites. It would further repeal the Secretary of State's powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to pay grant to local authorities in England and Wales in respect of the capital cost of gipsy site provision.
    It was our original intention to bring these repeals into force immediately on Royal Assent. Amendment No. 79 and the amendments grouped with it would delay those repeals until after 1 July 1999. The sole exception would be the repeal of the designation provisions in the 1968 Act, which would come into force on Royal Assent. Even after 1 July 1999, the repeals could come into force only by means of commencement orders in relation to local authority areas. Each order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That process would obviously mean further delay in bringing the repeals into force in England and Wales, in some cases long beyond the initial five-year extension.
    The Government disagree with the amendments and I invite the House to reject them. One of the noble Lords who tabled the amendments in another place argued that the proposed delay would give local authorities an opportunity to reduce substantially the shortfall in the provision of accommodation for gipsies. We do not believe that a five-year reprieve would have such an effect.
    In the past 13 years, the number of gipsy caravans stationed on unauthorised sites has remained broadly the same year after year— an average of 4,000 caravans each year since 1981— even though 100 per cent. grant for the capital costs of site provision has been available since 1978 and £87 million has been expended on site provision. The shortfall in provision has been largely due to natural growth in the gipsy population. Plainly, site provision is barely keeping pace with the growth in demand and is not reducing the shortfall.
    There is simply no basis on which to believe that a five-year extension would lead to sites being provided for all gipsy families who have no lawful place to camp. What would a five-year delay achieve? It would not make it any easier for local authorities to find suitable sites; nor would it check the natural growth in the gipsy population. The evidence of the past 24 years suggests that in five years' time we shall be no further on in reducing unauthorised camping.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend mentioned the natural growth in the gipsy population. First, will he reassure me that there is no possibility or danger of what we understand here as new age travellers— whom most people would not regard as

    357
    gipsies— benefiting from the planning arrangements that the Government's proposals envisage? Secondly, will he address the concerns, of which I think he is aware, that have been expressed by the National Farmers Union, which fears that the removal of the Lords amendments might result in a worsening rather than an easing of the present problem for farmers and others arising from unauthorised encampments?
    Mr. Jones: On my hon. Friend's first point, I do not believe that there is a major danger, as there has been a court finding on the definition of gipsies as opposed to new age travellers. We are pretty confident on that count. On his second point, we shall have to see how local authorities behave, but the proposed powers are stronger and cover a far wider part of the country, which should be enough to reassure the NFU.
    We have serious principled objections to the amendments. My Department has carried out a detailed review of gipsy site policy. The consultation paper that my Department issued in August 1992 elicited almost 1,000 responses from a wide range of interests, including local authorities and organisations representing gipsies and landowners. We considered carefully all the responses before making our legislative proposals. That process has taken more than two years to reach this stage. It is now proposed that there should be a further delay of at least five years in bringing these long-awaited reforms into force and we believe that that procrastination cannot be justified.
    We recognise that council site provision has contributed to alleviating the difficulties experienced by the gipsy community. Indeed, the predicament of gipsies in England and Wales is now far different from in 1968. At that time, probably fewer than 10 per cent. of gipsy caravans in England and Wales were stationed on authorised sites, whereas the figure is now about 46 per cent. A further 24 per cent. are on authorised private sites, and many more are stationed on tolerated sites where they are allowed to stay with reasonable security from eviction. Some of our critics have claimed that our reforms would place gipsies in the same predicament that they faced in 1968, but that is manifestly not the case.
    We believe that public provision of sites has now reached an acceptable level. Public accommodation has been provided for 46 per cent. of the total number of gipsy caravans in England and Wales. We do not believe that it is in the public interest to continue to maintain what has become an open-ended commitment to provide sites for all gipsies seeking accommodation at the public's expense. It is our view that the right approach now is to encourage more gipsies to establish their own sites through the planning system. We know that many gipsy families would prefer to establish their own sites rather than reside on council sites. The National Gypsy Council has for a long time supported the case for private provision. Private site provision has increased by more than 135 per cent. since 1981. Our intention is to encourage that trend.
    I am familiar with the argument that the planning rules are stacked against gipsies and that consequently many of them are wont to purchase and occupy land without first getting planning permission. That practice invariably adds to their problems. In January, my Department issued a circular entitled "Gypsy Sites and Planning" which
    358
    provides a framework that we believe will give gipsies the confidence to use the usual planning procedures to establish their own sites.
    The new guidance advises planning authorities to set out clear policies in their development plans to meet gipsies' accommodation needs, to consult gipsies and their representatives when preparing their plans, and to advise and offer practical help to gipsies with the planning procedures. We are determined to ensure that the planning system operates fairly and that planning applications for the development of gipsy sites are treated on the same basis as other applications.
    The Government are committed to reducing the level of unauthorised camping. Unauthorised camping by gipsies and other travellers causes serious nuisance and offence to landowners and local communities. All hon. Members know that the dimensions of that problem, and public awareness of it, have increased in recent years. Public expectations are high. In some areas of England and Wales, hardly a week passes without a new incident of unauthorised camping making the headlines in the local press. The reaction of local people is always the same: "Surely something should be done about it" and "Surely the police or the local authority must deal with this nuisance". There is always bewilderment and frustration that the powers currently available to local authorities are circumscribed and rarely allow authorities to take effective action. Our proposals will enable them to control unauthorised camping in their areas.
    We have presented a comprehensive package of proposals which we believe will reduce unauthorised camping and give gipsies reasonable opportunities to find suitable accommodation. Our proposals would replace a system of site provision that has been in operation for 24 years and has manifestly failed to achieve those objectives. The lengthy period of procrastination proposed in the amendments would serve no useful purpose and would be greeted with dismay in many quarters. I strongly urge the House to reject the amendments.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: I congratulate the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He and I served for a number of years on the Select Committee on the Environment, and it was a pleasure to hear him answering questions earlier today and now to hear him open this debate. However, the fact that we are discussing gipsies during a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill highlights one of our main objections to the proposals. We believe that the proper way to deal with the issue would be in a Department of the Environment Bill rather than its being included in this Bill, which covers so many different subjects. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that we do not agree with him and I can say at the outset that we intend to divide the House.
    We believe that the Lords amendment is a modest proposal and should remain in the Bill. We said on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and, indeed, when the right hon. Member for Woking (Sir C. Onslow) introduced a private Member's Bill on a similar subject, that the Government's proposals to repeal part of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 do not solve any problems but create more. Delaying the implementation of the relevant part of the Bill would give the Government, local authorities and everyone else involved at least five more years in which to consider the sensible way to proceed.

    359
    8.45 pm
    What would be achieved by passing the Bill in its original form without the Lords amendment? To do so would criminalise some gipsies and increase homelessness; it would cause family breakdown and place added pressures on social and education services. It would certainly not solve any problems. Indeed, it is our view that it would create more problems and improve nothing.
    As the Minister knows, about 38 per cent. of English local authorities are designated. The Bill would give similar powers to all local authorities, whether or not they were designated. At the moment, designation provides local authorities with powers to act rapidly through the magistrates courts to remove unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants from highways or unoccupied land or from occupied land with the landowner's consent.
    I wish to make it clear again that we are not condoning the trouble caused by people on a minority of unauthorised sites. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties have had to deal with such problems. However, the majority of the gipsy population do not create such problems, but we are once again being asked to legislate against all gipsies and people who live a similar life style in order to deal with the problems created by a minority. That is wrong.
    The Minister mentioned the provision of private sites. We have no objection to that or to the provision of smaller sites, whether publicly or privately funded. We must approach the matter positively. If the House were to accept the Lords amendment, we should be able to examine the question at greater length.
    The Minister knows that the view that I am expressing is not held exclusively by the Labour party but has the support of all three local authority associations—the Association of District Councils, the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities. It also has the support of the National Farmers Union, an organisation which does not usually side with the Labour party, and that of Save the Children Fund, which believes that the Government's proposals are wrong.
    We accept that local opinion is often very much opposed to applications for gipsy sites and that it can be extremely difficult to secure the establishment of such sites. However, we must recognise that that is so whether sites are publicly or privately funded. A new way forward must be found.
    The Minister's predecessor always said that he accepted in good faith that it was not the intention to force gipsies on to sites in totally unsuitable and undesirable areas, next to rubbish tips, and so on. Some people think that we should look for that type of solution. Even though we disagree on his principal proposals, I hope that that is not what the Minister would advocate.
    In the consultations, the Government suggested that they would like to encourage more of the people involved to move into permanent housing. Given the Government's record in providing affordable housing for rent over the past few years, it seems crazy to add to the problem by adding another category of people who do not want housing, and telling them that going into such accommodation is the only way forward for them. That is nonsense.
    360
    Save the Children, which has taken a close interest in the subject throughout the consultations with the Government and at every stage of the Bill's progress through the House, has sent a letter to all Members of Parliament, which says:
    "As providers of services to children in Gipsy and Traveller families, our concern is for their welfare. Availability of sufficient and suitable caravan site accommodation is the best way to safeguard the health of children, their access to schooling, and their emotional development."
    Those are important facts which we must recognise, and I believe that the Government's proposals would move us in the wrong direction.
    The letter continues:
    "The shortage of legal stopping places means that some families have no option but to stop on unauthorised sites. We consider the duty on local authorities to provide sites should be retained and that this will help minimise the incidence of unauthorised stopping."
    The problem today—if we accept that there is a problem—is caused not by over-provision of sites, but by the fact that to date 62 per cent. of councils have failed to provide sites within their areas. I am sure that the Minister will point out that many of those councils are Labour-controlled, and I accept that; I am not making a political point. I simply say that the local authorities concerned must consider the problem and see what they can do.
    We believe that the five-year delay that would result from leaving the Bill as it came from the House of Lords and agreeing to the Lords amendment would enable the Government to examine the developments that took place during that time. We should like the gipsies themselves to be involved in discussions at national and local level, and everybody could try to find a positive way forward.
    In the discussions that I have had, it has been clear that many people believe that the sites provided by many local authorities, designed for 30 or 40 caravan pitches, are too big. Authorities should consider smaller sites that would accommodate the extended family life style that many gipsies lead. Smaller sites would be more desirable for them, and would often cause less friction locally. I accept that such smaller sites could be privately or publicly funded.
    Clearly, we shall not achieve anything by supporting the Government in deleting Lords amendment No. 79 and the related Lords amendments. We must try to examine the situation positively, and recognise gipsies' needs for access to education for their children—I referred to that a few moments ago—and access to health service provision, whether through a general practitioner or through community health services. Ante-natal care and safe childbirth are also important. All those issues must be considered, and so must the environmental health implications.
    We have had many debates on such issues, and many stronger alternatives have been debated at earlier stages in the Bill. I realise that we cannot reopen all those debates tonight. However, the Opposition strongly believe that if the Government win the vote at the end of the debate they will create a problem and solve none. They should heed the voices of reason, and allow us a five-year breathing space, to allow all those involved to try to

    361
    achieve a positive and more acceptable solution that will not create the problems that the Government's rejection of the Lords amendment will cause.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: I have listened to the argument, which is highly sensitive. One wants to do the maximum that one can to assist the gipsies, but—the Minister has explained the point remarkably well—the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is out of date and has been proved to be so. We have had 26 years of experience of the Act, and during that time, if two of its main provisions—one of which was providing sufficient accommodation for gipsies and providing it in the most suitable places—were going to prove useful, they would have done so by now.
    I shall cite one case from Bedford, involving the Cutthroat lane site. It was put in the wrong place, too near residents and next door to Sainsbury, and is causing the utmost commotion. One blames not the gipsies but the local authority for the decision. We are trying to change all the provisions. The Act has also failed to reduce the incidence of illegal camping; I shall say more about that in a moment.
    Surely their lordships have not made the right decision. If they considered the matter carefully against the background of the past 25 or 26 years, and decided that they wanted another five years, what did they want the additional time for? The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has said that he wants another five years, at the end of which we should be able to review the position—but we should be no better off at the end of that period than we are now. The Minister's suggestion of new planning guidance, and the idea that the gipsies themselves should provide some of their own accommodation on their own sites under the planning system, appeal to me, and no doubt to many others in the House.
    I shall state why I think that people are supporting some of the planning applications. It is not merely the granting of the planning permission that is important; it is the securing of a 100 per cent. grant for the local authorities. The local authorities know that for as many sites as they build, 100 per cent. grant will be granted. The result is that the authorities want money for those sites. But, having got the sites, they prove to be a liability, not merely to the local communities, but to the local gipsies themselves. There are two such sites in Bedford already, one of which has caused the utmost turmoil to the local residents. That was broken up over the years. The other site is a little outside Bedford where the gipsies destroyed their own accommodation, which has to be rehabilitated with the aid of Government money at great expense. I wonder whether the Opposition have considered that.
    The other matter that I should like to stress is that in 1966 there were 3,500 illegally camped caravans in England. Today, after the provision of an extra 17,000 caravan pitches in the past 26 years, there are 7,000 illegal caravan encampments. If the local authorities have failed to provide enough caravan sites, are they likely to secure any great easement of the situation over the next five years, for which I understand their lordships are asking for modifications? No, I think that the Minister presented a good case. He put forward some of the arguments that I had in mind and I thank him for doing that. I hope that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will accept the view that there is no reason why the Lords amendments should be accepted.
    9 pm
    Mr. David Rendel: My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are very sad about the Government's moves tonight. They appear to be trying to take the heart out of the excellent legislation which was first proposed, I understand, in the House by my noble Friend Lord Avebury. There has been some grudging acceptance on the Government Benches that that legislation has done much good.
    There is a clear case to be made for the huge increase in authorised sites over the past few years having come about largely as a result of that legislation. The problem that the Government seem to be hitting is that that legislation has not increased the number of sites any faster than the increase in the gipsy population. That is not necessarily a reason for removing legislation altogether, which may make the situation even worse, because it looks likely that the increase in the number of sites in future will not even keep up with the gipsy population if the Government are determined to take that route.
    The Government may be saying—some Opposition Members suspect that they are—that they simply do not want to see as many sites produced in future as would be produced if the legislation were left in place. If so, I regard that as very sad. But there are many reasons for supposing that we need a real increase in sites, and I hope that the Government will, as they claim to be doing, try to ensure that that increase occurs. It is, of course, also possible that the Government, while wishing to see an increase in sites, simply wish to decrease the average amount of money spent to set up each of those sites.
    However, if we assume for a moment that the Government want to see an increase in sites, I think they are right, for the following reasons. First, there is all the human cost incurred in leaving a large number of the gipsy population on unauthorised sites. There is a human cost incurred by moving on the gipsies from site to site every few days—sometimes, perhaps, every few weeks, but often every few days.
    There is a human cost in the stress on family life and the likelihood that families will break up as a result. There is a human cost among the children of those families—not only because the families themselves are stressed, but because of the difficulties children have in getting a reasonable education. At a time when, surely, we are all saying that the people of our country, our most valuable resource, need all the education and training that they can get to take up the jobs of the future, we should be saying that gipsy families should have the right, and the opportunity as well, to obtain a good education for themselves.
    There is also the human cost in terms of the inaccessibility of health care to those who are constantly being moved from place to place. That is perhaps especially true of those mothers who are having children. We must recognise that human cost.
    Even if the Government are not prepared to recognise the human cost, surely they should recognise the financial cost involved. I am referring to the farming community, which has already been mentioned. It is clear, as we were told earlier by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), that the National Farmers Union is no friend of the Labour party.

    363
    I must tell the Government that although, when I first fought the Newbury seat, I was fairly certain that 90 per cent. of the farmers were voting against me—possibly more than that—by the time that I last fought the seat, I was pretty sure that 90 per cent. of the farmers were in favour of me. The reason is not least because the Government have shown themselves to be extremely farmer-unfriendly, and they are still showing themselves as such in their moves tonight.
    We must also consider the cost to society as a whole. Can we really believe that it is right that the upbringing of children should be disrupted? Can it really be right that children should grow up without a proper education? Is that really the way to bring our social costs down? Even the Government should recognise the financial costs involved.
    A possible reason for the Government introducing the measure is that they want the costs of each site reduced. If that is the case, will it actually happen? If there is a reduction in the increase in the number of authorised sites, the social and other costs to which I have just referred must greatly outweigh a reduction in the cost of the small number of extra sites set up by the gipsies.
    If we are prepared to provide decent homes, as far as we can, for those who are homeless and in priority need, and such a provision still exists under the Government's new homelessness legislation, is it right that we should refuse to pay anything towards the homing costs of gipsy families when they have young children to look after? That seems to be gross discrimination against the gipsy population, and we should not put up with that.
    If the Government assume that the number of sites will increase if there are to be only private sites in future, at least we should have an opportunity to put the policy into practice alongside the old legislation, so that we can see whether it really works.
    The Caravan Sites Act 1968 has been in place for some time. It has not worked, because some local authorities have been allowed to get away with it. They have been allowed to get away with not fulfilling their obligations under the legislation. The Government should be enforcing that legislation properly. They should tell local authorities that they must fulfil their obligations to the community at large.
    If the Government do not do that, the message sent to local authorities is that if they do not like legislation and do not want to fulfil their obligations, they can forget them for a while and let other authorities that are prepared to fulfil their obligations do that. The Government will not treat those local authorities fairly, because, in the end, they will tell them that, as they have not fulfilled their obligations for several years, they will drop those obligations entirely.
    That is not a fair way to treat local authorities that have fulfilled their obligations, or the authorities that believe that they have an obligation to their local gipsy families. That is not a fair way to proceed, and the Government should not remove the amendment tonight.
    Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)—[Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) leaves the Chamber, he might like to know that I intend to ask him a question in a moment.
    364
    I was one of the Conservative Members who, some years ago, pressed the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), very strongly when he was introducing proposals on squatting, to take similar measures against what I described as the menace of rural squatting—the subject of this debate. I was therefore extremely pleased by the Government's proposals in the Bill, which were foreshadowed, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, in the consultation paper.
    However, I was alarmed when the Lords passed this amendment. I was particularly alarmed because, at that precise time, the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cornwall county council was trying to force through a scheme to impose—there is no other word to describe it—sites for new age travellers on the six district councils in Cornwall. Naturally, that created uproar from one end of the county to another.
    The scheme was ill thought out. The council broke practically every rule in the planning book. There was no consultation. Someone in my constituency who happened to own a site did not even know of the proposal until he left a local post office and someone said to him, "I hear that they are going to put a site on your land."
    What a dreadful way to act! There was mayhem from one end of the county to another. Protest meetings were held. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), I played a leading role in opposing the plans, and I make no apology for that. I believed that they trampled on the rights of local people.
    Of course, taken in isolation, the point made by the hon. Member for Newbury has some force. Of course we all want a humane society; but just as gipsies and new age travellers have rights, so, too, do local people, and their rights were being trampled on by the plans drawn up by the Liberal Democrat-controlled Cornwall county council—
    Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
    Mr. Harris: Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, I want to ask him a question. He has never made this clear; nor did the Euro-MP who, in the election campaign, spoke about all sorts of domestic issues but not about European issues. Did the hon. Member for North Cornwall support the plan drawn up by Cornwall county council for the county in general and for his constituency in particular?
    Mr. Tyler: I am in favour of authorised sites, not unauthorised ones. It is extremely irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman, who fought an effective nimby campaign on this issue, to ignore the fact that there was wide consultation with all six district councils two years ago to establish the principle that in each district a site should be set up. I do not get involved in planning decisions. I was not involved in identifying which sites should be set up where—but it is a fact that each district agreed to establish a site.
    Secondly, in my village there is an authorised site on which for many years gipsies have played a responsible part in the local community. That was in line with what the county council sought to establish. The critical issue before the House this evening—I hope that, instead of merely attacking Liberal Democrats in Cornwall, the hon.

    365
    Gentleman will deal with this—is establishing how local communities may arrive at authorised sites to meet their obligations under current statute.
    Mr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman has not replied to my question: did he or did he not support Cornwall county council's plan for the county and for his constituency?
    Mr. Tyler: I neither supported nor opposed it, because I do not support or oppose any planning application. We have many responsibilities here as Members of Parliament, but we should not arrogate to ourselves the responsibilities of members of planning committees—that would be quite absurd.
    Mr. Harris: Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not get involved in the merits or demerits of planning applications; but in this case I thought that the county council's actions defied all planning common sense and paid no regard to the wishes or well-being of local people. I therefore had no hesitation about deploring the council's way of trying to deal with an admittedly very difficult problem.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Did I hear my hon. Friend say that the proposals in Cornwall were intended to include not just traditional gipsies but new age travellers? If so, that concerns us greatly. Secondly, will he bear in mind that this same issue has been rather more surreptitiously pursued by Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset county council?
    Mr. Harris: One of the problems that has bedevilled this whole subject is that of arriving at a reasonable definition of "gipsy". I do not accept that the huge increase in the scale of the problem has been caused by the sort of people whom I regard as genuine indigenous Romany people. Of course their population has not increased over the past 25 years by the numbers that have been given during the debate. We are talking about people who, for one reason or another—perhaps good reasons, perhaps bad reasons—have chosen to follow that way of life.
    To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson), perhaps one of the cardinal mistakes by Cornwall county council when, out of the blue, it announced their scheme for the designation of sites, was to describe them as sites for travellers. A High Court case went some way to clarifying the difference between gipsies and travellers. That case, which related to South Hams, made it quite clear that travellers were not covered by the provisions of the 1968 Act.
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I do not wish to intrude too much on a Cornish debate, but clearly there are implications for everyone else. Has the hon. Gentleman ever supported the provision of caravan sites anywhere in the county of Cornwall for any travellers, or is he opposed to them all? Those of us not living in Cornwall should understand any prejudice that he may have employed in his argument.
    Mr. Harris: I have always made it clear that I want the council to provides sites for indigenous local gipsies. Just as hon. Member for Cornwall, North said that there
    366
    is one in or near his constituency, there is one near my constituency, and I have no objection to it; it is perfectly reasonable.
    I parted company with the Liberal Democrat-controlled county council when it tried to use powers in the 1968 Act to provide sites for new age travellers. I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will agree that we do not have a responsibility to provide sites for people who choose on a whim to go anywhere in the country and then expect to be housed at the expense of the taxpayers or council tax payers. I do not buy that argument at all, and I hope that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North will agree.
    I should say something else about the county council. Nothing much was done for 26 years, but when the Bill came before the House and went to the other place, suddenly the Liberal Democrats on the county council acted. Their publicly stated reason for moving so quickly was to secure a 100 per cent. grant. That was the main motivation.
    Mr. Tyler: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a fair Member of the House. He has not responded yet, but I hope that he will now acknowledge that the consultation began on the appropriate sites per district two years ago—before the Bill came to the House and before the reduction of grant was mooted. While I am here, because I do not want to interrupt him again—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may not wish to interrupt again, but he is making an intervention, not a speech.
    Mr. Harris: There were proposals by the county council some time before the Bill appeared. I am not sure whether they preceded the consultation document; my recollection is that they did not, but it was about that time. Certainly they moved very quickly to the designation of the six sites, breaking virtually every rule in the planning book to secure the 100 per cent. grant.
    I was approached indirectly by Liberal Democrats who said, "For goodness' sake get the Government to call in the sites, because we do not want them." That was what happened.
    The Liberal Democrats on the county council faced uproar; they were clearly in an embarrassing position. They were given some succour by the passing of the Lords amendments, and they tried to make out that the Bill would be delayed and therefore their money would be secure. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister of State made it perfectly clear that was not the case, and that, in all probability, they would not get the money they wanted.
    I am sorry that I have gone on so long, but to sum up, I believe that it is absolutely essential that the Lords amendments are rejected by the House tonight. I hope they will be, I know they will be and I hope that even the Liberal Democrats will vote with the Government, despite the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury.
    Sir Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that access to the House has already been mentioned twice tonight, as a result of what is happening outside the House. I know that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is quite comfortably in his place in the House when perhaps he should be outside, speaking to his friends.

    367
    Tonight, the House is under siege. There are 2,000 police who could be protecting all their communities in London, but who instead are hemmed in by a bunch of thugs who are intent on causing disruption to the proceedings of the House. All I wish to do is draw attention to that fact, and to say that the time has come when that must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Those people should be removed from outside Parliament as soon as possible.
    Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman means, "Further to that point of order."
    Mr. Greenway: I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the House to delay proceedings on the Bill any longer, except to say that, having twice, in the 1960s, been a police officer on the receiving end of some of the violence being meted out to Metropolitan police officers tonight, I think that the House should record its gratitude to those 2,000 officers outside, who are ensuring that that mob is not allowed into the Palace of Westminster.
    Mr. Stephen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unless these are new points of order, I intend to rule on the two that have—[Interruption.] Order. I shall rule on the two that have been raised. Hon. Members will know that, since I have been in the Chair, a matter was raised on a point of order in the Division. I said that I left it to the ingenuity of hon. Members to get here, and the numbers of hon. Members getting here were almost identical to those in the previous Division, which reinforces one's views that hon. Members show considerable ingenuity to get here.
    At this point of time, the House has proceeded normally, and it is my intention that the House shall proceed normally. If hon. Members wish to table early-day motions, that is entirely their privilege.
    Mr. George Stevenson: I should like to get away from the undoubted party politics in Cornwall to the issue before us this evening.
    The fundamental question is whether the Government proposals will lead to an improvement in what is, by common consent, a matter that causes serious worry—the provision of reasonable accommodation for the needs of the gipsy population in this country. Will the Government proposals do that?
    I believe, having listened to the Minister and to the debates this evening and at other times, that the Government have manifestly failed to make convincing arguments that would lead us to conclude that their proposals overall will improve the position. I intend to make three or four arguments to illustrate that.
    The first argument is that, once more, the Government are trotting out their dogma—a dogma that insists that the public sector has failed and that therefore the private sector must be the way of the future.
    368
    It is interesting that, not only did the Minister contradict himself, but the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) emphasised that contradiction. As I understood the Minister, he was saying that local authority provision has worked because 46 per cent. of the gipsy population is covered by local authority sites and therefore there is no need for the continuation of the duty laid on local authorities under the Caravan Sites Act 1968. However, in the next breath, to try to justify what was a very thin argument, the Minister said that local authority provision had failed.
    I say to the Minister that one cannot have it both ways. Local authority provision has either worked or it has failed. The House deserves an answer to that contradiction this evening.
    My own view is that local authority provision has worked. It has not worked as well as it should, but it has worked. Having been a member of Labour-controlled Stoke-on-Trent city council, which was one of the first authorities in the country to provide a caravan site, I speak from some experience. The Government talk about 100 per cent. grants, but, as I understand it, they are capital grants. They make no reference to revenue, but during the Past 15 years under the Government local authorities have experienced savage cuts.
    Therefore, it is not good enough for the Government to stand up and say that, despite the 100 per cent. grants, the provision has failed when it manifestly has not—according to the Government—without referring to the revenue consequences that fall on local authorities that have suffered severe cuts.
    Secondly, the Government propose that gipsies should go on housing waiting lists. I do not know what the housing waiting list is like in other areas, but, as a direct result of Government policy, the waiting list in Stoke-on-Trent contains thousands and thousands more people than it did before the Government came to power. We have people sleeping on the streets as a result of the Government's policy.
    Therefore, to suggest that gipsies need no longer worry about the removal of the duty on local authorities to provide authorised sites because they can go on the housing waiting list and be okay is pure balderdash. It is not only pure balderdash; it is an affront to gipsies. Their very tradition means that they do not want to go into houses. They want to live their traditional life. That proposal is not only impractical and does not stand up to examination, but it is an affront to the gipsy population.
    My last point concerns the five-year provision in the Lords amendment. I do not know why the Government are so worried about that. I suppose that they think that it is an attempt by the other place, including many Conservative peers, to wreck the proposal. The Government, in their desire to push the measure through, must see it in that way. But that is a negative way of looking at it. There is a chance here to see whether the Government's proposals will work.
    All of us understand how difficult it is to establish an authorised gipsy site in a particular area. The public react, sometimes quite strongly, to proposals for an authorised gipsy site. That is understandable. It is not always coherent or correct, but it is understandable. There are different arguments in different parts of the country. But where is the Government's evidence that things will be easier if the gipsies themselves establish the site rather

    369
    than its being done through a local authority? The Government have not put forward any arguments to justify that proposal.
    I hope that we can look at the matter positively. Let us see whether the Government's proposals work. Let us see whether private applications come through. Let us see whether there is a positive effect in terms of gipsies wanting to go on housing waiting lists. The five-year proposal is an opportunity to do that. Therefore, I hope that the Lords amendment will be accepted.
    Mr. Peter Luff: I shall not weary the House with a long recitation of the principles that underlie the Government's proposals, except to say that I profoundly disagree with the views expressed by Opposition Members, as do the vast majority of my constituents. Nevertheless, I want to explain why I believe that delaying the repeal of certain powers in the Caravan Sites Act 1968 may, ironically, be an attractive proposition in my constituency.
    Following intensive lobbying by me and my predecessor, now Lord Walker of Worcester, I am glad to say that both councils operating in my constituency, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council, have achieved designation under the Caravan Sites Act by providing an adequate number of sites. Therefore, lf was disturbed to receive a letter from Wychavon district council stating:
    "Since the designation Order came into force, the Council has successfully used the new powers in a number of situations to move on unauthorised encampments. We are now very concerned that the proposed policy guidance relative to the new Act appears to make no allowance for the situation where an authority has already obtained designation … We find it very difficult to reconcile the tone of the proposed guidance with the tone of the legislation itself. On the one hand, authorities are being given new powers. On the other hand, they are being urged not to exercise them. If the new guidance is adopted as now proposed this Council will undoubtedly be in a weaker position in tackling unauthorised gypsy encampments after the new Act than before. We feel certain that this was not the Government's intention when the new legislation was announced."
    I share the council's conviction that that was not the Government's intention.
    My hon. Friend the Minister will understand why I am reluctant to see my constituents placed in a weaker position by the Bill than under the successful and hard-won designation that they already enjoy. I hope that he can reassure me that my council's interpretation of the guidance is mistaken and that it will be in at least an equally strong position. Otherwise, the prospect of five years of current effective protection looks quite attractive.
    9.30 pm
    Ms Joan Walley: Will the proposals that the Minister has presented make it possible for someone to take responsibility for finding somewhere for travellers and gipsies in my constituency? We have a solution from the Home Office when the matter should be dealt with by the Department of the Environment. The Government's solution is no solution and will only make matters worse.
    Stoke-on-Trent has already seen 33 illegal encampments this year. Local people did not want to live side by side with as many as 33 illegal sites. The council moved illegal camps from pillar to post. Travellers and gipsies moved from a children's playground to a piece of
    370
    open space, with no provision for public health or waste disposal. That resulted in enormous problems for the local community.
    Stoke-on-Trent is already designated, but does not have sufficient sites for the number of people who consistently, over six years, wanted to stay in the area. It is in everybody's interest that someone should grasp the nettle, take responsibility and ensure that where a known number of travellers or gipsies are in an area, a proper camp where they can pay their way is provided. That could be done under the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
    If the Government's solution would make matters better, I would welcome it, but I see nothing in their proposals that would achieve that. Stoke-on-Trent has already seen 33 illegal encampments this year. The Government's proposals would double that number next year.
    Mr. Corbyn: The Minister's arguments were utterly illogical. Anyone outside the House listening would consider them complete nonsense. He spoke of a natural increase in the gipsy population and in the same breath said that he would deal with the problem—as he referred Da it—by removing the requirement on local authorities to provide sites, saying that it should all be done by their private enterprise. Conservative Members also demonstrated with great clarity that they do not want caravan sites anywhere near their communities. What the Minister is doing in his silver-tongued way is presenting the worst face of intolerance of the Tory party; saying that we do not want these sites anywhere, that we do not want a travelling community, that we do not want or believe in a society that encompasses different ways of life from the ones that they understand.
    The Minister should recognise that those people, the families, children and so on, who are pushed from illegal site to illegal site and are due to become criminals as a result under this disgusting piece of legislation, suffer a great deal. Their children suffer illnesses. Their infant mortality rate is higher—a large number of their babies die. They suffer educationally. They suffer a great deal of shunning and prejudice in our society. If we believe in a reasoned society, in respecting other ways of life, we should do something about it other than removing the Caravan Sites Act 1968. The man who introduced that Act, Norman Dodds, a former Member of the House, fought all his life for the rights of travelling communities. He was a very brave person. He stood up against a great deal of prejudice himself and got that piece of legislation through.
    Conservative Members decry the Act as a complete failure. I am not so sure that it is. It meant that many people had somewhere safe to live and ended the horrible practice of people being driven off land and from one place to another. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) shared an experience with me. Both of us are former councillors. Both of us have been involved in the provision of sites. I was chair of the planning committee in the borough of Haringey and was asked to sign—(Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen.
    I was asked, as chair of the planning committee, to sign a number of eviction orders for unauthorised campers on council land. I discovered that not only did the council not provide any authorised caravan sites, but that it had no plans to do so. I also detected that there was very

    371
    little wish to do so among certain officers of the authority, although that was not universal. It became clear to me that we had a moral obligation to fulfil sections of the Act. We were also facing, in the longer term, a legal obligation to do so under the 1984 High Court judgment, which came up some time later. Haringey provided sites—not while I was a member of the council, but shortly afterwards. Just to show its faith, it provided one of them in the car park alongside the civic centre, so nobody could say that councillors were running away from that issue.
    The provision meant that there was a reduction in, if not an end to, unauthorised camping in the borough. It also meant that there was a sense of sanity. There were some possibilities of education and a higher standard of public health care for the people who were living on those sites. If we believe in living in a reasoned and decent society, we should accept the need for the provision of such sites. The Minister is sending out a very loud signal—no-go for travellers; no-go for Romanies; no-go for gipsies in our society: criminalise those who try to live that kind of life style.
    The Minister should also be aware that the European Court has looked rather askance at the treatment of Lapps in other parts of Europe. Indeed, the blind prejudice that exists against travelling communities is a shame and should be treated as such. I believe that the provision of sites has been an important step forward. We should retain the Act. We should retain the 100 per cent. capital provision. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, who said that there are revenue implications that have not been met by the Department of the Environment, and that they should be. It is difficult for hon. Members to get up and say, "I support travellers", because people always come up with all sorts of reasons why they should not. I merely ask hon. Members to consider the implications of doing otherwise. Do we really want to move into the kind of society that sets the mob against those who choose to live a different life style? Do we really want to unleash the horrors of prejudice against those people? I believe that the signal from the Bill is an attempt to criminalise the people who lead that life style. There is enormous opposition to many sections of the Bill throughout society, because people recognise that the Bill is based on prejudice. This clause is the ultimate clause based on prejudice.
    Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Corbyn: No, because there is very little time.
    I very much hope that, limited though the Lords amendments are in this respect, we could at least understand the motive behind them and perhaps agree with them as a way of preserving the continued provision by local authorities of sites for travellers, which would at least send a signal through our society that there is real tolerance of those who wish to lead different life styles, rather than the kind of intolerance that has been demonstrated, mainly by Conservative Members, in the debate.
    Dr. Tony Wright: I agree with the Government that something had to be done about the kind of problem that has affected my constituents in the past two years, which is caused not by people whom
    372
    I would term gipsies or travellers—new age or old age—but by people whom I would frankly call scavengers. They live in large caravans; they have large cars and large and expensive dogs. What they have done to the community of south Staffordshire has to be seen to be believed. I have seen it, and I believe it.
    My constituents ask what they can do to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen. People have even occupied the bowling green surrounding the social welfare club belonging to a pit that the Government have just closed: having ruined the green, they burnt down the social club. Such serious problems need a serious solution, but I worry about the extent of the powers taken in this part of the Bill. I worry about their blanket nature, and about the absence of tests of nuisance.
    I accept that there is a problem, which the Government had to tackle. As their lordships have said, however, the Government should think further. They have tackled half the problem —they have made it easier for local authorities to take the necessary action—but they have done nothing to provide sites for the people who are causing the problem.
    Let me issue a warning. We have had a system of permissive designation: that is the root of the problem—not designation itself, but the limited, partial, fragmented take-up. It has been possible to say that the problem lies with local authorities that have not made provision for the people whom we are discussing, but from now on it will not be possible for the Government or anyone else to say that. The Government have now removed the obligation to provide sites of any kind, and have simply said that they will trust to the market and the planning system. We know that that has not worked in the past, and will not work in this instance.
    The House of Lords has said, sensibly in my view, "We know that there is a problem, and we have taken action, quite properly, to make removal of unauthorised campers easier." That is good, but the House of Lords has done nothing to deal with the problem of unauthorised camping itself. The Government should take five years to think about the problem. They should approach it sensibly, or removal will be followed by endless shunting around my constituency and others like it. No longer will it be the fault of local authorities, if it is now; it will be the Government's fault.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: This has been an interesting debate, in which a variety of views have been expressed on a rather contentious subject. Some of those views have been contradictory, but important contributions have been made. It was a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) speak on behalf of the Opposition: as he said, we served together on the Select Committee for some years. I remind him that we spent a fair amount of time considering precisely this subject; indeed, I spent so much time on the subject of gipsies that, when we presented our report to the House, my then hon. Friend Sir Hugh Rossi asked me to lead for the Committee. I am therefore not unfamiliar with the subject, and with the problems that have arisen over many years.
    The 1968 Act has failed. It has not been a complete failure, but it has failed to solve the problem of unauthorised caravans owned by Romanies. The Select Committee expressed that view strongly. Therefore, for me to come to the House and argue this point is entirely consistent with those anxieties.

    373
    9.45 pm
    Having identified the problems that have arisen with the 1968 Act, it is absurd for the hon. Member for Burnley to argue for further delay. Further delay would simply add to the problem and we would be five years further down the line. Whether "five more years" is a slogan from the hon. Member for Burnley or from one of his hon. Friends, it does nothing to address the circularity of the argument. Local authorities have failed. We cannot simply turn round and say that they are likely to succeed if they have another five years. There is a structural fault in the legislation and in the approach of local authorities in general.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley on some of his specific points. I agree that smaller sites would be sensible because that would cause fewer problems internally among the Romanies as well as with the local community. I agree that we do not want to see sites in locations that would be bad for either the Romanies or the local community. I think that we sometimes forget that about 50 or 60 per cent of Romanies already live in houses. I repeat for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman and others that the Government have no intention of forcing into houses those who have opted for this life style. That is not realistic or desirable.
    What underlies the Government's attitude is fundamentally our traditional approach of diversity and choice. We have diversity because we have some sites in the public sector and some in the private sector. Some 46 per cent. are on public sector sites and 24 per cent. on private sector sites and we wish to encourage the numbers on private sector sites through the planning system. That approach is endorsed by the National Gypsy Council, which has an interest in this.
    The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that the Government do not want to see more sites. That is contrary to our view. We want to see more sites because we want to tackle the problem and not simply see the continuing backlog mount up. When Liberal Democrats are in opposition in local authorities they may well subscribe to the general principle that there should be more sites. However, as soon as it comes down to individual sites, they are on the other side campaigning against them. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) illustrated that extremely well.
    The hon. Member for Newbury referred also to the problem of a lack of proper education for the children of such families. The point of trying to set up more permanent sites in the right locations is to increase the numbers receiving regular schooling. There is no difference of opinion between us on that. The sites are plainly not being delivered on a large enough scale under the present arrangements, and satisfactory provision is more likely in the future.
    One or two Opposition Members said that because local authorities have not managed to come up with the right numbers, the Government should do something about it. The Government have used their best endeavours, but we have been advised that where local authorities are acting in good faith, even if they do not come up with the goods, we would not succeed in a mandamus order.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) that the debate is about how best to provide the sites. I was not saying that the legislation under which we are currently operating has failed
    374
    completely. It has achieved something, but it is not a long-term solution and that is perfectly obvious from the continuing number of unauthorised caravans. The hon. Gentleman may recall that when Cripps proposed 100 per cent. grants, he thought that that was needed to kick-start the provision of sites by local authorities. It does not seem to have achieved what he envisaged and we are now many years on.
    The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to his local authority and to what it had done to provide a site, a point that thought was undermined by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who went on to say that 33—I think that that was the number that she gave—caravans were occupying illegal pitches. As I understand it, Stoke-on-Trent city council has provided only one site in 24 years. In January 1994, 59 caravans occupied unauthorised sites in Stoke. If the Act has worked as well as the hon. Gentleman suggests, why has Stoke-on-Trent city council, which he praises, not been able to find a solution to the problems of that region?
    Mr. Rendel: The Minister has not yet told us why, if the Act is not working fully, he does not understand the need to strengthen it rather than to remove it.
    Mr. Jones: I thought that I had dealt with that point when I spoke about mandamus. The Select Committee made the point on a number of occasions that the Government should be more robust with local authorities that had not come up with the goods. The difficulty is that one can try to induce and to persuade in all sorts of ways, but if local authorities use their best endeavours, honestly go about their work, but still fail, the Government cannot do a lot about it. That is why we are approaching the matter in a different way.
    I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) this weekend, so I can understand the view of Wychavon council, an extremely well-run local authority. He raised the point about the inconsistency, as he saw it, between giving local authorities wider powers and, at the same time, urging Wychavon council not to use them. That is a misunderstanding. We are guiding local authorities to use those powers reasonably and not unreasonably. A local authority such as Wychavon, which has done a great deal to ensure that there are authorised sites, stands a much greater chance of enforcing the new legislation than local authorities that have neglected to provide such sites. However, as my hon. Friend is an eloquent advocate of his constituency's interests, I will consider the guidance to see whether anything further needs to be done to deal with the good authorities that have designation.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister is dealing with an extremely important point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff). Those authorities that have designation believe that they will lose out as a result of what is being agreed today. They have provided authorised sites and they have designation. All that that entails will go if the Bill is passed in its current form.
    Mr. Jones: No one can predict exactly what will happen in the courts, but those authorities will have a much surer defence in the courts than any authority that

    375
    has done nothing about providing sites. The existence of wider powers seems to be good, not only for those authorities that are not designated, but for those that are.
    Ms Walley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Jones: If the hon. Lady does not mind, I shall not give way because I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who expressed some pride that he had dealt with this issue when a councillor in the London borough of Haringey, whereas others had ducked it.
    We all admire people who stand up for their beliefs in what can be a difficult situation. The hon. Member for Burnley will remember that one of the subjects that came up again and again in the Select Committee—hardly surprising given its chairmanship—was the failure of Haringey to get authorised sites off the ground. The hon. Member for Islington, North says that Haringey achieved that shortly after he left the council. I believe that he left the council in 1983 when he joined the House in the same year as me, but the grant was approved for Haringey sites six months ago. That seems to be rather a long time.
    He made a valid general point about not wanting to play to prejudice. That is not what the Government are about, although I have noticed that that is what many local activists are about, particularly those in the Liberal party. We want not to incite prejudice but to achieve something that has eluded successive Governments for a long time—to get more caravans on to authorised public or private sector sites.
    That is what the Bill will achieve and I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 262.

    Division No. 309]

    [9.54 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Booth, Hartley

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Boswell, Tim

    Alexander, Richard

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Amess, David

    Bowis, John

    Ancram, Michael

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Arbuthnot, James

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Brazier, Julian

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Ashby, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Atkins, Robert

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Burns, Simon

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Burt, Alistair

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Butcher, John

    Baldry, Tony

    Butler, Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Butterfill, John

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carrington, Matthew

    Beggs, Roy

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cash, William

    Bendell, Vivian

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Chapman, Sydney

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Churchill, Mr

    Body, Sir Richard

    Clappison, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    376

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Horam, John

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coe, Sebastian

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Colvin, Michael

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

    Congdon, David

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Conway, Derek

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Couchman, James

    Jack, Michael

    Cran, James

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

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

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Davies, Quentin (Starnford)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Day, Stephen

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Devlin, Tim

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Dicks, Terry

    Key, Robert

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Dover, Den

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Duncan, Alan

    Knapman, Roger

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

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

    Dunn, Bob

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knox, Sir David

    Eggar, Tim

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Elletson, Harold

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Legg, Barry

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Evennett, David

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Faber, David

    Lidington, David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lightbown, David

    Forman, Nigel

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Lord, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    Luff, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Maclean, David

    French, Douglas

    Madel, Sir David

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Maginnis, Ken

    Gale, Roger

    Malone, Gerald

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Mans, Keith

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Marland, Paul

    Garnier, Edward

    Marlow, Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mates, Michael

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    McCrea, Rev William

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Merchant, Piers

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hague, William

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hannam, Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Harris, David

    Nelson, Anthony

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hawksley, Warren

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hayes, Jerry

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Heald, Oliver

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Norris, Steve

    Hendry, Charles

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hicks, Robert

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Page, Richard

    377

    Paice, James

    Sumberg, David

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Sweeney, Walter

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Sykes, John

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Pawsey, James

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Pickles, Eric

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Thomason, Roy

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Richards, Rod

    Thurnham, Peter

    Riddick, Graham

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

    Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

    Tracey, Richard

    Robathan, Andrew

    Tredinnick, David

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Trotter, Neville

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Viggers, Peter

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Sackville, Tom

    Walden, George

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Waller, Gary

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Ward, John

    Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Shersby, Michael

    Watts, John

    Sims, Roger

    Wells, Bowen

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Whitney, Ray

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Wilkinson, John

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Willetts, David

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Wilshire, David

    Spring, Richard

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sproat, Iain

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wood, Timothy

    Steen, Anthony

    Yeo, Tim

    Stephen, Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Stern, Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stewart, Allan

    Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

    Streeter, Gary

    Mr. Michael Bates

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Betts, Clive

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Blair, Tony

    Ainger, Nick

    Blunkett, David

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Boateng, Paul

    Allen, Graham

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Alton, David

    Boyes, Roland

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bradley, Keith

    Anderson, Ms Janet

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    (Ros'dale)

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Armstrong, Hilary

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

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Ashton, Joe

    Burden, Richard

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Byers, Stephen

    Barnes, Harry

    Caborn, Richard

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Battle, John

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Campbell-Savours, D.N.

    Beith, Rt Hon A.J.

    Canavan, Dennis

    Bell, Stuart

    Cann, Jamie

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Chidgey, David

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Benton, Joe

    Church, Judith

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clapham, Michael

    Berry, Roger

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    378

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clelland, David

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Coffey, Ann

    Hutton, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Illsley, Eric

    Connarty, Michael

    Ingram, Adam

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Corston, Jean

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jowell, Tessa

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Keen, Alan

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Darling, Alistair

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Davidson, Ian

    Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Lewis, Terry

    Denham, John

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Dewar, Donald

    Litherland, Robert

    Dixon, Don

    Livingstone, Ken

    Dobson, Frank

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Loyden, Eddie

    Dowd, Jim

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Macdonald, Calum

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Eastham, Ken

    Maclennan, Robert

    Enright, Derek

    MacShane, Denis

    Etherington, Bill

    Madden, Max

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Maddock, Diana

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Mahon, Alice

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Marek, Dr John

    Fisher, Mark

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Flynn, Paul

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Martlew, Eric

    Foulkes, George

    McAllion, John

    Fraser, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fyfe, Maria

    McCartney, Ian

    Galbraith, Sam

    McFall, John

    Galloway, George

    McKelvey, William

    Gapes, Mike

    McLeish, Henry

    George, Bruce

    McMaster, Gordon

    Gerrard, Neil

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    McWilliam, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Meacher, Michael

    Godsiff, Roger

    Meale, Alan

    Graham, Thomas

    Michael, Alun

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Milburn, Alan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Miller, Andrew

    Gunnell, John

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hain, Peter

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hall, Mike

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hanson, David

    Morley, Elliot

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Harvey, Nick

    Mudie, George

    Henderson, Doug

    Mullin, Chris

    Heppell, John

    Murphy, Paul

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Hinchliffe, David

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hodge, Margaret

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hoey, Kate

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Olner, William

    Home Robertson, John

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hood, Jimmy

    Parry, Robert

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Patchett, Terry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Pendry, Tom

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Hoyle, Doug

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Pope, Greg

    379

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sri David

    Prescott, John

    Stevenson, George

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Stott, Roger

    Purchase, Ken

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Straw, Jack

    Radice, Giles

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Randall, Stuart

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Redmond, Martin

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Reid, Dr John

    Timms, Stephen

    Rendel, David

    Tipping, Paddy

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Turner, Dennis

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Tyler, Paul

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Vaz, Keith

    Rogers, Allan

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wallace, James

    Rooney, Terry

    Walley, Joan

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wareing, Robert N

    Salmond, Alex

    Watson, Mike

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Welsh, Andrew

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Short, Clare

    Winnick, David

    Simpson, Alan

    Wise, Audrey

    Skinner, Dennis

    Worthington, Tony

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Wray, Jimmy

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

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Snape, Peter

    Mr. John Spellar and

    Soley, Clive

    Mr. John Cummings

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
    Question agreed to.

  New Clause

    VIDEO RECORDINGS: INCREASE IN PENALTIES
    Lords amendment: No. 80, after clause 82, to insert the following new clause—
    ("Video recordings
    .—(1) The following provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (which create offences for which section 15(1) and (3) prescribe maximum fines of, in the case of sections 9 and 10, £20,000 and, in the case of other offences, level 5) shall be amended as follows.
    (2) In section 9 (supplying videos of unclassified work), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

    (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both,

    (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both."

    (3) In section 10 (possessing videos of unclassified work for supply), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
    380

    (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both,

    (b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding £20,000 or both."

    (4) In section 11 (supplying videos in breach of classification), after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."
    (5) In section 12 (supplying videos in places other than licensed sex shops), after subsection (4), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or
    (3) above shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."
    (6) In section 14 (supplying videos with false indication as to classification), after subsection (4), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both."
    (7) The amendments made by this section shall not apply to offences committed before this section comes into force.")
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 81, Lords amendment No. 82, Government amendments (a) and (b) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 161, 177, 296 and 333.
    Mr. Baker: Amendment No. 80 is designed to increase the penalties for offences under the Video Recordings Act 1984. At the moment, the most serious offence—supplying unclassified videos or possessing unclassified videos for supply under sections 9 and 10 respectively—can be tried only in the magistrates court, where someone who is convicted may receive a maximum penalty of a £20,000 fine. There is no imprisonment for the offences.
    In the Government's view, those are serious offences and imprisonment should be available to the courts to deter those who would deliberately break the law. The amendment will therefore make those offences triable either way. That means that they will be able to be tried in the Crown court, where the maximum penalty will be two years in prison, or an unlimited fine, or both. If they are tried in the magistrates court, the amendment means that as well as the £20,000 fine, there will be the possibility of imprisonment for six months. The maximum penalties for most other offences under the Act are also increased.
    Amendment No. 81 will strengthen the Video Recordings Act 1984 by narrowing the categories of video works that are exempt from classification by the British Board of Film Classification. The amendment will therefore add techniques likely to be useful in the commission of criminal offences to the list of matters that cannot be depicted to any significant extent in an exempted work. That will mean that, in future, video works containing instructions on bomb making, on violent

    381
    unarmed combat or methods of breaking into cars or houses, which have caused concern, will no longer be exempt. They will require classification by the board.
    The amendment will also exclude from exempt status videos that do not illustrate criminal techniques, but which depict criminal activity that is likely to encourage the commission of criminal offences. The amendment will also change the current subjective test of whether a work is designed to stimulate or encourage certain activities that may not be shown to a new objective test of whether the video work was likely to do so.
    Amendment No. 82 for the first time lays down criteria that the designated video classification authority, the British Board of Film Classification, must consider in determining whether a particular video work is suitable for classification and, if so, which category it should be placed in. The criteria are whether any harm may be caused to potential viewers, or, through their behaviour, to society, by the manner in which the work deals with criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents, or human sexual activity. The criteria mean that the BBFC must consider who is, in fact, likely to see a particular video, regardless of the classification. So, if it knows that a particular video is likely to appeal to children and be seen by them regardless of its classification, it must take them into account as potential viewers. It is very important to bear it in mind that those statutory criteria are not intended to be exhaustive and the amendment states only that the board is to consider them
    "among the other relevant factors".
    The board will, of course, remain free to take account of other factors such as bad taste, bad language or offensiveness towards particular groups. The amendment will also make a minor change to section 7 of the Video Recordings Act 1984, which describes the broad categories of video classification certificates that the British Board of Film Classification may issue.
    10.15 pm
    Amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 82 flows originally from a commitment made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when the Bill was last before the House. There was then a great deal of concern about the availability of unsuitable videos. In the light of that concern, the Home Secretary undertook to introduce an amendment in another place, which would set out in statute for the first time some of the criteria that the board would be required to take into account when determining whether a video work should be granted a classification certificate and, if so, what that certificate should be. [Interruption.] That is heartening news. Lords amendment No. 82 is what emerged as a result of that undertaking. It specifies in law the main criteria that the board should take into account when classifying videos.
    Hon. Members will recall that there was also debate about whether it would be possible to provide for existing works to be reclassified in the light of the new statutory criteria. That point was also raised in the debate in the other place. The possibility of some limited review of classification decisions was also referred to by the Home Affairs Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), in its recent report on video violence in young offenders, which was published in June. I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the careful
    382
    consideration that the Home Affairs Select Committee gave in that study, and in its earlier report, to the challenges presented by rapidly developing technology.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made plain from the beginning his sympathy with the idea that it should be possible to review the classification of works that have already been granted a certificate. However, he has been very anxious to avoid creating a system of wholesale review, which, for all sorts of practical reasons, would be unworkable. It was the Government's concern about the workability of a system which led my right hon. and learned Friend to move very cautiously in that area.
    However, after consultation with the director of the board and the enforcement authorities, my right hon. and learned Friend now believes that it will be possible to meet the widely held concern that there should be some more limited system of review without at the same time creating unsurmountable problems. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend tabled amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 82, which will enable him to lay an order establishing a system for reviewing works that have been classified before the introduction of the statutory criteria. The amendment creates an order-making power because there are points of detail that will need to be resolved following discussions with those most closely concerned.
    Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Baker: If the hon. Lady will excuse me, I shall finish my comments and then allow her an opportunity to speak.
    Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why?
    Mr. Baker: Because time is short.
    We propose a power for the BBFC to review any work classified before the introduction of the new mandatory criteria and, in the light of those criteria and other relevant considerations, to alter the classification decision if appropriate. Just as when a work is originally submitted for classification, there will be a right of appeal against the board's decision to the Video Appeals Committee.
    I emphasise that nothing that is being proposed will create retrospective criminal liability. No one will be prosecuted for actions taken before the new provisions come into force and which were lawful at the time they were carried out. The proposals will mean only that if, for example, age classification of a work is changed, those who supply it unlawfully in future will be liable to criminal sanctions.
    Mr. Michael: The Lords amendment results from undertakings given in this House and meets the requirements that were sensibly set out in debates both here and outside.
    There would clearly be an anomaly if there were no way of reviewing classifications given before the measure came into effect. It is therefore helpful to provide a limited opportunity for such review. It would also be helpful if it were made clear that there will be consultation on the nature of the regulations under which the review will take place.
    Mr. David Alton: Like other hon. Members, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the news that he has given us. I thank the Home Secretary

    383
    for honouring the commitment that he gave the House when we discussed the matter earlier this year. The Lords amendment adequately reflects most of the concerns expressed then.
    The House will recall that there had been considerable debate inside and outside this place in the course of which many people raised their misgivings about the amount of violence on television and on videos and the effect that that could have on young, impressionable minds. It is not that every child who sees a violent video will go out and commit a violent offence, but all who have worked with children, especially maladjusted or disturbed children or those with special needs, know that they can often be tipped over the edge if they have a predisposition towards violence by being exposed to continuous and gratuitous violence on the screen.
    The House will also recall that, at Easter, Professor Elizabeth Newsome and other distinguished psychologists, psychiatrists and paediatricians honestly admitted that they had been naive and had underestimated the effect that videos might have on the minds of impressionable young people. We have all been on a learning curve, trying to examine the effects of the video culture and of television violence on the young people of our country.
    Ms Eagle: A study published earlier this year by the Policy Studies Institute and carried out by Hagell and Newburn, entitled "Young Offenders and the Media", found that young offenders rarely stay home enough to watch video violence and that their patterns of watching videos are much the same as those of children who do not offend. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that research is superior to the research that he mentioned because it involved a control group of youngsters who do not offend at the same age as those who do? Elizabeth Newsome's research did not have a control group and relied mainly on American research carried out in a very different context.
    Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady must admit that we should not want to follow the American example here—American violence is far worse than ours. Of course, we can all call in aid research that appears to support our arguments, but the fact is that 75 per cent. of the evidence heard by the House of Lords Select Committee suggested a direct correlation between the violence continually transmitted on television and videos and real violence in the community.
    It is a matter of common sense. Advertisers would not spend £1.6 billion a year trying to sell their goods and to cultivate the consumerism and materialism that have become part and parcel of life here if they did not think that it was having an effect on those who watch. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a direct link. Professor Newsome and other distinguished academics in many centres of learning have rightly come to the same conclusion.
    Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just a question of people being exposed to video violence and then going on to offend? It is also a question of the general coarsening and degrading effect that videos have on us all, young and old alike.
    Mr. Alton: I agree, but the hon. Gentleman will agree, in turn, that the people whom we most need to protect are
    384
    the young and impressionable. That was what brought about the debate earlier this year when hon. Members from all political parties signed the amendment asking for that change. I welcome the fact that the Government acted upon it in the other place.
    During the debates there, Lord Elton moved an amendment seeking that videos that are currently available, such as "Child's Play 3", should also be included in the general review, and that it ought to be possible to pull in videos that might have caused controversy to be examined as well as those that might come on to the market in future, such as a "Child's Play 4". That amendment was not accepted in the other place, but the Government agreed to look at the issue and I am pleased that in amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 82 they have introduced a provision to allow the British Board of Film Classification to look again at videos that might become matters of public controversy if people felt that they were having a profoundly disturbing effect on those who watched them.
    I welcome what the Government have done; it has been a satisfactory outcome. I have several questions to put to the Minister which I hope he will be able to answer before the debate concludes.
    The amendment contains a trigger mechanism for referring videos to the British Board of Film Classification. Whom does the Minister have in mind to do the referring? Will the BBFC accept referrals by Members of Parliament? Would the Home Office consider making referrals if it were to receive considerable numbers of representations from the public?
    No one has it in mind that all 24,000 or so videos that are currently in circulation should be re-examined. We are talking about a very small number of videos, but it would be useful if the Minister could say how he envisages the trigger mechanism working.
    How long will the review period be? Will it be open-ended or limited to an initial 12-month period? Can the Minister say what the timetable will be for the statutory instrument to be placed before Parliament to bring the scheme into effect? I hope that it will be as soon as possible, but it will be useful for the Minister to place it on record for the House tonight.
    What publicity will be given to the review arrangements, including the BBFC initial decision to review a work and the outcome of that review? If the legislation is to help change attitudes—presumably the Home Office accepts that this is partly about changing attitudes and helping parents to be more discerning about the material that goes into their homes—the publicity surrounding the review of a particular video would be helpful.
    In conclusion, I should like to thank the hon. Members who signed the original motion, particularly the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) and the Home Affairs Select Committee, which produced an extremely helpful report at a crucial moment in the progress of the Bill.
    The issue will not end here this evening; we shall want to keep it under review, not least because hon. Members will be aware that last weekend in Norway a little five-year-old girl was killed by her playmates, who were just a little older than she was. The Norwegian authorities have withdrawn the television programme that they believe helped influence those children who carried out

    385
    that killing. That same television programme is regularly broadcast in Britain. At least I hope that we shall try to discover what reasons led to the Norwegian authorities reaching that conclusion.
    I hope that we shall continue to keep under review not just video violence, but the general level of violence on television transmissions that contributes to the culture of violence in Britain.
    Mr. Michael Alison: First, I briefly congratulate my hon. Friend the new junior Minister at the Home Office on the very fluent, concise and grave way in which, in the best Home Office tradition, speaking as if he had been there for many a long year, he placed before us an extremely agreeable legislative dish for our late supper this evening.
    At the same time, I extend my warm appreciation and congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the important pioneering role that he has played in bringing these important amendments before the House. My right hon. and learned Friend combines, unusually, an extremely acute analytical mind and head with a very responsive and warm political heart. The interaction of that rare combination of desirable attributes often leads him to the conclusion that a balance of reasonable possibility, as distinct from an absolute and proven demonstrable actuality, is good enough cause for taking an initiative, and sometimes a risk, in legislation. That is precisely what he has done in his decision, which is so highly commendable, to bring the amendments before the House.
    The Home Affairs Committee, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) chaired so powerfully and admirably, reached some markedly tentative conclusions. It is very much to the credit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that, in the light of what the Home Affairs Committee said, he has given the benefit of the doubt to common sense and common concern. I believe that that is the result of the combination of his head and his heart. He has done extremely well by the House of Commons, and by the public at large, by the way in which he has advanced the cause of regulating and controlling that dreadful disease—that dreadful affliction—of unacceptable and damaging videos. We shall all stand in his debt for many long years ahead and I commend him and my hon. Friend the Minister for what they have done in the short debate this evening.
    10.30 pm
    Ms Eagle: I shall mainly refer to Lords amendment No. 82 and to Government amendment (b), which was tabled to add retrospection to the classification of videos.
    I do not oppose the clause, but I wish to express scepticism about its efficacy and to express some worries that I had while I was reading it. I also wish, if possible, to gain reassurance from the Minister about aspects that are slightly unclear, and about the degree of subjectivity, which I believe damages the clause.
    I recognise, as do many other people, the widespread support in the House for the toughening of the law on this issue. I prefer what is now before us to the amendment that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) tabled, which I thought was even more flawed; which threatened to censor seriously the 70 per cent. of households in this country that consist of adults only; and
    386
    with which the Home Secretary had his own difficulties, as he said when he spoke to the original clause at an earlier stage in the Bill's proceedings.
    Mr. Alton rose—
    Ms Eagle: I wish to mention some other matters, but not before I have given way to the hon. Member for Mossley Hill.
    Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her courtesy.
    The hon. Lady will recall that her right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who probably knows more about the film industry than anyone in the House, wrote a compelling article in The Daily Telegraph when my amendment was before the House, saying that he would vote for it without any hesitation. He refuted the argument that the hon. Lady has made this evening, which the industry put around at the time, that all types of videos would be caught by my amendment. The industry's only reason for making those arguments was money: people were frightened that they would lose money. The hon. Lady, of all people, surely would not be on the side of people who would be willing to exploit the innocent to make profits.
    Ms Eagle: Certainly not. I always read the articles that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) writes, as I respect him as a friend and an extremely good film critic.
    I am sceptical about some of the practical effects of the amendments, and I wish to mention some of them, and also some of the difficulties of interpreting the wording. I am worried about the difficult task that we are setting the British Board of Film Classification. I also believe that if it takes too draconian a role in the statutory powers that it will be given when the clause becomes law, we may find that we have gone too far the other way. There may also be some detrimental effects on the British film industry, which I shall discuss later.
    I want to ensure—and to receive some reassurance about it from the Minister if possible—that the provision that we are debating will not be applied in such a way as to narrow the availability to the general public of important films that are recognised as classics. Films that have such artistic merit should escape the rules that we are laying before Parliament now. I shall be much happier if I receive some of those reassurances tonight.
    We must bear in mind the origin of the clause. There was undoubtedly a moral panic, fuelled by lurid tabloid stories in the aftermath of the horrific and inexplicably brutal murder of James Bulger, and the comments of Mr. Justice Morland when he made explicit reference to the possible impact of violent videos in his comments on that case.
    In the light of that controversy, the Home Secretary rightly ordered that reports be made so that he could consider the evidence and what had happened in the trial. I understand that the reports that he received did not support the theory that that appalling and horrific crime had been influenced by exposure to videos. Mr. Justice Morland subsequently clarified his comments by saying that they were not based on any evidence that he had heard in the trial of the Bulger case and that no such evidence was presented at the trial. We should remember

    387
    that there was a controversy and that the arguments put were emotive and not proved by logic when one looked at the details.
    We should also remember that many of the tabloids that sensationalised the story are owned by companies that have interests in satellite television channels and other electronic media and entertainment provision which are unaffected by the video classification rules that we are debating. We should bear it in mind that it is possible to argue that the tabloids have a direct commercial interest in a tightening of the regulation of one of their competitors. Satellite television and other extra-terrestrial delivery of electronic entertainment are escaping regulation at the moment and certainly are not subject to the same stringent regulations that we are now suggesting for the video industry. We should bear that little vested interest in mind.
    I am sceptical about the effectiveness of the clause because it will be useful or relevant only if we assume that there is a firm causal link between viewing habits and behaviour. I know that many in the House believe that that is the case. I have considered the evidence, but so far I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence either way. At the moment, the evidence is inconclusive.
    I would support the commissioning of further research so that we can try to establish whether there is a link, but if links and causal links exist, they are complex and to simplify them to a firm link between something seen on a video and some behaviour that is then indulged in is not a proper basis on which to legislate. We should be trying to commission further work in that area.
    The concern about uncontrolled exposure of young children to violent imagery is entirely understandable. It is something about which I and the whole House are concerned. But we should not jump to easy conclusions or legislate in a knee-jerk manner and assume that we have solved a complex and difficult problem. Solutions in these difficult areas of social policy and the interaction between entertainment and people's behaviour are never as easy as a firm causal link.
    It is easy, especially at a time of disgust and incredulity in the aftermath of a nasty and inexplicably brutal crime, to look for an easy answer. But we owe it to our constituents and the future health of our society to remember that the answers are not simple and that we should be serious and down to earth about what some of the questions are.
    There is a long history of moral panics about the detrimental effects of the media and a long tradition of shifting blame for social breakdown on to the media. It is a pastime which has a long and venerable tradition, going back to the penny dreadfuls, the music hall and the time when films first became available. Then there was rock music. In the 1950s, Elvis Presley was meant to have caused much social breakdown with his new way of dancing. Then there came horror comics and television, and now it is video games. We need a reasonable assessment of the effects that the new technologies are having, not just a knee-jerk reaction.
    Blaming those media for all our social ills is a bit like blaming witchcraft for crop failures. It conveniently apportions blame and allows some action to be taken which may make us feel better, but in reality it is all but irrelevant to the real causes.
    388
    Amendment No. 82 states that the British Board of Film Classification must pay special regard
    "to any harm that may be caused to potential viewers".
    What is meant by the phrase "potential viewers"? Presumably, it could include all members of the sighted population who in any circumstance might see a video. How do the Government interpret that phrase? Amendment No. 82 also charges the board to consider young children as potential viewers even if the products available are so rated that young children would not under normal circumstances see them. If every person in the country is a potential viewer of everything, one wonders why we bother with a rating system. How does the board intend to observe that requirement?
    How will the BBFC decide
    "who is likely to view the video work in question if a classification … were issued"?
    The board will also have to consider, when considering a classification, the harm that might be done to society. What criteria will it apply? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me.
    How can we view in proper perspective legislation for potential harm to society perpetrated by the availability of videos when there is no statutory duty to consider the harm done to society by, for example, persistent mass unemployment? I am not sure that we have the right priorities.
    I am concerned by the five categories of subject matter in amendment No. 82—criminal behaviour, illegal drugs, violent behaviour or incidents, horrific behaviour or incidents and, last of all, human sexual activity. I do not want to embarrass the Minister, but why is human sexual activity included as one classification? I assume that rape would be covered by the classifications of criminal or violent acts. It seems odd that human sexual activity should be bunged together with awful behaviour.
    I welcome the fact that the BBFC is to retain discretion to interpret the new statutory rules and will bring its considerable influence to bear on such matters. However, I am concerned at the subjectivity inherent in the clause, which ranges too wide. It could be argued that "King Lear" would fail to receive a classification because it depicts criminal activity and violent or horrific behaviour and that Regan, Goneril and Edmund are partly motivated by human sexual activity. Why would not "King Lear" fall within the ambit of the proposed new clause?
    The Government boasted in their 1992 election manifesto that this country's video classification rules are already the toughest in western Europe. My concern is that the proposed new clauses might allow the BBFC to take an unreasonably tough line. Will there be a way of keeping the situation under review, to ensure that there is no over-reaction?
    The Government amendment would permit retrospective consideration of titles already released. In another place, Lord Ferrers said that the Home Secretary had considered the matter carefully and took the view that a system involving retrospection could not be made to work. My next question to the Minister echoes one put by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. How will such retrospective consideration be triggered? Who will decide which titles should be re-examined?
    I am happy that we are discussing these matters, as they are extremely important. It is also important that we do not over-react or oversimplify some of the complex

    389
    causes of difficulties and violence. If the Minister can give me some assurances on the points that I have raised, I should be happy to support the amendments.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I should like to support what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). The Government's amendment is very essential. I think that everybody in public life knows the power of an "eye gate" before an "ear gate", and videos have an effect on young people. It is the duty of this House and of the Ministers concerned, to see that proper safeguards are in place. I do not think that we need worry about what will happen in this case. The amendment deals with something that needs to be dealt with. I am sure that the two Ministers, when they come to the end of their careers—I am not suggesting that they are about to do so—will be happy that they did this, because it will have an effect on the future men and women of our country.
    10.45 pm
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Everything possible that could be said about the matter has been said, but not everybody has said it. So I am grateful for a moment of the House's time to say thank you on behalf of the Home Affairs Select Committee for the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has responded to our difficult recommendation that retrospection should be provided for in the Bill. That is the effect of Lords amendment No. 82, which gives effect to the Committee's sixth recommendation. In that regard, I give the thanks not only of the Committee and the House but I think of the whole country, and extend them to Mr. James Ferman and the BBFC, who told us, in the evidence that they gave, that this could be achieved without too much difficulty and trouble. The combination of what Mr. Ferman said and what the Committee recommended just tipped my right hon. and learned Friend over.
    Mr. Howard indicated assent.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I see that he is nodding in agreement. The amendment will receive widespread approval.
    We decided to have an investigation, which lasted only one day in June, at the height of public concern about the effects of video recordings on children. We said:
    "Commonsense, and the existence of bodies like the BBFC, support the notion that videos can corrupt and, rather than engage in endless arguments about the precise way in which the videos damage children, it is obviously more profitable to consider what can be done to limit any such damage."
    By the time that we had conducted our inquiry, the Government had already tabled their new clause to toughen up what the public considered to be the very weak state of our video classification laws.
    I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider further the other recommendations of the Committee. We suggested that a warning notice should be given to adult purchasers or hirers of high-classification videos at the point of sale. We suggested that more work should be done on parental responsibility for the use of such videos and how the classification, if tightened, could be brought home to parents so that they could use their powers to stop this evil affecting the minds of their young children. We cast, as we went, a little straw in the wind and suggested that it might be helpful to have identity cards,
    390
    because that would make it much easier for those who have the burden of selling videos in shops to identify precisely the ages of those to whom they were providing the equipment.
    I think that the Government have shown themselves to be not only a listening Government but a responsive Government and a constructive Government. On behalf of the Home Affairs Select Committee, I hope that they might go one stage further and give effect to all our recommendations.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: I do not wish to detain the House for too long. But you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be aware that this is the first and only opportunity that we have had in this House to debate the issue. Given the amount of heat that it has generated in the past few months, I think that it is right that it be properly aired. No one could argue with the aim of the proposed amendments. Film is an extremely powerful medium and, although there is not much research at the moment, common sense suggests that young people who watch scenes of explicit violence or sex are likely to be influenced by them. That is why it is Clearly right for us to have some means of preventing children from seeing films that deal with subjects that they are not yet sufficiently mature to understand. That is why the BBFC was set up by the film industry in 1912.
    Much criticism has been levelled at the BBFC in recent months, but I join my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) in paying tribute to its work and to its director, James Ferman. This country has a tougher regime of censorship of films and videos than any other country in Europe. I well remember attending a lecture by Michael Winner when I was a student, in which he complained bitterly about the cuts that he had been forced to implement in his latest film "Deathwish 2". Having visited the BBFC with one or two of my hon. Friends and seen examples of the scenes that it required to be cut, I can say that I believe that the BBFC was quite right to insist on their removal. It is interesting to note that in other countries they were shown.
    Under the Video Recordings Act 1984, the BBFC is required to issue a certificate to any video before it can be sold or offered for rental. As a result, many videos have already been banned. After the passing of the Act, not only were so-called video nasties such as "Driller Killer" and "I Spit On Your Grave" outlawed; the BBFC also refused to issue certificates for films such as "Straw Dogs" and "The Exorcist" because of the risk of their being seen by children. Even now, the BBFC is debating whether to authorise the video release of "Reservoir Dogs", a film which has been so successful that two years after its first release it is still showing in commercial cinemas. Incidentally, I hope that the BBFC will decide to grant "Reservoir Dogs" a certificate. It is undeniably a violent film, but it is also a very powerful film which deserves to be seen by adult audiences.
    I can understand the view of those who feel that more needs to be done, and the paper by Professor Newson is extremely worrying. I am therefore happy to support the provisions in the amendments that will increase the penalties for those breaking the Video Recordings Act, and tighten the exemptions from it. I am anxious, however, that the new criteria that the Bill sets out for the BBFC to use in judging the suitability of a video for

    391
    release, and the additional powers of retrospective review, should not lead to more than a tiny number of films being deemed unsuitable.
    The British Film Institute has already warned that it believes that the amendment could mean that many internationally acclaimed films that gain a cinema release with an "18" certificate will not be certifiable for video release. I do not believe that films such as "The Godfather", "Raging Bull" and "Schindler's List", which have "15" or "18" certificates, will be affected—that would clearly be ludicrous—but I also hope that other films made specifically for adult audiences are not caught by the provision. Horror films such as "The Silence of the Lambs", "Nightmare on Elm Street" and Clive Barker's "Hellraiser" clearly should not be seen by children, but they are good films, and it would be entirely wrong to deprive the 70 per cent. of households that do not contain children of the chance of seeing them on video.
    Finally, I want to say a brief word about "Child's Play 3"—a film which has received considerable media attention, most of it wholly uninformed. It was perhaps understandable that, in the wake of the murder of Jamie Bulger, attempts should be made to explain the horror of that tragedy. It is possible that exposure of the two boys responsible to violent videos played a part; but, as the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has pointed out, the police reports did not support the theory that the crime had been influenced by exposure either to that video or to videos in general.
    Unlike most people who have commented on the subject, I have seen "Child's Play 3". It was not a particularly enjoyable experience; it is not a very good film, but nor is it a particularly remarkable film. The scenes of violence in it are mild in comparison with those in hundreds of other films that are available today on the shelves in video shops. If the intention is to ban films such as that, it will also be necessary to ban hundreds of other films. I cannot believe that that is what the Government want.
    The need to control young people's access to violent films is undeniable and that is why I strongly support the Video Recordings Act 1984 and the work of the BBFC. Used judiciously, I believe that the extra powers in the Bill could help to increase still further the protection available to children. However, at the end of the day, the responsibility for controlling our children's viewing habits must lie with their parents. There is no substitute for that. Just like alcohol and cigarettes, some videos will not be suitable for children. The way to stop children seeing them is not to ban them but for parents to exercise proper control.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his fluency, particularly since he has recently given up vows that would have been more appropriate for a Trappist monk. Before the debate concludes, I invite him to address the issue of the effective ban that will be imposed by amendment No 81 on all videos that depict or encourage criminal activity. My hon. Friend's example of bomb making was a good one.
    Can my hon. Friend explain why the amendment was produced only in time for the Lords and was not the subject of a separate Bill? Does he agree that there have been numerous representations from the police and other
    392
    authorities about a ban on the distribution of such material? Is not it strange that this should be tabled in the House of Lords rather than in this House, which would have given us a decent opportunity to debate the issue? Are not we in danger of falling into the trap—the Broadcasting Act 1990 was a classic example—of technology superseding the legislation passed by the House?
    Instead of an amendment being tacked on to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, would not it have been more appropriate, particularly if there have been many representations from the police, for a separate Bill so as to provide the House with a proper opportunity to discuss the technology and the implications of a serious and important ban and an extension of criminal penalties into the video lending industry?
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am afraid that I shall not reply now to all the points that have been raised in this very good debate. I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). I must say to people who feel as she does that there is no doubt in my mind—this has been echoed in many of the speeches—that something needs to be done.
    The BBFC is based in the film industry. It has been classifying films for years. It has experience and it knows how to do it. We are talking about reclassification and I think that the hon. Lady failed to appreciate that in what she had to say. I shall write to her about the other points that she raised.
    I must tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), even if he is not prepared to attend to me now, that a great deal of consultation with the industry will take place before we can go ahead. If the hon. Gentleman has any points to add, they will be listened to.
    The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) made a number of detailed points and I will write to him as soon as I can. I welcome the support that has been given from both sides for what we propose.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to, some with special entry.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 124, after clause 133, to insert the following new clause—Amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in Scotland—
  ". In section 80(6) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (which defines "homosexual act" for the purposes of section 80), after "gross indecency" there is inserted "or shameless indecency"."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Maclean.]
  11 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 133 to 140, 164, 166, 174, 183 to 185, 273, 312, 324, 327, 334, 337 and 338.
  Mrs. Barbara Roche: I rise to raise a point of clarification. The amendment appears to go beyond what was agreed in this place. I should be grateful for clarification from the Minister. The decriminalisation that was going to take place appears to

  393
  have been muddled. Will the Minister give hon. Members an undertaking that the promises that were given by the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), to decriminalise these acts are still the position of the Government?
  Will the Minister clarify the position of the Merchant Navy, which is governed by civilian employment law, and confirm that there is no question of criminality being extended to it or to the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?
  Will the Minister confirm that these disciplinary offences will continue to be treated as such, that there is no suggestion of criminalisation and that the Government still favour decriminalisation?
  The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) for raising these matters and I am happy to give the assurances that she sought about the effect of the words that my right. hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) used in another debate.
  I am anxious to give her the assurances that she sought about the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the Merchant Navy and I should be happy to have a further, more detailed conversation with her. If she would care to call on us, we should be happy to arrange it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to refer you to a statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday at Question Time—
  Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): In answer to?
  Mr. Bell: In answer to a question put to him. He said:
  "I am as concerned as any Member in the House"
  about the highest standards in public life. He agreed that corruption was not something of which he would approve, in any circumstances. He further said:
  "Our public servants and public institutions are acknowledged to be among the best in the world. In order to maintain that reputation in administration and in politics, wrongdoing will have to be rooted out wherever it is, and I shall seek to ensure that it is."—[Official Report, 18 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 142.]
  A statement will appear in The Guardian tomorrow, which I should draw to your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It says:
  "A top Westminster lobbying company were paid"
  thousands of pounds
  "to give to two high flying Conservative MPs for asking Parliamentary Questions at £2,000 a time on behalf of Harrods during the height of the Lonrho and House of Fraser controversy."
  The two Ministers referred to in the article are the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), the Minister now responsible for trade and industry, and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is a junior Northern Ireland Minister. They were both named in the article
  "as recipients of payments passed to Ian Greer Associates, by Mohammed Al-Fayed, the owner of Harrods, on top of a £50,000 fee for a Parliamentary lobbying campaign."
  394
  Given the Prime Minister's statement that he would seek to ensure the highest standards of public probity, have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any sign that he will make a statement to the House tonight or tomorrow?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I am not certain whether the hon. Gentleman is alleging privilege, but, if he is, he knows the procedures of the House— he must write to Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Bell: I am asking whether you have received any indication that the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not received any sign from any hon. Member.
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If this is a new and different point of order, I shall take it, but it had better be different. Is it a different point?
  Mr. Garnier: Indeed so, Sir. Is it in order for a Member of the House to conspire with members of the press to introduce defamatory material under the cloak of privilege in order that tomorrow's newspaper may carry a report of that privileged occasion? Is it in order for Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to shoot the fox of the Liberal party, when the whole Liberal Front Bench, such as it is, has stayed up all night to make the same fatuous point?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had assumed that hon. Members had come to debate the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ensure that the matter of Ministers taking bribes at £2,000 a time is not shoved upstairs to some secret Committee but is dealt with by the House? The Government are riddled with corruption—they are past their sell-by date and it is time that they went to the people.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Any further points of order had better be new ones.
  Mr. Alex Carlile rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order? There seems to be some hesitation on the hon. and learned Gentleman's part.
  Mr. Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that earlier this evening I and some hon. Friends tabled a motion relating to the probity of hon. Members and of the Government in the conduct of public business. The motion asks for an inquiry—not involving hon. Members—to examine the matter. Is there any way in which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can assist us in achieving that end?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that I have spent most of this evening in the Chair. I have no idea what early-day motions have been tabled; nor do I wish to know their contents at this point.
  Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Conway.]
  To be further considered tomorrow.

  BROADCASTING
  Ordered,
  That Sir Nicholas Bonsor be discharged from the Select Committee on Broadcasting and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Conway.]

  PETITIONS

    The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
    11.11 pm
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: I present a petition on behalf of hundreds of my constituents who oppose many of the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I share that opposition. It reads as follows:
    To the House of Commons
    The Petition of residents of York and neighbouring Parliamentary constituencies declares that the Criminal Justice Bill threatens to infringe basic civil liberties, which ordinary democratic citizens have fought for throughout history, and that the bill will remove the right to legitimate peaceful protest. It will give the police service unrestrained powers of arrest, without the need for any offence to have actually taken place, and it will deny the citizens' right to silence.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do not allow the Criminal Justice Bill to be enacted.
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, et cetera.
    The petition is signed by my constituent, Mr. Dhara Thompson, and by 815 other residents of my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in North Yorkshire.
    To lie upon the Table.
    Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Now that the House is silent and now that the occupant of the Chair has acquiesced in the Government Whip's application that consideration of the Lords amendments be adjourned in the middle of a series of points of order involving grave allegations, can you advise me whether it is right that the occupant of the Chair should acquiesce—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not raising the point of order on which I have already ruled.
    Mr. Bermingham: No. I hope that you will accept that I say this with courtesy, but I am challenging the way in which business proceeded this evening. Some other hon. Members might have had something to say and perhaps sought to catch your eye, but the Government adjourned the proceedings, thus, in effect, ensuring that the purpose of raising the points of order was lost. Is it in accordance with the rules of the House that those of us who believe in the democratic process should have our remarks curtailed by a motion to adjourn the proceedings, leaving only the Adjournment debate, and thus denying us the opportunity to continue to debate the serious matters that were raised earlier?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the greatest respect, we have not had the Adjournment debate yet. We have debated the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, dealt
    396
    with motion No. 2 on the Order Paper and heard one of two petitions. We have not reached the Adjournment debate yet.
    Mr. Bermingham: I did not say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not the point that I am making.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman making his point now?
    Mr. Bermingham: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not mean to denigrate in any way the business yet to come, but I am saying that the serious business of the House has been adjourned, and that caused a stoppage of the points of order on matters raised by hon. Members earlier. When such a situation arises, is it right that Government Whips should seek to adjourn the House, and thus curtail debate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I can advise the hon. Gentleman is that, as of this moment, no Adjournment of the House has been sought. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been, but the only motion moved by the Government Whip was that we should adjourn further consideration of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, not that we should adjourn the House. Indeed, had the hon. Gentleman wished to raise a new point of order he could have caught my eye, but I never saw him move. I looked round the Chamber, nobody else moved, and I have now ruled.

    Tingewick Bypass
    11.15 pm
    Mr. George Walden: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the Tingewick action group. Its purpose is to press for the speedy building of a bypass for the village of Tingewick. To give some idea of the problem, I tell the House that the village lies on a major road, and that the width of the high street dwindles at one point to only 4.8 m. Therefore, my petitioners would like the bypass to be included in the Department of Transport transport policies and programme, and built. I therefore present the petition, which bears about 700 names from a village comprising a mere 359 dwellings.
    To lie upon the Table.

Raymond Gilmour
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
11.16 pm
Mr. Gordon McMaster: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Adjournment tonight. This is not a matter of party politics. It is, quite simply, a question of justice.
The case of my constituent, Raymond Gilmour, presents the real and strong possibility—I would assert, the probability—that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice. More than that, it raises questions that strike at the very heart of our Scottish legal system.
Of course, no system of criminal law can ever be perfect. In any system, there will be always be the chance of wrongful conviction. The health of any system of justice, therefore, must be judged on how it rights those wrongs. Against that measure, the Gilmour case places the credibility of the Scots legal system, as it stands, at some risk.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that my endeavours tonight are deeply considered, serious and sincere. I have provided him with a copy of my speech in advance of the debate, because I genuinely want his response to be well informed and well considered. I have also supplied him with a copy of a video recording of the recent "Trial and Error" programme on Gilmour's case.
On 4 November 1981, Johnstone schoolgirl Pamela Hastie was assaulted, raped and murdered in Rannoch woods in my home town of Johnstone. All murders are terrible, but this one was especially terrible. Pamela was young, bright and attractive. She was full of life, and full of hope. She had just been made a school prefect. She was proud of that, and her parents—good, honest, decent people, whom I know—were proud of her. She had everything to live for, and everything to look forward to.
Try to imagine the family's horror—only those who have lived through such an ordeal really can imagine it—when they learned not only that their daughter was dead, but how she had died in such evil circumstances. Their lives were shattered, and they remain shattered. I want to see justice every bit as much for the Hasties as I do for Gilmour. What they lost that day can never be replaced, but at least they deserve to know the truth.
Over the years since Gilmour's conviction, a number of people have sought to get at that truth. Although his claims of innocence had always been stoically supported by his family and his local minister, the Rev. Hamish MacColl, the campaign to have his case reconsidered was making little headway for some years. Then a Paisley solicitor, Gordon Ritchie, became interested, and he has since spent countless hundreds of hours doing unpaid and diligent research. He is a credit to the Scottish legal profession.
I also pay tribute to the objective research and reporting of journalists, especially Severin Carrell of The Scotsman, who has done much, much more than journalism demanded. Stephen Wilkie of the Daily Record has also shown a continued interest in the campaign, as have journalists from the Paisley Daily Express, Renfrew and Erskine Gazette, Evening Times and The Guardian. I am also grateful for the continued support that I have received
398
from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), both of whom are present.
When the Secretary of State rejected Gilmour's application for the prerogative of mercy on 18 April, it was feared that it would prove difficult to keep the case in the public eye. However, the case was worrying enough to excite the attention of the Just Television company, which makes the "Trial and Error" programme for Channel 4. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House will have personal experience of the team who, until 1992, produced "Rough Justice" for the BBC.
The team brought forward evidence that re-established Gilmour's alibi on the day in question, suggesting that confusion in the evidence of a 16-year-old witness may have mistakenly placed him near the scene of the crime. More critically, they highlighted evidence from the eminent forensic pathologist, Dr. Iain West, that the victim could not have been hit in the way in which Gilmour is alleged to have claimed in his admissions. Indeed, it is Dr. West's view that the victim was not hit at all in that way.
Gilmour became a police suspect shortly after Pamela Hastie's body was found. He lived in the area, frequented Rannoch woods and had a previous conviction for indecent exposure. When he was questioned by the police, he readily admitted exposing himself on other occasions in the same vicinity. It is not in dispute that Gilmour committed such crimes, and it seems that he was, in some ways, an inadequate youth.
On 9 November 1981, Gilmour made the first of his two alleged admissions. He withdrew it almost immediately and claimed that he had made it only to appease his interrogators. He was interviewed by the police officer heading the investigation, Detective Superintendent James Brown, who concluded that Gilmour had no special knowledge of the murder, and was merely offering a second-hand account of what he had read in newspapers or heard from local gossip. Brown ruled him out as a suspect, and to this day, Brown believes that he was correct to do so.
I well remember the intense local feeling at the time. The police were under great pressure from the press and the public to get a conviction. Brown was taken off the inquiry, and was replaced by Detective Superintendent Charlie Craig—perhaps best described as a determined, if colourful and unorthodox, police officer—who resolved to get his man. But did he get the right man? That remains the question. Will the Minister detail the reasons why Brown was removed from the murder investigation? Why did Strathclyde police remove that detective superintendent from an inquiry that he had been conducting for months?
On 9 February 1982, three months after his first alleged and withdrawn confession, Gilmour was being held at Longriggend remand centre on charges of indecent exposure to which I referred earlier. He was due to appear in Paisley sheriff court that day. The normal practice was for the prison bus to take prisoners to court. Instead, that day, two senior officers of the serious crime squad arrived to give him a special escort in a police car.
That journey should have taken 40 minutes. It took around three hours. During it, Gilmour is alleged to have made his second confession. He claims it was made involuntarily, under threat and duress. Why on earth did

399
two such senior officers attend to escort a prisoner to the court where he was due to appear on charges in which they had no involvement? Why did the journey take so long? How, in those highly unusual circumstances, could Gilmour possibly have invoked his right to have a solicitor present?
More troubling still is the fact—and it is a fact—that those admissions bear little relationship to the truth of events at various salient points. Gilmour claimed, for instance, that he had committed the murder and left the body at a point very different from that where it was found. He was unable to provide specific details of the clothing of the victim. More specifically, and more significantly, he was totally mistaken about how the victim was murdered, claiming that he had hit her over the head with the branch of a tree and then strangled her with her school tie or the strap of her bag. She was, in fact, strangled with sisal string.
During his first alleged confession—which he later withdrew—Gilmour sketched a labelled map of the murder locus. There is now forensic suspicion that some words on that map may have been written under more than one hand. In any case, there are inconsistencies in the accuracy of the map, in terms both of location and of the simple shape of the path.
Most critically of all, "Trial and Error" discovered evidence that, to my mind, discredits any remaining reliability one might give to Gilmour's confessions. The victim had been attacked with a knife or similar object in such a way that classic defensive wounds resulted.
This fact—a fact so central and salient to the case—it is now established, was not known to the police investigating the murder, to the defending solicitor at the time, to the protecting and defending advocate, to the judge or to the jury. How could the worth of the case against Gilmour have been properly or comprehensively judged with the omission of a fact which was at the very centre of this terrible crime?
My understanding is that the advocate-depute, although responsible for the prosecution case, has a primary duty to make all the evidence available to the court in the public interest. It seems that at least one essential piece of evidence was not made known to the court. Why was it omitted? Was the evidence about the use of a knife known to the Advocate-Depute? If it was, why was it not led in evidence? If it was not, why not?
In light of this, I wish to formally request that the Minister places in the House of Commons Library a full transcript of the shorthand notes taken at the trial. I believe that the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates has now agreed to appoint leading and junior counsel to act on Gilmour's case. That news is extremely welcome. The availability of the trial transcripts is now more necessary than ever.
As I have said, my constituent has already submitted a petition to the Secretary of State, but that was before this latest evidence came to light. At the time of his decision, the Secretary of State provided me with detailed reasons for his decision. I do not wish, and do not have the time, to question all of them, but I must question his statement on the final page of his letter to me about Gilmour's petitions, in which he states that they
400
"do not cast reasonable suspicion on any other person as regards the murder."
Will the Minister confirm that it is not the responsibility of Gilmour, or anyone acting on his behalf, to prove the guilt of another in order to establish his own innocence?
I must also ask why the Minister of State, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, withdrew from consideration of the case after being involved for many months. He told me that he had recollections about an earlier involvement in the prosecution of the case which made that withdrawal proper and necessary. Exactly what did he recollect? Why did these recollections cause him to withdraw?
I was delighted to receive on Monday what I regard as a helpful and hopeful letter from the Secretary of State in which he said:
"I note your continuing concern about your constituent's conviction and will of course give careful consideration to any further points which might be submitted on his behalf in the light of that programme, 'Trial & Error". I am ready to consider a further petition supported by relevant documentation, particularly with regard to any new statements on the part of witnesses or forensic experts."
Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State means what he says? Will he confirm that his right hon. Friend will now consider a petition based on new statements, which might include fresh information on evidence which was technically available at the time of the trial, even though it was not led at the trial or made known to the judge, jury, defence or police? Better still, will he now consider using his powers under section 263 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to refer the case to the High Court?
The wealth of new evidence now available cries out for a reappraisal of this tragic case. It is now an open secret that the Gilmour case is discrediting the Scottish system of justice, a system on which we have prided ourselves for so long. Surely, a truly healthy system must confront the possibility of error: in this case, an error which may have locked an innocent man behind bars for more than 12 years.
11.28 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) has very kindly allowed me the opportunity of a moment or two to contribute to this debate. I do not need to delay the House for long, because the comprehensive and responsible way in which he presented his case this evening was, to an objective listener, extremely persuasive indeed.
My qualification for adding my support to what the hon. Gentleman has said arises first from the fact that I have read all the papers relating to the trial that are publicly available. I have not read the transcript, because it has not yet been made available. I have also had the advantage—if that is the right word—of defending on a number of occasions in murder trials in Scotland, on one famous occasion with the Minister as my junior. In addition, I spent some time in the Crown Office as an advocate-depute, and I have prosecuted in a number of murder trials.
Using this experience and the judgment that I hope I have reasonably formed as a result, I am left in considerable doubt as to the legitimacy of the conviction in this case. I am concerned, first, by the apparent inconsistency between the confession and other circumstances of the case. If special knowledge, so-called,

401
is to be relied upon, there is certainly some scope for inconsistency; but a number of the inconsistencies seem to me so major as to raise a large amount of doubt.
I am also much concerned about the way in which this man was taken from Longriggend to what was supposed to be a routine court appearance, and about the fact that a journey of 40 minutes apparently took about three hours. I am particularly anxious about the fact that it now appears that there is evidence that, as part of the attack, a knife may have been used, and that that evidence formed no part of the consideration of the High Court when the matter was tried.
Under our system of law in Scotland, no man or woman has to prove his or her innocence. There has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt. Having given the matter the best consideration that I can, I believe that there is a substantial doubt in this case. That is why I have sought to lend such assistance as I can to what I regard as the responsible and assiduous efforts that the hon. Member has made on behalf of his constituent.
11.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) warmly on his success in securing this Adjournment debate, and on his obvious commitment to the cause of justice and to the interests of his constituent. I also congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I vividly remember the case in which I was his junior counsel. It seems only yesterday, but it was a long time ago.
It is the sign of a civilised society to be constantly vigilant to ensure that our system of criminal justice does not tolerate miscarriages of justice, and complacency in such matters is never acceptable. The successful functioning of our criminal justice system does, of course, depend on an intricate balance being maintained between the need to ensure fairness for an accused person and at the same time to protect the public from crime.
I have seen and studied the video recording, which the hon. Gentleman kindly lent me yesterday, of the recent television programme, and I have listened to the hon. Member's concerns about his constituent's case with great attention.
I should make it clear to the House from the outset that the Secretary of State will be ready to consider any further representations which may be submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf. Indeed, I understand that a petition is at present being prepared. The House will understand, however, that, until such a petition has been considered, neither I nor my right hon. Friend is in a position to comment on any new matters which may have been raised by the television programme, or to review the decision taken in April.
It is important to remind the House, first, why the Secretary of State cannot usually intervene in a case on the basis of evidence which has already been before the courts. Constitutionally, it is for the courts to determine questions of innocence or guilt. Accordingly, the Secretary of State should not seek to intervene in their decisions or to second-guess the verdict of a jury purely on the basis of information already considered by the courts.
402
This is because the Secretary of State's opinion of a case can be based only on consideration of relevant papers, including reports of investigations, whereas the jury at the original trial will have been able to hear the evidence and assess the performance and demeanour of witnesses at first hand. It follows that the Secretary of State can normally consider the exercise of his power to refer a case to the Court of Appeal only when compelling new information is presented to him which was not before the court or could not reasonably have been made available at the trial.
The purpose of a referral to the Appeal Court is to enable some fresh issue to be considered by the court which the Secretary of State is satisfied it can properly and usefully consider. On that basis, any new petition which may be presented to the Secretary of State for Mr. Gilmour should seek to present new evidence or fresh considerations of substance; it should not seek simply to re-argue matters which are already before the court of trial.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, many of which were raised in the recent television programme. If Mr. Gilmour's representatives consider that they are new issues of substance, they will no doubt raise them in the further petition, and my right hon. Friend will consider them carefully.
At this stage, however, I should note that the post mortem report, which made reference to the cuts on the victim's hands, and the photographs taken at the post mortem showing cuts on the left hand, were productions at the trial. Both pathologists who conducted the post mortem also gave evidence. If, none the less, the cuts on the victim's fingers are now considered to be significant, the matter can be raised in any further petition to the Secretary of State.
As regards the hon. Gentleman's request for a transcript of the shorthand notes taken at the trial, I have made inquiries, and I understand that the shorthand notes were transcribed, but it has not been possible to locate the transcript. I would otherwise have been willing to meet the request to have the transcript placed in the Library. I intend, however, to pursue the matter further with the Justiciary Office, but the judge's charge to the jury was transcribed for the appeal and is available, as is the opinion of the appeal court and the report thereon.
Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister confirm that the powers of the Secretary of State under section 263 are extensive, and if the Secretary of State chose to do so, he could refer the case to the High Court? Let us leave that aside for the moment and get to the nub of the case.
Will the Minister, to be absolutely crystal clear, give a cast-iron guarantee that the evidence which was shown in "Trial and Error"—the evidence to which I refer primarily—will be permissible as part of a new petition? We have to have that absolutely clarified, because the Minister has seen the video and knows that the evidence will corroborate it. I do not want to make any more interventions, so let me raise one more point with the Minister. I seek his assurance that he will instruct a genuine search for the transcript.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: First, the Secretary of State does have substantial powers, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, if there are grounds within the petition. As I

403
mentioned to the hon. Gentleman, the grounds are either fresh evidence or fresh issues of substance, and it is not appropriate for me to give a legal interpretation.
The appropriate course is for the facts to be presented in the petition which the lawyers advising the convicted person believes are of relevance as regards the matter as being either fresh evidence or new issues of substance.
I wish to mention particularly the reason why Detective Superintendent James Brown was removed from the murder investigation. That decision was an operational matter for the Strathclyde chief constable, but I understand that it is not unusual police practice to invite a senior investigating officer unconnected with the original investigation to review the case where a murder inquiry has failed to make significant progress. The advantage of having a fresh mind in charge in such circumstances can readily be appreciated, and it would, in my view, be unjustified to seek to draw sinister inferences.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State withdrew from consideration of the case. My noble and learned Friend wrote to the hon. Member on 30 March this year explaining that, in his previous capacity as Solicitor-General, he had been aware of the Gilmour case, but had not had a substantial involvement. None the less, priorities dictated withdrawal from consideration of the petition submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf, as in his view complete detachment was necessary. I am sure that the House will agree that my noble and learned Friend's decision to withdraw was appropriate and honourable. I should also remind the House that decisions about such cases are taken by the Secretary of State.
I was asked to give my view to the Secretary of State on the evidence then available, and the Secretary of State took the final decision at that stage. The petitions submitted to him last year on Mr. Gilmour's behalf were the subject of detailed consideration and investigation.
Those petitions focused essentially on two of the key issues at Mr. Gilmour's trial. The first was whether his confession statements were made voluntarily or whether they were extracted from him by unfair police questioning, violence or threats of violence. The second key issue was whether there was sufficient correlation between the contents of his statements and the evidence of what was found in the wood as to constitute special knowledge on Mr. Gilmour's part which the murderer would have had.
The trial judge instructed the jury in his charge that, unless its members were satisfied both that the statements were fairly obtained by the police and that such correlation and special knowledge existed, there was otherwise insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Gilmour. The trial judge also advised the jury that the forensic evidence could not be regarded as a source of corroboration.
In convicting Mr. Gilmour, a majority of the jury clearly concluded that the confession statements had been fairly obtained by the police, and that they revealed sufficient special knowledge to provide corroboration. All the police officers who witnessed the confessions gave evidence in court, and were thus able to be cross-examined on whether undue pressure had been applied in the relevant interviews.
404
The main ground of Mr. Gilmour's appeal was that there was not sufficient evidence in law to corroborate the statements concerning the admissions that he had committed the offences. The Court of Appeal concluded that, where statements contained points of identity and points of discrepancy with facts found by the police, it was for the jury to decide whether they could accept the points of identity. In this case, the jury had accepted those points, and the Court of Appeal held that they had been sufficient in law.
The petitions submitted to the Secretary of State last year returned to the matter of discrepancies between the confession statements and what the police had found in the woods. Although the petitions raised matters that either were or could have been raised at the trial, interviews were conducted with witnesses who had provided statements to the petitioner's legal representatives.
As the police evidence was crucial in the case, six of the seven police officers involved in the original investigation were also interviewed last year, the seventh officer having died in the intervening period. The interviews were conducted by the regional procurator fiscal at Paisley, and by senior officers of Strathclyde police.
I can confirm to the House that the police statements did not reveal any indication of malpractice. Indeed, the police officers in question emphatically denied any unfair treatment on their part, or any physical or verbal abuse of Mr. Gilmour in the course of the murder inquiries.
Mr. McMaster: Is that surprising?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman asks whether that is surprising.
One of the great virtues of the Scottish legal system is that the regional procurator fiscal is entirely independent of the police and, as I mentioned, the interviews were conducted by the regional procurator fiscal and by senior officers of the Strathclyde police.
The petitions also alleged that a lorry driver had been seen acting in an unusual and suspicious manner on the day of the murder, and had tried to pick up a young girl in his lorry within half a mile of the locus. The lorry driver who was apparently the subject of those allegations was traced and interviewed on behalf of the Secretary of State.
Witnesses relevant to those allegations were also interviewed, but no grounds were revealed to regard the lorry driver as a suspect in relation to the murder. Several other witness statements submitted on Mr. Gilmour's behalf were also investigated and precognitions taken of the persons concerned. Those statements did not raise any issues of material significance.
The matter was investigated because it had been raised on Mr. Gilmour's petitions, but I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that it is not the responsibility of Mr. Gilmour or his representative to prove the guilt of another person in order to establish his own innocence.
The very thorough investigation that was conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State did not identify any evidence of police malpractice; nor did it suggest an alternative suspect for the murder of Pamela Hastie.

405
Careful consideration of the petitions did not identify any grounds for concern about the case that were not before the jury at the original trial. It was therefore concluded that the representations last year did not reveal such new evidence or fresh considerations of substance as to indicate that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
As to the claim made in the recent television programme, if Mr. Gilmour's representatives consider that the programme identified new evidence or fresh considerations of substance, they should arrange to include all such matters in the forthcoming petition to the
406
Secretary of State, supported as appropriate by statements from witnesses or forensic experts. We shall then arrange for those matters to receive close examination.
In conclusion, I repeat my initial statement, that we stand ready to consider further representations on the case. I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that any new submission made on Mr. Gilmour's behalf will be carefully considered, and further investigations instructed if appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Entry Clearance Charges
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken to refund all those wrongly charged for entry clearance where it has been established by EC law that this should have been done free of charge.

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 17 October 1994,Official Report, column 48.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Cardiff Magistrates Court
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from the Chief Constable of the South Wales police in relation to the procedure for guarding of prisoners at Cardiff magistrates court by(a) police officers and (b) private security officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  None.

  Legal Education and Conduct
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct intends to publish its third annual report.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on legal education and conduct has today published its third annual report, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish figures for the performance of the London ambulance service in each month from July 1992 to September 1994, showing the percentage of calls responded to within 14 minutes and the target specified in the patients charter.

  Mr. Sackville
  The percentage of 999 calls which received a response within 14 minutes of the call being answered is shown in the table:236

  Month

  Per cent. Response within 14 minutes

  1992

  July

  No reliable figures available

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  59

  1993

  January

  64

  February

  65

  March

  63

  April

  68

  May

  67

  June

  60

  July

  62

  August

  65

  September

  64

  October

  58

  November

  57

  December

  57

  1994

  January

  65

  February

  63

  March

  63

  April

  65

  May

  66

  June

  62

  July

  62

  August

  66

  September

  68

  Source:

  London Ambulance Service quarterly and monthly reports to South Thames regional health authority. (The quarterly reports are also circulated to all London Members of Parliament.)
  The patients charter target response time for emergency calls in urban areas is 95 per cent. responded to within 14 minutes.

  Asthma
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each standard age group died from asthma attacks in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is available in the Library—in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys series DH2 under*ICD 493.
  * International Classification of Diseases.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the mortality rates for asthma for each year since 1972 among(a) the whole population and (b) under 14-year-olds.

  Mr. Sackville
  The readily available information is shown in the table.Death rates from asthma (ICD 493), England and Wales, 1972–1992

  Deaths per 100,000 population

  All ages

  under 15

  1972

  2·57

  0·44

  1973

  2·44

  0·46

  1974

  2·20

  0·36

  1975

  2·39

  0·32

  1976

  2·11

  0·35

  1977

  2·19

  0·48

  237

  Deaths per 100,000 population

  All ages

  under 15

  1978

  2·32

  0·40

  1979

  2·98

  0·35

  1980

  2·98

  0·39

  1981

  3·23

  0·48

  1982

  3·18

  0·44

  1983

  3·31

  0·43

  1984

  3·54

  0·40

  1985

  3·94

  0·34

  1986

  3·97

  0·27

  1987

  3·77

  0·41

  1988

  3·97

  0·40

  1989

  3·86

  0·26

  1990

  3·65

  0·39

  1991

  3·69

  0·33

  1992

  3·49

  0·20

  *International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office
  Ms. Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many responses he has received following his consultative document on the future of the Post Office; and if he will publish the results of the consultation.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the end of the consultation period we had received some 13,400 responses to the Green Paper, "The Future of Postal Services". We will make public the results of the consultation at the appropriate point.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make an announcement on the future of the nuclear industry following the nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  The public consultation period for the review ended on 30 September. Many complex issues have to be considered and an announcement will be made once that consideration is completed.

  Coal
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many companies have made a bid for British Coal's coal interests; how many have bid for each regional package; and if he will name these companies.

  Mr. Eggar
  There were 18 bidders for the five regional coal companies and the care and maintenance collieries. Details of the bids and bidders are commercially confidential but we have announced the names of the preferred bidders.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to announce the preferred buyers for each of British Coal's regional packages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The preferred bidders for the five regional coal companies and certain of the care and maintenance 238
  collieries were announced on Wednesday 14 October. They are:
  RJB Mining plc for Central North, Central South and North East Regional Coal Companies and Thorne and Ellington Care and Maintenance Collieries;
  Celtic Energy Limited for South Wales;
  Mining (Scotland) Limited for Scotland;
  Coal Investments plc for Annesley Bentinck Colliery; and
  Tower Employee Buyout Team for Tower Colliery

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Tail Docking
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been undertaken for the illegal docking of dogs' tails; and how many were successful.

  Mr. Maclean
  Prosecutions for the illegal docking of dogs' tails will be recorded either under Statutory Instrument 1991 No. 1412, The Veterinary Surgeons 1966 (Schedule 3 amendment) Order 1991, or the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  Information held centrally shows no record of prosecutions under the above-mentioned statutory instrument.

  However, it should be noted that the statistics of court proceedings are based on returns made by the police to the Home Office and although these include offences where there has been no police involvement, such as those prosecutions instigated by Government Departments and private organisations—in this case possibly the RSPCA—and individuals, the reporting of these types of offence is known to be incomplete.

  The court proceedings data regarding offences committed under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 does not identify the type of cruelty or species involved.

  Animal Sanctuaries
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legislation currently governs the welfare of animals at animal sanctuaries.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The welfare of animals in sanctuaries is governed by the general animal welfare provisions of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many crimes were recorded by each police force in England and Wales within each category of crime in the year ended June;

  (2) how many incidents of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle and of theft from a motor vehicle were recorded by each police force in England and Wales in the year ended June;

  (3) how many of the burglaries recorded by each police force in England and Wales in the year ended June were in a dwelling; and how many were in another building.
  239
  Mr Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the following tables:

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police by police force area and offence group–12 months to June 1994

  Number of offences

  England and Wales Police force area

  All offences

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other

  Avon and Somerset

  169,690

  6,314

  1,143

  1,923

  37,635

  95,174

  4,590

  22,039

  872

  Bedfordshire

  55,611

  1,888

  413

  558

  14,386

  28,780

  2,083

  7,185

  318

  Cambridgeshire

  61,312

  3,046

  432

  275

  13,610

  34,502

  1,600

  7,395

  452

  Cheshire

  77,427

  3,122

  554

  314

  20,506

  36,461

  2,776

  12,408

  1,286

  Cleveland

  79,385

  2,250

  250

  414

  18,432

  41,593

  1,377

  14,747

  322

  Cumbria

  42,521

  1,985

  239

  84

  9,901

  20,938

  1,157

  7,837

  380

  Derbyshire

  87,924

  3,948

  456

  422

  25,299

  39,319

  1,711

  16,020

  749

  Devon and Cornwall

  114,124

  4,328

  1,006

  417

  32,053

  57,148

  3,687

  14,129

  1,356

  Dorset

  53,153

  1,829

  404

  146

  8,900

  30,474

  3,397

  7,111

  892

  Durham

  66,032

  2,557

  494

  149

  12,984

  34,514

  2,619

  12,021

  694

  Essex

  108,779

  4,443

  636

  402

  25,999

  56,052

  2,828

  17,530

  889

  Gloucestershire

  63,117

  2,044

  872

  313

  17,277

  32,988

  2,730

  6,358

  535

  Greater Manchester

  345,138

  9,939

  1,277

  5,667

  91,621

  161,946

  9,415

  62,808

  2,465

  Hampshire

  142,470

  5,559

  1,343

  552

  30,882

  75,461

  4,544

  22,670

  1,459

  Hertfordshier

  54,268

  1,939

  308

  238

  12,592

  28,118

  1,428

  9,276

  369

  Humberside

  139,006

  4,944

  733

  559

  46,029

  63,617

  2,965

  19,674

  485

  Kent

  157,083

  6,733

  1,038

  613

  28,626

  87,235

  3,986

  27,116

  1,736

  Lancashire

  128,434

  3,190

  464

  502

  27,218

  65,709

  3,347

  26,969

  1,035

  Leicestershire

  98,949

  4,053

  567

  950

  25,327

  49,670

  3,455

  14,420

  507

  Lincolnshire

  49,951

  2,274

  348

  150

  12,294

  23,934

  1,228

  9,056

  667

  City of London

  5,069

  170

  19

  40

  670

  3,436

  446

  209

  79

  Merseyside

  138,663

  7,434

  778

  2,269

  32,797

  65,635

  4,380

  23,681

  1,689

  Metropolitan Police District

  883,741

  44,257

  7,181

  25,152

  162,337

  427,698

  33,206

  175,450

  8,460

  Norfolk

  59,754

  2,155

  390

  181

  15,979

  30,941

  1,611

  7,932

  565

  Northamptonshire

  58,892

  2,389

  341

  333

  17,183

  27,895

  1,729

  8,582

  440

  Northumbria

  210,444

  6,446

  721

  1,260

  60,999

  85,444

  2,932

  51,626

  1,016

  North Yorkshire

  59,723

  2,137

  270

  168

  16,451

  30,385

  1,203

  8,593

  516

  Nottinghamshire

  156,362

  7,584

  1,147

  1,166

  38,314

  75,010

  4,152

  28,193

  796

  South Yorkshire

  156,541

  4,856

  654

  996

  52,644

  69,756

  2,558

  23,880

  1,197

  Staffordshire

  96,005

  5,952

  573

  414

  28,953

  42,286

  2,242

  15,157

  428

  Suffolk

  41,574

  2,104

  386

  113

  8,400

  21,494

  1,695

  6,659

  723

  Surrey

  49,478

  2,514

  419

  165

  11,271

  25,695

  2,142

  6,758

  514

  Sussex

  106,262

  3,270

  742

  529

  24,231

  54,280

  2,984

  18,971

  1,255

  Thames Valley

  191,748

  5,118

  839

  975

  39,273

  106,526

  6,950

  30,491

  1,576

  Warwickshire

  43,970

  1,506

  319

  133

  11,826

  22,349

  1,208

  6,303

  326

  West Mercia

  82,848

  3,478

  455

  274

  16,985

  45,413

  1,527

  14,158

  558

  West Midlands

  323,267

  11,022

  1,444

  6,375

  95,272

  146,175

  8,775

  52,297

  1,907

  West Yorkshire

  297,108

  9,419

  1,602

  2,918

  90,993

  138,426

  5,870

  45,333

  2,547

  Wiltshire

  39,159

  2,657

  384

  149

  8,641

  19,500

  1,214

  6,123

  491

  Dyfed-Powys

  22,817

  2,115

  270

  41

  3,924

  10,491

  704

  4,831

  441

  Gwent

  40,873

  2,507

  299

  99

  7,227

  21,716

  1,192

  7,258

  575

  North Wales

  44,687

  2,887

  576

  115

  10,567

  21,293

  1,049

  7,750

  450

  South Wales

  162,020

  5,990

  556

  467

  37,998

  77,405

  4,045

  34,333

  1,226

  England and Wales

  5,365,379

  214,352

  33,342

  58,980

  1,304,506

  2,632,882

  154,737

  921,337

  45,243

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime recorded by the police by police force area–12 months to June 1994

  Number ofoffences

  England and Wales Police force area

  Theft of a vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Avon and Somerset

  23,144

  35,207

  Bedfordshire

  8,147

  10,911

  Cambridgeshire

  6,276

  10,274

  Cheshire

  8,320

  12,209

  Cleveland

  12,412

  9,883

  Cumbria

  2,887

  7,949

  Derbyshire

  8,855

  15,247

  Devon and Cornwall

  7,507

  22,049

  Dorset

  3,500

  9,636

  Durham

  8,720

  9,448

  Essex

  9,268

  18,628

  Gloucestershire

  4,948

  14,167

  240

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime recorded by the police by police force area–12 months to June 1994

  Number of offences

  England and Wales Police force area

  Theft of a vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Greater Manchester

  52,217

  50,999

  Hampshire

  9,341

  27,827

  Hertfordshire

  5,462

  12,411

  Humberside

  15,477

  19,979

  Kent

  17,107

  26,125

  Lancashire

  12,115

  21,820

  Leicestershire

  11,205

  17,467

  Lincolnshire

  3,303

  6,075

  City of London

  120

  533

  Merseyside

  15,260

  17,007

  Metropolitan Police District

  72,526

  138,747

  Norfolk

  3,932

  11,559

  241

  Notifiable offences of vehicle crime recorded by the police by police force area–12 months to June 1994

  Number ofoffences

  England and Wales Police force area

  Theft of a vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Northamptonshire

  7,818

  9,842

  Northumbria

  26,857

  24,453

  North Yorkshire

  5,042

  9,793

  Nottinghamshire

  16,032

  19,822

  South Yorkshire

  21,764

  23,847

  Staffordshire

  10,227

  16,048

  Suffolk

  2,164

  5,625

  Surrey

  3,867

  9,430

  Sussex

  7,015

  18,831

  Thames Valley

  21,083

  40,701

  Warwickshire

  5,120

  8,615

  West Mercia

  8,641

  14,386

  West Midlands

  40,147

  52,781

  West Yorkshire

  37,394

  47,087

  Wiltshire

  2,491

  6,303

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,321

  2,593

  Gwent

  3,811

  6,740

  North Wales

  2,826

  7,792

  South Wales

  24,628

  26,995

  England & Wales

  570,297

  877,841

  Notifiable offences of burglary recorded by the police by police force area — 12 months to June 1994

  Number of Offences

  England and Wales Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

  Avon and Somerset

  19,430

  18,205

  Bedfordshire

  6,874

  7,512

  Cambridgeshire

  5,903

  7,707

  Cheshire

  9,820

  10,686

  Cleveland

  11,892

  6,540

  Cumbria

  4,164

  5,737

  Derbyshire

  10,379

  14,920

  Devon and Cornwall

  15,855

  16,198

  Dorset

  5,206

  3,694

  Durham

  7,784

  5,200

  Essex

  8,678

  17,321

  Gloucestershire

  8,384

  8,893

  Notifable Offences Recorded by Offence Group and Local Authority Borough or District Metropolitan Police District: July 1993 to June 1994

  Borough/District

  Violence against the person

  Sexual Offences

  Robbery

  Burglary and going equipped

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and Forgery

  Criminal Damage

  Other notifiable offences

  Total notifiable offences

  Barking

  716

  153

  213

  3,419

  6,685

  508

  3,488

  80

  15,262

  Barnet

  867

  194

  347

  5,066

  11,486

  861

  5,762

  143

  24,726

  Bexley

  733

  183

  176

  2,847

  8,723

  598

  4,380

  79

  17,719

  Brent

  1,701

  227

  1,835

  5,681

  11,407

  1,062

  5,959

  193

  28,065

  Bromley

  1,252

  144

  288

  5,428

  13,528

  896

  6,545

  111

  28,192

  Camden

  1,565

  202

  1,189

  7,261

  21,692

  1,429

  5,707

  284

  39,329

  Croydon

  2,022

  304

  530

  5,980

  16,156

  1,243

  7,090

  187

  33,512

  Ealing

  1,285

  229

  775

  4,280

  13,544

  1,215

  7,113

  180

  28,621

  Enfield

  1,201

  192

  337

  3,870

  9,680

  794

  4,937

  121

  21,132

  Greenwich

  1,626

  315

  436

  6,191

  14,139

  934

  7,992

  243

  31,876

  Hackney

  1,519

  280

  2,282

  7,028

  12,291

  1,091

  5,030

  317

  29,838

  Hammersmith

  1,172

  151

  846

  3,937

  12,674

  755

  4,725

  149

  24,409

  Haringey

  1,352

  162

  1,232

  4,598

  10,966

  887

  4,996

  157

  24,350

  Harrow

  727

  106

  282

  3,398

  6,680

  590

  3,859

  84

  15,726

  Havering

  564

  162

  115

  3,529

  9,682

  602

  3,712

  67

  18,433

  Hillingdon*

  958

  300

  155

  3,526

  10,624

  754

  6,021

  87

  22,425

  Hounslow*

  1,388

  225

  342

  4,118

  10,848

  920

  5,555

  329

  23,725

  242

  Notifiable offences of burglary recorded by the police by police force area — 12 months to June 1994

  Number of Offences

  England and Wales Police force area

  Burglary in a dwelling

  Burglary in a building other than a dwelling

  Greater Manchester

  56,223

  35,398

  Hamsphire

  13,756

  17,126

  Hertfordshire

  4,657

  7,935

  Humberside

  20,848

  25,181

  Kent

  17,900

  10,726

  Lancashire

  17,771

  9,447

  Leicestershire

  14,615

  10,712

  Lincolnshire

  6,795

  5,499

  City of London

  35

  635

  Merseyside

  20,607

  12,190

  Metropolitan Police District

  103,966

  58,371

  Norfolk

  6,014

  9,965

  Northamptonshire

  7,577

  9,606

  Northumbria

  31,095

  29,904

  North Yorkshire

  7,140

  9,311

  Nottinghamshire

  23,449

  14,865

  South Yorkshire

  25,890

  26,754

  Staffordshire

  13,793

  15,160

  Suffolk

  3,398

  5,002

  Surrey

  5,005

  6,266

  Sussex

  12,140

  12,091

  Thames Valley

  20,784

  18,489

  Warwickshire

  4,643

  7,183

  West Mercia

  8,382

  8,603

  West Midlands

  50,701

  44,571

  West Yorkshire

  56,912

  34,081

  Wiltshire

  4,238

  4,403

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,385

  2,539

  Gwent

  3,414

  3,813

  North Wales

  3,455

  7,112

  South Wales

  14,980

  23,018

  England & Wales

  695,937

  608,569

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many crimes were recorded in each borough by the Metropolitan police within each category of crime in the year ended June.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested has been supplied by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is contained in the following table:
  243

  Notifiable Offences Recorded by Offence Group and Local Authority Borough or District Metropolitan Police District: July 1993 to June 1994

  Borough/District

  Violence against the person

  Sexual Offences

  Robbery

  Burglary and going equipped

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and Forgery

  Criminal Damage

  Other notifiable offences

  Total notifiable offences

  Islington

  1,872

  157

  1,090

  4,773

  13,100

  770

  5,408

  325

  27,495

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,032

  161

  907

  4,308

  17,823

  1,021

  3,993

  172

  29,417

  Kingston

  735

  100

  157

  3,256

  8,358

  595

  3,067

  258

  16,526

  Lambeth

  3,093

  391

  2,824

  8,029

  17,137

  1,519

  7,818

  484

  41,295

  Lewisham

  1,843

  283

  1,117

  8,000

  12,811

  913

  5,638

  231

  30,836

  Merton

  844

  129

  214

  2,941

  8,180

  974

  3,854

  72

  17,208

  Newham

  1,752

  664

  949

  6,580

  12,815

  1,126

  5,446

  201

  29,533

  Redbridge

  923

  154

  263

  3,950

  10,178

  1,077

  3,871

  92

  20,508

  Richmond

  625

  83

  191

  2,785

  7,283

  389

  2,748

  154

  14,258

  Southwark

  2,478

  418

  1,916

  7,155

  17,780

  1,327

  8,251

  384

  39,709

  Sutton

  920

  136

  124

  3,665

  7,512

  468

  3,268

  91

  16,184

  Tower Hamlets

  1,431

  196

  543

  4,947

  12,021

  788

  5,080

  268

  25,274

  Wandsworth

  1,567

  248

  1,099

  6,154

  15,616

  1,340

  6,445

  731

  33,200

  Waltham Forest

  1,071

  118

  736

  4,017

  10,414

  860

  4,227

  86

  21,529

  Westminster

  1,983

  275

  1,846

  7,786

  37,838

  2,986

  5,841

  417

  58,972

  Broxbourne (part)

  297

  14

  30

  576

  2,369

  109

  1,053

  8

  4,456

  Elmbridge (part)

  103

  6

  7

  415

  786

  63

  320

  7

  1,707

  Epping Forest (part)

  303

  28

  37

  734

  2,890

  172

  1,203

  35

  5,402

  Epsom and Ewell

  314

  65

  51

  1,097

  2,639

  21363

  1,363

  30

  5,772

  Hertsmere

  196

  40

  38

  680

  2,771

  176

  1,351

  26

  5,278

  Reigate and Banstead (part)

  119

  11

  14

  472

  1,278

  120

  629

  14

  2,657

  Spelthorne

  393

  66

  48

  1,494

  3,998

  248

  1,935

  75

  8,257

  Welwyn Hatfield (part)

  2

  2

  —

  13

  31

  7

  11

  4

  70

  Heathrow Airport

  26

  4

  —

  39

  2,740

  305

  183

  342

  3,540

  Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  116

  0

  44

  0

  160

  Central Cheque Squad

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  804

  16

  5

  875

  MPD Total

  44,570

  7,278

  25,581

  164,023

  429,339

  33,509

  175,934

  7,224

  887,458

  * These figures exclude offences reported in those part of the borough which fall within the boundary of Heathrow Airport

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 203, what action his Department will be taking to reduce (a) the demand for drugs and (b) the supply of drugs in prison.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 20 July 1994]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Joan Ruddock dated 19 October:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question on the action the Prison Service will be taking to reduce the demand for drugs and the supply of drugs in prisons.
  Reducing levels of violence and drug misuse in prisons is one of the Prison Service's seven strategic priorities for 1994–1997. To achieve this we are adopting an integrated strategy which aims to reduce both the supply of and demand for drugs within prisons.
  Attempts to reduce the demand for drugs in prisons will centre around programmes for prisoners who misuse drugs. These programmes are available throughout the Prison Service, and are provided by healthcare staff, other Prison Service staff and outside agencies. They include detoxification, counselling, courses for groups of prisoners, access to Narcotics Anonymous, drug awareness training and a small number of more intensive treatment programmes. It is intended to expand the number of intensive programmes.
  The Prison Service is also sending a clear message that it is not prepared to tolerate the illicit use of drugs in prisons by measures to reduce their supply. Such measures include effective perimeter
  244
  security; more effective searches of prisoners and accommodation; use of sniffer dogs and intelligence gathering on the supply of drugs. The provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill 1994 will allow these measures to be supplemented by the use of drug testing.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total sum of money paid out to victims of the Brighton bombing under the criminal injury compensation scheme; and how many individuals received payments;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the sum which would have been paid to victims of the Brighton bombing under the proposed tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board advises that 34 claims were made in respect of the Brighton bombing in 1984. Further, more detailed, information about those claims—for example how many resulted in a monetary award and the size of any such awards—is not readily available. No estimate can therefore be made of the sums which might have been payable under the tariff scheme in comparable circumstances.

  Whitemoor Prison
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made with Sir
  245
  John Woodcock's report into the incident at Whitemoor prison; and when he expects to publish the results.

  Mr. Howard
  I will publish Sir John Woodcock's report as soon as possible.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been deployed at Whitemoor prison from 9 September to the latest date; and from which forces they came.

  Mr. Maclean
  Since 9 September, between 36 and 76 police officers from Cambridgeshire constabulary and the Metropolitan police have been deployed at Whitemoor prison.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions were undertaken and (b) convictions gained in respect of (a) appendix 1, (b) appendix 2 and (c) appendix 3 of CITES in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information held centrally by the Department shows two prosecutions and two convictions in 1990 under sections 3(1) and 3(8) of the Statutory Instrument, "Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations". Information for 1991 to 1993—which is provisional—shows a nil return.

  However, it should be noted that the statistics of court proceedings are based on returns made by the police to the Home Office and although these include offences where there has been no police involvement, such as those prosecutions instigated by Government Departments—in this case probably Custom and Excise—and private organisations and individuals, the reporting of these types of offence is known to be incomplete.

  Proceedings instigated with reference to the Conference on International Trade in Endangered Species but dealt with under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and any other statute pertaining to endangered species cannot be separately identified.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the source of funds for each as(a) funds within the civil defence vote of his Department, (b) funds from other Departments, or non-civil defence funds from his Department and (c) other funds not derived from central Government.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Funds for civil defence are voted by Parliament in the annual Appropriation Act. In the same way, Parliament votes funds to other Departments and to the Home Office for non-civil defence purposes.

  Information on other funds not derived from central Government that may be used for civil defence purposes is not available centrally.

  Immigration
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many instances there were in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 where the decision of a chief immigration officer to detain an asylum seeker was overturned by (i) the first seven-day review, (ii) the second seven-day review, (iii) the third seven-day review, (iv) the first monthly review, (v) the second monthly
  246
  review, (vi) the third monthly review, (vii) the fourth monthly review and (viii) the sixth monthly review;

  (2) how many instances there were (a) in 1993 and (b) in 1994 where a decision of a chief immigration officer to detain an asylum seeker was overturned by an immigration service inspector within 24 hours of that decision.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to allow applicants for asylum to contest the initial decision of a chief immigration officer to detail them before an independent appellate authority before their full application for asylum is heard.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As it stands the law provides, for any detainee who has an appeal outstanding or who has been detailed for more than seven days for further examination having sought entry to the United Kingdom, an opportunity to apply to the independent appellate authorities for bail. The Government have no plans to change these provisions, which apply to asylum seeks as to others.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many birds of prey were stolen in each region in each month since September 1993.

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Wildlife Liaison Officers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources were allocated, by region, to police wildlife liaison officers in each year since 1987; and if he will make a statement on Government support for their role.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally. The deployment of police officers and other resources to wildlife liaison work is a matter for chief officers.

  Refugees
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what common position with any other member of the European Union regarding the forthcoming executive committee meeting of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees he has agreed, in accordance with the agenda of the Germany Presidency of the European Union item 2(d).

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None, but at the meeting of the UNHCR executive committee from 3 to 7 October the German presidency made a statement on behalf of the European Union which had been agreed with the member states. I am placing a copy in the Library.

  Deportations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in respect of which states his Department has encountered difficulties in obtaining, for aliens to be deported, travel documents from foreign missions of their states.
  247
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Difficulty in obtaining a travel document for a deportee is experienced in only a small proportion of cases, and I do not think it would be helpful to associate it with specific countries. Where delays do occur they are generally due to the embassy's or high commission's need to verify the identity and nationality of the person concerned.

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often his officials attend meetings of the centre for information and exchange on asylum referred to in the agenda of the German Presidency of the European Union regarding title VI of the European Union treaty.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Home Office is represented at all CIREA meetings. There have been two so far this year, and a further two are planned.

WALES

  Cardiff University Dental Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had with respect to the possibilities of trust status for the Cardiff University dental hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office has received two representations in respect of the South Glamorgan dental hospital's application for NHS trust status. Public consultation commenced on 5 September and ends on 4 December.

  Morriston Open Heart Surgery Unit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the comparison techniques used in the determining of the bids for the provision of open heart operations at Morriston hospital cardiac surgery and cardiology service for West Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The tenders were assessed by an evaluation team against a set of non-financial criteria produced by the project board advised by independent experts. A separate financial evaluation was performed by independent management consultants.

  TB Control
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of Welsh health purchasing authorities in relation to the need for integrated TB control programmes; and what arrangements he has made to ensure programmes achieve high immunisation uptakes and screening rates in areas of substantial immigration from high TB prevalence areas of the world.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have seen no need to consult with chairmen of Welsh health purchasing authorities on this matter. All health authorities in Wales are issued with regular guidance on vaccination and immunisation programmes, including TB. Current advice recommends that the BCG vaccine is offered to all school children between the ages of 10 and 13; to new immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of the disease and to their newly born children; and to certain other high-risk 248
  groups. Health authorities have been reminded recently to ensure that their arrangements to protect against TB are adequate.

  The Government have set up a task force to consider what improvements to the TB control strategy are necessary, including the need for screening of immigrants and refugees.

  Botanical Garden
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales and with the National Museum of Wales in relation to the proposed Welsh national botanical garden; if he will give the(a) capital cost and (b) annual maintenance cost of the project; what representations he has had in relation to responsibility for its administration; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Consultants have been commissioned to consider whether there is a need for a national botanic garden for Wales and if so, to consider the costs and possible locations. They have consulted the Countryside Council for Wales and the National Museum of Wales. Details of costs will not be known until the consultants' report is received towards the end of the year. A number of representations have been received suggesting a variety of locations around Wales.

  Filing and Recall System
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions in the past 12 months the filing and recall system of his Department has failed; what proposals he has for improvements in the computerised filing system; and what proposals he has for market testing the registry department.

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department is developing a new computerised filing system which so far covers only a small part of our operation. During this process, we are maintaining a manual back-up system which should prevent teething troubles from causing the Department's file recording system to fail.

  The records management service in Cardiff—formerly the registry department—has recently been market tested and the contract has been awarded to the in-house bid team.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the waiting list figures and average waiting times for infertility treatment in each Welsh health authority area.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what date he received the draft corporate plan of the Welsh Development Agency; what consultations he has carried out in respect of it; when he expects to receive the final version of the corporate plan; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what consultations he has held with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the arrangements for publication of the agency's corporate plan.
  249
  Mr. Redwood
  I expect to receive the agency's corporate plan soon. My officials have been in discussion with the agency on possible options and priorities.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning the future responsibilities of the agency in(a) factory development, (b) marketing, (c) urban regeneration, (d) derelict land clearance and (e) investment banking and venture capital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I meet the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  My letter to the chairman of 8 March 1994 set out the ways in which I expect the agency to contribute to the economic development of Wales. A copy of that letter was placed in the Library of the House at the time.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Audit Commission in relation to the terms of reference of the inquiry conducted by Grant Thornton into the Welsh Development Agency joint venture with Cynon Valley borough council and the land deal with Tesco plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. The arrangements for the inquiry are a matter for the agency.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received notification from the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency concerning his impending directorship of Development Securities Ltd.; on what date consent was given; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The chairman notified me that he intended to take up a directorship of Development Securities plc on 25 March 1994.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a statement on the advice given to(a) schools proposing to switch to grant-maintained status and (b) their local education authorities in relation to the clearing of current year deficit in the final year under local authority administration;

  (2) when he expects to refund to South Glamorgan county council the run-off deficit of Mary Immaculate high school, as at the date of its transfer to grant-maintained status on 31 March.

  Mr. Redwood
  The deficit which had been accumulated by Mary Immaculate high school over a period of years and while it was under the control of South Glamorgan local education authority will be paid off in its first year as a grant-maintained school without additional funding from the Welsh Office.

  It has been made clear that, under the Education (Grant-Maintained Schools) (Finance) (Wales)

  Recorded imports of live animals into the United Kingdom since 1985

  Adult cattle

  Calves

  Sheep & lambs

  Pigs

  Other livestock

  Poultry (,000)

  1985

  218,696

  2,625

  90,808

  60,156

  6,739

  2,809·5

  1986

  231,867

  429

  64,591

  64,844

  8,150

  4,446·8

  1987

  151,473

  109

  88,168

  59,710

  12,139

  3,778·5

  1988

  178,051

  510

  67,677

  45,445

  11,921

  2,526·2

  1989

  122,947

  653

  102,923

  56,982

  11,403

  2,459·8

  1990

  124,337

  355

  119,217

  52,581

  10,584

  3,224·6

  1991

  89,488

  —

  98,032

  76·286

  8,280

  3,439·6

  250
  Regulations 1994, any deficit incurred by schools while under local education authorities control will be taken into account in calculating their annual maintenance grant for their first year as a grant-maintained school.

DEFENCE

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Greenwich
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has agreed to sell the Queen Elizabeth hospital to Greenwich healthcare trust for NHS use.

  Mr. Soames
  Negotiations with the Greenwich healthcare trust have been progressing well although a number of stages remain to be completed before any contract could be signed. In the meantime, however, we have received an expression of interest from a private consortium. Should this result in a formal offer, we would consider it.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate which departmental publications are currently available(a) in Braille, (b) in large print and (c) on tape; and if he will indicate what efforts have been made by his Department to inform visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print.

  Mr. Jack
  MAFF has collaborated with the Royal National Institute for the Blind to produce publications in alternative formats on a range of subjects. There are two MAFF publications, from the "Foodsense" series, available through the RNIB's customer services: the booklet "New Microwave Labels" is available in Braille or on audio; and the booklet "Healthy Eating" is available both in Braille and large print formats, as well as on audio tape. A third publication "Health Eating for Older People" is available in large print format via the "Foodsense" public ordering telephone line.

  Livestock Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) adult cattle, (b) calves, (c) sheep/lambs, (d) pigs and (e) other livestock were imported into Great Britain in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Jack
  Data for Great Britain in the form requested are not available except at disproportionate cost. Figures for recorded imports into the United Kingdom as a whole are given in the table.
  251

  Recorded imports of live animals into the United Kingdom since 1985

  Adult cattle

  Calves

  Sheep & lambs

  Pigs

  Other livestock

  Poultry (,000)

  1992

  79,366

  1,462

  234,487

  109,964

  11,533

  4,402·9

  1993

  34,616

  3,167

  74,429

  4,678

  1,765

  2,795·9

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licensed(a) red meat and (b) poultry abattoirs there were in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Browning
  Until 1993, abattoirs in Great Britain were not licensed centrally by Agriculture Departments. The following figures for abattoirs licensed by local authorities are derived from records of state veterinary service visits and are therefore approximate.

  The number of licensed abattoirs in England and Wales in each of the last five years was:

  red meat

  poultry meat

  1989–780

  1989–108

  1990–700

  1990–102

  1991–640

  1991–98

  1992–595

  1992–98

  1993–473

  1993–102

  Tenderising Enzymes
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of meat tenderising enzymes administered to animals pre-slaughter.

  Mrs Browning
  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 currently prohibit the sale for human consumption of fresh meat from animals to which tenderisers have been administered.

  The EC Scientific Veterinary Committee has been asked to consider the question of administration of tenderising enzymes to cattle after stunning and before slaughter. It is not clear when the committee is likely to report.

PRIME MINISTER

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total cost, including staff time and legal fees, of representing each Government Department in cases at industrial tribunals in each of the past five years.

  Name

  Minister (s) served

  Date of Appointment

  Previous Employer

  K Adams

  Secretary of State for the Environment

  28 May 1993

  Rt. Hon. John Gummer

  P Barnes

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  28 May 1993

  Boston Consulting Group

  C Blunt

  Secretary of State for Defence

  15 February 1993

  PI Political Consultants

  Miss. A Broom

  Secretary of State for Employment

  21 July 1994

  Freelance Political Consultant

  252
  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Official Visits
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library(a) a list of official visits he has made since 21 July, (b) copies of speeches he made on each visit, (c) a list of interviews given to the media over the same period and (d) a copy of his speech to the Conservative and Unionist conference in Bournemouth on 14 October.

  The Prime Minister
  (a) I have made a number of official visits throughout the country since 21 July this year, delivering several speeches on a wide range of subjects. Since that date I have also made three overseas visits as follows:

  Date

  Destination

  1–2 August

  Poland and Lithuania

  7–8 September

  The Hague and Berlin

  18–22 September

  Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and South Africa

  (b) Copies of the speeches made on each occasion have been placed in the Library, along with (c) a list of interviews given to the media since 21 July.

  (d) A copy of my speech to the Conservative and Unionist conference in Bournemouth on 14 October is available in the Library of the House.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a current list of special advisers attached to Ministers stating the Minister they work for, the date of their appointment, the name of their previous employer before their initial appointment as a special adviser attached to a Minister, and the organisation from which they are seconded.

  The Prime Minister
  Currently there are 32 special advisers attached to Ministers. None is on secondment from an outside organisation. The names of the advisers, the Ministers they work for, the dates of their current appointments and the names of their previous employers before their initial appointments and the names of their previous employers before their initial appointments as special advisers are as follows:
  253

  Name

  Minister (s) served

  Date of Appointment

  Previous Employer

  T Burke*

  Secretary of State for Environment

  28 May 1993

  Green Alliance

  J Caine

  Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

  17 June 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  Dr. E Cottrell

  Secretary of State for Education

  21 July 1994

  Conservative Central Office

  Dr. W Eltis*

  President of the Board of Trade

  1 January 1993

  National Economic Development Office

  M Fraser

  Minister for Overseas Development

  10 April 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  J Gray

  Jointly to the Ministers for Local Government and Inner Cities; Environment and Countryside; and Housing and Planning

  28 May 1993

  GNI Ltd

  D Green

  Prime Minister

  1 June 1992

  Business Television

  Mrs. S Hogg

  Prime Minister

  10 April 1992

  Daily and Sunday Telegraph

  Ms. S Hole

  Chief Whip

  13 April 1992

  Lord Rothschild

  A Kemp*

  President of the Board of Trade

  28 May 1992

  CDP Nexus Ltd

  Mrs. T Keswick

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  28 May 1993

  Cluff Investments and Trading

  G MacKay

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  8 May 1992

  Pieda plc

  M MacLay

  Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

  19 May 1993

  The European

  R Marsh

  Secretary of State for Health

  21 April 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  Ms. S McEwen

  Lord Privy Seal

  21 July 1994

  Namara Cowan Ltd

  M McManus

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  21 July 1994

  Conservative Central Office

  P Moman

  Lord President

  15 December 1993

  Self employed consultant and writer

  L O'Connor*

  Secretary of state for the Environment

  14 March 1994

  Self employed Architect

  Mrs. K Ramsay

  Prime Minister

  2 June 1992

  Conservative Central Office

  P Rock

  Home Secretary

  28 May 1993

  Conservative Central Office

  D Ruffley

  Cheif Secretary

  21 July 1994

  Clifford Chance

  D Rutley

  Minister of Agricutlure, Fisheries & Food

  21 July 1994

  Pepsi Cola International

  Lady Strathnaver

  President of the Board of Trade

  21 April 1992

  Haymarket Publishing Services Ltd

  N True

  Prime Minister

  10 April 1992

  Public Policy Unit

  Miss. A Warburton

  Prime Minister

  12 January 1994

  Career break

  Miss. R Whetstone

  Home Secretary

  5 September 1994

  Conservative Central Office

  H Williams

  Secretary of State for Wales

  18 October 1993

  Governing Body of Rugby School, also Freelance Journalist and Writer

  A Young

  Secretary of State for Scotland

  8 May 1992

  Drummond & Co

  * Special advisers fall into two categories, political and those with specialised expertise relevant to their appropriate Secretary of State. The latter are indicated by an Asterisk.

  Ministerial Appointments
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will update the tables given in his answers of 6 December,Official Report, column 28, following the changes in ministerial appointments that have occurred this year.

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is as follows:

  As at

  Paybill (1)£ million

  1994–95 (2)£ million

  July 1994

  1·16

  1·16

  June 1993

  1·37

  1·40

  September 1992

  1·30

  1·36

  September 1991

  1·10

  1·20

  July 1990

  0·95

  1·09

  June 1989

  0·93

  1·19

  September 1988

  0·74

  1·00

  (1) Not including earnings-related national insurance contribution and other personnel overheads.

  (2) Calculated using the GDP deflator.

  254

  Salary Band

  1Number of Special Advisers

  £

  0-10,000

  —

  10-20,000

  1

  20-30,000

  8

  30-40,000

  5

  40-50,000

  8

  50-60,000

  7

  60-70,000

  1

  70-80,000

  —

  80-90,000

  —

  90-100,000

  1

  1 As at 31 July 1994.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with Lord Justice Scott about his proposal, and the timescale of that proposal, to allow witnesses before his inquiry, whom he may criticise in his report, an opportunity to comment before the report is finalised.
  255
  The Prime Minister
  There has been no discussion between the Government and Sir Richard Scott concerning the principles underlying his proposal to give witnesses whom he may criticise an opportunity to comment before his report is finalised. However, Government officials have discussions with the inquiry team from time to time on a range of issues including the administrative aspects of Sir Richard Scott's proposal outlined above, but the timing of these matters is entirely a matter for him,

EDUCATION

  Schools Budget
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will show for each local education authority and for each year since 1988–89(a) the cash value of the general schools budget divided by the number of pupils (b) the cash value of the potential schools budget divided by the number of pupils and (c) the cash value of the aggregate schools budget divided by the number of pupils.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested for the financial years 1991–92 to 1994–95, has been placed in the Library. Corresponding information for the 1990–91 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Stratford Grant-maintained School
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about Stratford grant-maintained school.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Stratford grant-maintained school was judged by a registered inspector to require special measures. The school is being regularly monitored by the Office for Standards in Education to assess the progress it is making in implementing its action plan. In order to assist the governors, my right hon. Friend has exercised her power under section 67 of the Education Act 1993 to appoint an additional governor, Mrs Daphne Gould, to the school. I have placed a letter sent by officials to Mrs Gould concerning her appointment in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  English Heritage Inspections
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when officials from English Heritage last inspected(a) County hall, London and (b) Battersea power station.

  Mr. Dorrell
  County hall was last visited by English Heritage staff on 24 August 1994. Battersea power station was last visited on 8 June 1994 and English Heritage plans another visit within the next week.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of work by the Local Government Commission.
  256
  Mr. Curry
  To date, the Local Government Commission has submitted final reports for 10 shire counties, of which three have been referred back to the Commission for second review. It has now published its draft recommendations for these second reviews and for the remaining 29 counties. It plans to submit nine more final responses on 26 October and the rest by the turn of the year.

  Water Supply
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many domestic households in England and Wales have their water supply disconnected, on average, each week.

  Mr. Atkins
  The latest figures available from the Office of Water Services indicate that, of the 19·4 million households in England and Wales receiving mains domestic water, 12,452 disconnections were undertaken in the 12 months to 31 March 1994, an average of 239 per week.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress with the implementation of the single regeneration budget.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress with the implementation of the single regeneration budget.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The single regeneration budget was implemented on 1 April 1994.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications have been submitted to the single regeneration budget for funds to support education programmes in schools, with particular reference to the teaching of English to ethnic minority children.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Of the total of 469 bids for funding from the single regeneration budget received by Government offices for the regions by the deadline of 7 September 1994, approximately 200 relate in whole or in part to support for education programmes and, of those, approximately 50 specifically refer to the teaching of English to ethnic minority children.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made on regional statements for the single regeneration budget.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The criteria for the single regeneration budget are set out in the "Bidding Guidance" issued on 14 April 1994, copies of which are in the Library of the House. There are no separate regional statements for the budget, although, as the "Bidding Guidance" states at paragraph 17, initiatives supported by the budget may relate to existing local or regional strategies such as community support frameworks prepared in relation to European structural funds, planning policy guidance and local authority development plans and economic development strategies.

  Summit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new international environmental arrangements have been reached or discussed arising out of the G7 summit.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to meet United Kingdom environmental obligations arising out of the general agreement on tariffs and trade round.

  Mr. Atkins
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House on 11 July, the G7 agreed to speed up progress in meeting the commitments made at the Earth summit in Rio, and to report further progress at next year's G7 summit.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the links between air quality and respiratory problems experienced by people in areas close to motorways.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been no recent discussions specifically with regard to problems experienced by those living close to motorways. However, I and my colleagues will be considering issues of air quality and public health when we discuss later this year the terms of our response to the consultation paper on improving air quality.

  Town Centres
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends to revitalise town centres.

  Mr. Gummer
  Through the combination of a strong national economy, sensible planning and specific measures such as city challenge to unlock local commitment.

  GATT
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has held on the on-going environmental obligations arising out of the GATT round.

  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom is contributing to the work of the Trade and Environment sub-committee of the preparatory committee of the new World Trade Organisation.

  Local Government Review
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the local government review.

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission is on schedule to submit its final reports by the turn of the year and I intend that implementation of the review will be complete, in line with the published timetable, by 1 April 1997.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the Local Government Commission's review of Derbyshire.
  258
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Local Government Commission published draft recommendations for Derbyshire on 5 September, following its further review of local government structure there. The consultation period lasts until 7 November and the Commission will then draw up its final recommendations, which are due at the end of December this year.

  Water Industry
  Mr Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes he proposes in the system of regulation of the water industry.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government have every confidence in the effectiveness of the existing regulatory system. In July, the Director General of Water Services announced new, tougher price limits for the water companies.

  Local Government Reform, Essex
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made with local government reform in Essex.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Local Government Commission published draft recommendations for the future local government of Essex on 11 July. The consultation period ended on 26 September and the Commission is now drawing up its final recommendations which are due in December.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimate of the number of people who are either homeless or inadequately housed.

  Mr. Gummer
  Some 128,000 households were accepted by local authorities in England as statutorily homeless during the 12 months ending in June 1994. In 1992, a housing attitudes survey carried out for my Department found that only 2 per cent. of households were very dissatisfied with their housing; some of this dissatisfaction will have been associated with factors other than the adequacy of the accommodation, for example its location.

  National Parks
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce legislation to update the management of national parks.

  Mr. Atkins
  It remains our firm intention to introduce national parks legislation to establish independent authorities for the national parks in England and Wales as soon as there is an opportunity to do so.

  Chlorine
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is Government policy on EC proposals to restrict the use of chlorine in industrial processes.
  259
  Mr. Atkins
  The United Kingdom Government, in common with the rest of the European Union, support a science-based approach to evaluating the risk and benefits of substances including chlorine and chlorinated compounds which takes account of possible alternative substances. Only after the appropriate risk assessments have been undertaken, and the evidence from them demonstrates a need for action, will the Government agree to any restrictions.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to meet representatives of the local authority associations to discuss the settlement of local government finance for 1995–96.

  Mr. Curry
  My right hon. Friend and I discussed the local government finance settlement for 1995–96 with representatives of the local authority associations at the meeting of the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on 10 October.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the benefits from compulsory competitive tendering.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Independent research confirms that compulsory competitive tendering has reduced costs by an average of 7 per cent. and up to 13 per cent. for some services; has at least maintained and in about 25 per cent. of contracts improved the standards set for services, with clear performance targets and better monitoring of service delivery; and has led to improved work practices and management.

  Local Authority Standards
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each local authority in England and indicate whether the authority(a) has had no more than three reports of maladministration between 1990 and 1993, (b) has received one or more charter marks for council services in 1992 or 1993, (c) has received no directions for anti-competitive behaviour or for the financial failure of direct services organisations before January, (d) has been judged well ahead of the field in its region under the housing investment programme between 1992 and 1995, (e) has been the winner of a city challenge competition, (f) has local or unitary development plans for the whole council area and the council has decided half or more of its planning decisions within eight weeks, (g) budgeted to spend below its standard spending assessment between 1991 and 1994, (h) reduced its indebtedness between 1991 and 1993 and (i) collected at least half of

  Nitrogen Dioxide

  Place

  Date

  Predicted

  Actual

  London

  12–13 December 1991

  Very Poor

  Very Poor

  Manchester

  23 December 1991

  Poor

  Very Poor

  260
  its national non-domestic rates by 30 September in 1991 and 1993.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have today made available in the Library of the House a table which shows this information.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 18 July,Official Report, column 44, (a) how is the freephone helpline promoted, (b) what assessment has been made of the level of public awareness of the helpline and (c) how many calls the helpline has received in the past 12 months.

  Mr. Atkins
  (a) The freephone line is promoted in a variety of leaflets and cards produced by my Department as well as literature produced by organisations such as the National Society for Clean Air and the National Asthma Campaign. In addition, the freephone number is carried on Ceefax and Teletext.

  (b) In 1993 two assessments were prepared for the Department, an independent consultancy and the survey of public attitudes to the environment—reported in the "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics No.16". These indicated a 2 per cent. awareness of the freephone line in the general population.

  (c) In the 12 months ending on 30 September 1994, a total of 146,325 calls were received on the freephone, an average of 400 calls per day. In the previous 12 months to 30 September 1993 the average number was 259 calls per day.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 14 July,Official Report, column 769, what was the statistical basis for his statement that the number of telephone calls to the air quality bulletin freephone line increased substantially; and if he will place in the Library the survey on public awareness and actions during the pollution episode on 2 July.

  Mr. Atkins
  The daily average number of calls to the freephone in the week before 2 July was 536. The number of calls received on the freephone over the next three days averaged 1,184 per day.

  I have placed a copy of the survey on public awareness and actions during the episodes of 2 to 3 and 12 to 13 of July 1994 in the Library.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times serious air pollution has occurred without being forecast by his Department in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Atkins
  In the last three years air pollution has reached levels which the Department describes as "very poor" on seven days, six of which were forecast to be "poor" or "very poor" and one forecast to be "good".
  261

  Sulphur Dioxide

  Place

  Date

  Predicted

  Actual

  Belfast

  10 December 1991

  Poor

  Very Poor

  Belfast

  20 December 1991

  Poor

  Very Poor

  Belfast

  22 December 1991

  Very Poor

  Very Poor

  Belfast

  31 January 1993

  Good

  Very Poor

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) of 18 July,Official Report, column 44, in what form and quantities the information from his Department's non-automatic and automatic monitoring sites is published; and how this information is distributed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The measurements of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and benzene from the automatic monitoring networks are available on Ceefax, Teletext and the DOE air quality helpline—freephone 0800 556677—and are updated hourly. The information is supplied daily to 20 other organisations for their use and 70 groups have on-line access to the databases currently held at the National Environmental Technology centre. Specific requests for air quality information can also be made to the centre.

  Following validation of the data, the air quality measurements from both the automatic and non-automatic networks are available from the operators of the network. Since 1987, annual reports such as "Air Pollution in the United Kingdom" have been prepared which summarise the measurements made by the different national networks. Two thousand copies of these reports are published and are available on request. The information is also published in specialist reports prepared by the Department's review groups and as specialist papers in the open scientific literature.

  Tesco Store (Stockport)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to make a decision on the application and appeal to build a store at Tiviot way, Stockport by Tesco Stores and Salinam Investment Ltd.

  Mr. Sir Paul Beresford
  Our normal target is to seek to issue the decision on a planning appeal within eight weeks of receipt of the inspector's inquiry report, which in this case would be before 9 November.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the Government have to abandon the future storage of radioactive waste at the British Nuclear Fuels plc base at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. The Government's position was set out in the consultation document, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", which was published in August. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Responses to the document are currently being considered.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses were received to his consultation paper on radioactive waste management as part of the nuclear review; if he will place in the Library a list of the respondents; and when he expects to complete the report on the responses to the consultation.
  262
  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 17 October 1994]: The review of radioactive waste management policy is being carried out separately from but parallel to the nuclear review. The total number of responses received when the consultation period ended on 14 October was 292. We are, however, continuing to receive a number of late returns. A list of respondents will be placed in the Library of the House. A statement of the Government's conclusions in the light of the consultation exercise will be made in due course.

  Climatic Change
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government have taken to evaluate evidence and research about climatic change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government maintain a close watch on developments in the understanding of climate change, primarily through my Department's climate change prediction programme at the Meteorological Office's Hadley centre. The programme seeks to greatly improve our understanding of human impacts on the climate system and to provide improved predictions of future climate change. The programme also provides continual advice on the latest research results and current climate events and trends. The Hadley centre also provides a focus for the United Kingdom's effort on climate change research.

  The Government also look to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC—to provide a well-balanced and comprehensive review of all the issues relating to climate change. The IPCC has prepared a number of assessments including an interim report this year and will prepare a major assessment in 1995.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the zoos refused a licence on welfare grounds in each year since 1984, together with subsequent Government actions.

  Mr. Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally since zoo licensing and inspection under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 is the responsibility of district councils in England.

  The Act provides for inspections of the premises by inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State, and the local authority has powers to refuse to grant a licence if it is not satisfied that the standards of accommodation, staffing or management are adequate for the proper care and well-being of the zoo animals.

  If, following an inspection, a zoo is refused a licence, the authority concerned would normally give reasons for refusal. An establishment refused a licence would not be

  263
  able to operate as a zoo, and would subsequently be granted a licence only if it was able to rectify any deficiencies identified by the local authority. Enforcement of animal welfare legislation is the responsibility of the police and local authorities.

  Accommodation
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number of(a) council tenants, (b) housing association tenants, (c) tenants of private landlords and (d) owner-occupiers who are living in accommodation which contains (i) one, (ii) two and (iii) three or more bedrooms more than are needed for their own household requirements, in (a) England and Wales and (b) each local authority area in Greater London.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The latest available estimates for England and Greater London are as follows:

  Households with more bedrooms than the bedroom standard 1993–94

  Number of bedrooms more than bedroom standard

  Tenure

  One 000,s

  Two 000,s

  Three or more 000,s

  England

  Council tenants

  1,260

  470

  20

  Housing association tenants

  180

  40

  —

  Private tenants

  690

  300

  50

  Owner occupiers

  5,450

  4,300

  980

  All tenures

  7,570

  5,110

  1,040

  Greater London

  Council tenants

  140

  50

  —

  Housing association tenants

  30

  10

  —

  Private tenants

  100

  30

  —

  Owner occupiers

  580

  460

  100

  All tenures

  860

  550

  110

  — indicates less than 5,000.

  These figures are from the 1993–94 Survey of English Housing and are subject to sampling error. The sample is not large enough to provide estimates for individual local authorities.
  Comparable figures for England and Wales are not readily available.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what evidence he has on the extent of under-occupancy by tenants of(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations and (c) private landlords receiving housing benefit;

  (2) what information he has on the number of tenants receiving housing benefit who are occupying accommodation which contains (a) one, (b) two and (c) three or more bedrooms more than are required by members of their household (i) in Great Britain, (ii) in England and Wales and (iii) in each local authority area in Greater London.
  264
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The latest available estimates for England and Greater London are as follows:

  Households receiving housing benefit and having more bedrooms than the bedroom standard 1993–94

  Number of bedrooms more than bedroom standard

  Tenure

  One 000's

  Two 000's

  Three or more 000's

  England

  Council tenants

  750

  280

  10

  Housing association tenants

  100

  20

  —

  Private tenants

  220

  70

  —

  All tenants

  1,070

  370

  10

  Greater London

  Council tenants

  100

  40

  —

  Housing association tenants

  10

  —

  —

  Private tenants

  40

  10

  —

  All tenants

  150

  50

  —

  — indicates less than 5,000

  These figures are from the 1993–94 Survey of English Housing and are subject to sampling error. The sample is not large enough to provide estimates for individual local authorities. Comparable figures for Great Britain and for England and Wales are not readily available.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will publish details of the annual on-going compliance costs for new regulations affecting business for which his Department has completed compliance cost assessments.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Details of the on-going compliance costs relating to new domestic and European Community legislation in 1993 are as follows:

  The Environmental Protection (Controls on Injurious Substances Regulations 1993

  These regulations restrict the marketing and use of specified substances such as lead carbonate and lead sulphate in paint in order to reduce risks to the environment and human health. Annual compliance costs to industry are estimated to be £50,000 for changing to alternatives for the few remaining uses where alternatives had not already been introduced by 1993.

  The Environmental Protection (Controls on Injurious Substances) (no. 2) Regulation 1993 (Cadmium Directive)

  The compliance cost assessment of 16 June 1993 estimated costs to business of restricting the use of cadmium at £200,000 over 3 years. Assuming a linear decline in the cost differential, the annual costs are estimated as:

  1993–94 £100,000

  1994–95 £66,000

  1995–96 £33,000

  The Boilers (Efficiency) Regulations 1993

  Estimated initial costs incurred by manufacturers will be approximately £25 million, with annual costs thereafter of £750,000. These costs will be passed on to purchasers, but will be more than offset by the consequential savings from greater fuel efficiency which are expected to rise over 20 years to over £23 million, a year.
  265
  The Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste Regulation 1993

  The regulations apply only to a narrow class of radioactive waste travelling in to and out of the United Kingdom. Compliance costs for the small number of shipments affected are limited to filling in the forms necessary to obtain authorisation for such a shipment to take place. This cost is estimated to be in the region of £150 per application, which is minimal in the context of the typical value of contracts, likely to be affected by the regulations. Conditions imposed on an authorisation or approval granted under the regulations may not be stricter than those that would be imposed upon a purely domestic shipment of radioactive waste. The regulations came into force on 1 January 1994—implementing EC Directive 92–3/Euratom—and no applications have so far been made under them.

  The Local Authorities (Recovery of Costs for Public Path Orders) Regulations 1993

  The estimated cost for all applicants is £1.2 million—£1.5 million per year, not taking account of any refunds or waivers conceded in particular cases. The cost to business was not identified separately.

  The European Community Substances Regulation 793/93 (and draft Notification of Existing Substances (Enforcement) Regulation 1994)

  Estimated compliance costs are £11 million to £48 million for 1993–99 and thereafter under £1 million per year representing the cost of reporting data on substances to the Community for priority-setting and risk assessment of priority substances. Industry will supply information about significant new costs if any. Annual collection of data would not be cost-effective because it would place too high a burden on industry and the Department.

  The Directive on Control of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emission Resulting from the Storage of Petrol and its Distribution from Terminals to Service Stations (the so-called 'Stage 1' Directive)

  Total non-recurring costs to industry shown in the compliance cost assessment are between £332.8 million and £357.8 million. Total recurring costs are expected to be between £105·2 million and £113·1 million. A proposal for a further directive—stage 2—is expected later in 1994, and a CCA will be provided.

  The Council Regulation on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

  The regulation is not likely to come into force before the end of 1994. Estimated costs to the refrigeration and air conditioning industry of changing from transitional HCFCS to non-ozone depleting alternatives were around £110 million at current prices. These costs will be staggered over time as equipment becomes obsolete. The foam-blowing industry will be the other major sector involved; the main issue here is not the cost of compliance but rather the increased flammability risk involved in alternative processes.

  The Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive

  Most of the hazardous waste incinerators are in the private sector where costs can be recovered.

  I have also placed in the Library details of compliance costs for legislation passed before 1993 for which compliance cost assessments were completed.

  Environment Council
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State of the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 4 October and on his meeting with representatives of central and eastern European states on 5 October.

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council in Luxembourg on 4 October.

  The Council called on the Commission to take forward work on eco-labelling urgently and to bring forward measures to protect groundwater. In the discussion on the disposal of PCBs/PCTs, I offered help to small member states, such as Portugal, without sufficient destruction capacity of their own and there was agreement on a split phase out date of 2000 for North sea states and 2005 or 2010 for other member states. Debates were held on climate change and transport and the environment. Discussion of both the draft biocides directive and proposals to amend the wildlife trade regulation showed the need for further work at official level. There was an inconclusive debate on an unsatisfactory presidency text on the draft directive for integrated pollution prevention and control.

  The meeting on 5 October marked the start of structured dialogue with six central and eastern European states. Those present were Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. There was an useful exchange of views on a wide range of topics including preparations for the next Environment Ministers' conference in Sofia, climate change, and transport and the environment.

  Crowfield Airfield
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will be involved in the decision to be taken on the discontinuance order made by Mid Suffolk district council seeking to restrict flying at Crowfield airfield, Suffolk.

  Mr. Gummer
  As the airfield is close to my home and constituency, I have delegated the taking of a decision on the discontinuance order to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Construction and Planning in accordance with the long-standing convention that planning Ministers do not take decisions where they have a personal or constituency interest.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what land the Housing Executive owns in the village of Ballyhalbert, and what plans the Executive has to build new homes in the village.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I understand from the chief executive that the Executive owns one small area of land at Moat road in Ballyhalbert. It does not, however, intend to develop the site because of low demand for housing in the area.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are for a homes
  267
  renovation scheme at Victoria gardens, Ballyhalbert and when the Northern Ireland Housing Executive plans to commence this work.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I understand from the chief executive that an improvement scheme for the five dwellings at Victoria gardens, Ballyhalbert is programmed to commence early in 1995.

  Water Meters
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage increase in the cost of water measured by meter in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1990–91

  12·3

  1991–92

  14·6

  1992–93

  5·3

  1993–94

  8·1

  1994–95

  4·7

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are connected to the public water supply; and how many of these have their water consumption measured by water meter.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  It is estimated that approximately 98·5 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population of 1·6 million receives public water supplies. Only commercial, industrial and agricultural premises have their water consumption measured by meters. There are presently 77,912 supplies in these categories.

  Social Security Agency
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his plans to review the Social Security Agency.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  It is the Government's policy that the status and organisation of all next steps agencies should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the organisational arrangements continue to be appropriate. The Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland has started work on a review of the Social Security Agency. As well as evaluating the performance of the agency since it was established in 1991, the review will consider what future organisation of the work of the agency will best support the cost-effective delivery of social security operations within Northern Ireland. The review will pay particular attention to improvements in service to the customer, value for money, accuracy and fraud prevention.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in the Social Security Agency and its work will be most welcome. Anyone who would like to comment is asked to make contact as soon as possible with:

  Mr. Peter Small

  Principal Establishment & Finance Officer

  Department of Health & Social Services

  Castle Buildings

  Stormont

  Belfast BT4 3TL

  268
  The closing date for contributions is Friday 18 November 1994. I will inform the House of the result of the review.

  Health and Social Services
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has for developing the inspection of health and social services in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ancram
  The citizens charter recognizes the key role played by public service inspectorates in checking standards and ensuring that the professional services which the public receives are delivered in the most effective way possible and genuinely meet the needs of the people they serve. The charter puts forward three key principles for inspectorates: independence, lay involvement and openness.

  In August 1993 my right hon. and learned friend the Secretary of State issued a consultation paper, "Improving Inspections", which set out proposals for the entrenchment of each of these principles in the inspection of health and social services in Northern Ireland. The paper received a wide circulation amongst interested parties and attracted a generally favourable response. Having considered the comments made we have now issued a circular which provides that inspectorates will remain at arm's length from the management of services and that, from April 1995, lay people will play a full part in many inspections. It also reinforces earlier guidance in requiring that inspection reports should be published. I have placed a copy of the circular in the Library of the House.

  The new requirements extend both to health and social services board's registration and inspection units and to the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health and Social Services. The latter has been publishing its reports of inspections on particular areas of practice for some time, and has already begun user involvement in certain inspections.

  We believe that these changes will give inspectors a stronger influence on services and help the public form their own judgements.

TRANSPORT

  Driver Qualifications
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the qualifications, including testing, which are required for drivers of minibuses and vehicles in which more than 10 passengers are carried.

  Mr. Norris
  A vehicle with up to 16 passenger seats may be driven by the holder of a category B, car, driving licence, provided the passengers are not being carried for hire or reward.

  Drivers of such vehicles which are used for hire or reward, and drivers of vehicles with more than 16 passenger seats, are required to pass a further driving test for a category D, bus, licence and to he able to meet specified standards of health and conduct.

  Drivers of vehicles which are used under the terms of the permit schemes which allow organisations concerned with education, social welfare and other activities of benefit to the community, to charge for transport services,

  269
  providing no overall profit is made, are exempted from the need to hold a category D licence and may be driven by category B licence holders.

  EU Transport Council
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the result of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 26 September.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what matters were discussed, what decisions taken, and which were decided by vote, at the EU Transport Council meeting in Brussels on 26 September.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Transport Council met in Brussels on 26 September. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council reached a common position on a draft directive which lays down uniform procedures for checking lorries carrying dangerous goods.

  The Council discussed the texts of two directives on licences for railway operators and the allocation and charging of track capacity. The United Kingdom was successful in limiting the scope to certain types of international services only and protecting the position of the channel tunnel shuttle services. The adoption of a common position is subject to the lifting of the parliamentary scrutiny reserves that I placed.

  The Council agreed a resolution on the situation in the European civil aviation industry. I expressed strong concern about the Commission's criteria for allowing state aids and the way in which they have been applied in recent cases. I emphasised that state aid was not acceptable if it maintained over-capacity.

  The Council agreed a resolution on the road haulage industry. In particular it asked the Commission to review the standards for access to the road transport operator profession and to report on the training of lorry drivers.

  The Council agreed resolutions on transport telematics and structural improvements in inland waterway transport. The Council held a preliminary debate on trans-European networks.

  The Council invited the Commission to seek further clarification from the Swiss Government on their plans for implementing the referendum vote to ban lorries from transmitting the country by 2004, and to report at the November Council.

  No votes were necessary.

  Railstrike
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the effect of the extra(a) cars and (b) heavy goods vehicles on the road during the signalmen's strike to date.

  Mr. Norris
  No detailed estimates have been made but regular reports to the Department indicated that the level of congestion was not substantially worse on strike days.

  A45
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of renumbering the A45 to Al4 along its entire length.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  270
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 19 October 1994.
  Steven Norris, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, has asked me to write in response to your Parliamentary Written Question about the cost of renumbering the A45 to A14 along its entire length.
  The estimated total cost of renumbering the A45 to A14 through Cambridgeshire and Suffolk is £122,938. A final account has yet to be submitted.

  Duty (Spirits)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated cost to the Treasury would be in the next financial year if the relief from duty on spirits used to manufacture certain eligible foodstuffs and beverages was extended to businesses which manufacture mainly or wholly for retail sale in terms of(a) lost revenue and (b) administration and processing costs.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I regret that these figures could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  VAT
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income was generated by VAT on zoo admission prices in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Figures are not readily available on the amount of VAT generated on zoo admission prices for each year since 1987.

  It is estimated that between £5 million and £10 million was generated by VAT on zoo admission prices in 1993.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC member states(a) charges and (b) do not charge VAT on entrance to zoos.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom all charge VAT on entrance to zoos.

  Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and Portugal charge no VAT on entrance to zoos which are either non-profit making or administered by state bodies. VAT is charged on admissions to other types of zoos.

  Denmark and Italy charge no VAT on entrance to zoos.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much has been spent by his Department in each of the last three years to(a) produce public information in alternative formats for visually impaired people and (b) publicise the availability of accessible information among visually impaired people;

  (2) if he will indicate which departmental publications are currently available (a) in Braille, (b) in large print and (c) on tape; and if he will indicate what efforts have been made by his Department to inform visually impaired people about the availability of publications in alternative formats to normal print.

  Mr. Nelson
  If a request were received for a Braille version of a particular document, the Treasury would assess the feasibility of using Cabinet Office facilities which exist to produce documents in this format. The majority of Treasury publications are available on computer disk, on request. Such disks can be processed by voice synthesizer packages.

  World Bank and IMF Meeting
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on matters discussed and decisions taken at the joint meeting of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund in Madrid in October; and if he will place in the Library copies of United Kingdom submissions to both meetings and their final communiqués.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I attended the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World bank in Madrid from 30 September to 4 October. I also attended the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Valletta from 27 to 28 September which discussed several issues also discussed at the IMF/World bank meetings. Following on from the meeting in Valletta, I was able to make some progress, on behalf of the United Kingdom, on a number of issues of importance for the world economy, for developing countries and for the economies in transition.

  At the meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers I set out new United Kingdom proposals for helping very poor countries with unsustainable burdens of multilateral debt. These proposals complement those we have been pressing for over the last four years to reduce the burden of bilateral debt for the poorest countries by full implementation of Trinidad terms debt relief. My new proposal for the IMF involves use of the income from investment of the proceeds of a modest and phased sale of part of the IMF's gold reserves to support more and longer-term concessional lending to highly indebted countries with significant debt to the IMF and which are following IMF programmes of economic reform. I also called on the other international financial institutions to consider further what they could do to assist their poorest most indebted members. The proposals received strong support from other Commonwealth Finance Ministers. They also supported my proposals to take forward action on international money laundering agreed at last year's Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

  In Madrid, my proposals on multilateral debt received support in the development and interim committees of the World bank and the IMF, and will now be considered further by the boards of the World bank and the IMF.

  As is usual, the IMF/World bank annual meetings were preceded by a meeting of G7 Finance Ministers and Central bank governors. We agreed, both in the G7 and in the. IMF interim committee, that the outlook for the world economy is good; and that we must ensure the sustainability of the recovery by remaining vigilant against inflation, and by making further progress in reducing budget deficits and in structural reform to improve the flexibility of our labour markets and economies. G7 Ministers and Governors also met with Russian and Ukrainian Ministers, to discuss progress in economic reform in those countries.

  In the IMF's interim committee I spoke about the development of the world capital markets and the implications for policy. I stressed the benefits of the free international flow of capital. I also highlighted the special responsibility of the countries with the world's major trading currencies and financial markets to follow sensible and credible economic policies, as the way to foster greater world financial market stability. I also raised the question of a possible connection between lower levels of
  272
  world savings and high real interest rates. I am pleased that G10 Ministers and governors have agreed to my proposal to examine this important issue in more detail.

  I was also very pleased we were able to reach agreement in the interim committee to an increase in access limits for the IMF's standby arrangement and extended financing facilities. The United Kingdom has been pressing for this: extra financial assistance in support of good economic policies is the best form of help the IMF can give to member countries with economic difficulties. I was disappointed that we were unable to agree to a renewal of, and an increase in, access under the fund's systemic transformation facility, which is of particular assistance to the former communist countries trying to create market economies. I also regret the failure to reach agreement on the long-standing issue of an SDR allocation. The proposals put forward jointly by the United Kingdom and United States on this remain on the table, and I very much hope that agreement will be possible on this basis over the months ahead.

  The joint IMF/World bank development committee took aid effectiveness as its main theme. I stressed the need for market-friendly policies which allow private enterprise to flourish, and the need to ensure fuller participation by the people directly affected by World bank projects. I also welcomed World bank president Preston's vision of a leaner, more cost-effective, and more agile World bank.

  This year's meetings of the World bank and IMF marked the 50th anniversary of their founding conference, and were preceded by a special conference, which I attended, to discuss their future directions. There was broad agreement among participants from developing countries, industrial countries and countries in transition on many aspects of the future role of the institutions, and also on the economic policies they should be encouraging their members to pursue.

  Copies of my speeches to the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting, the interim committee, the development committee and the IMF/World bank annual meetings and the communiques issued following the meetings of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers, the interim committee and the development committee will be placed in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his assessment of the effects of the measures proposed in annex 2 of "Employment: The Challenge for the Nation". Cmnd. 9474 on output and employment in manufacturing industry; and if he will publish a table showing manufacturing output and the number of full-time male and female workers employed in manufacturing in 1973, 1979, 1984 and at the latest available date.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  An assessment of Government policies, including those over the last few years, is set out in "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win". Cmnd. 2563. Figures for manufacturing output and full-time employees in employment are set out in the following table:
  273

  Output and employees in employment in manufacturing

  Index of output (seasonally adjusted 1990 = 100)

  Male full-time employees in (thousands) Great Britian seasonally unadjusted

  Female full-time employees in employment (thousands) Great Britian seasonally unadjusted

  1973

  94·6

  —

  11,794

  1979

  90·6

  —

  11,617

  1984

  82·2

  23,709

  11,225

  August 1994

  98·9

  12,906

  11,002

  Notes:

  1 June figures.

  2September 1984, the earliest available figure.

  —Unavailable.

  Railway Signal Workers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 539, comparing the increase in the real earnings of railway signal workers with those of other workers, what has been the percentage increase since 1979 in the real-wage cost of operating the railway signal system; what proportion of the sample quoted in his answer consisted of railway signal workers; and why he was unable to give the figures for such workers solely.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The trend in the wages costs of operating the railway signalling system is a management matter for the industry.

  In the 1993 "New Earnings Survey" sample, 56 full-time employees were classified as railway signal operatives and crossing keepers and 10 were classified as shunters and point operatives. In the combined category and it is impossible to separately identify those who were railway signal operatives.

  Information on the increases in earnings between 1979 and 1993 of railway signal workers alone could not be given because the relevant category of the occupation coding scheme used between 1979 and 1990 included railway signal workers and the other workers.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) further to his written reply dated 12 July comparing the increase in the real earnings of categories of full-time non—manual employees since 1989, if he will provide comparable figures for 1979 to 1989;

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 12 July, Official Report, column 539, comparing the increases in the real earnings of categories of full-time non-manual employees, if he will provide comparable figures for 1979 to 1989.

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

  Percentiles 10 per cent.

  25 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  90 per cent.

  Percentage increase in pay 1979–1989

  Railway signalman and shunters

  men

  —

  5·3

  13·7

  21·8

  —

  women

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Public manuals

  men

  5·8

  5·7

  6·0

  7·4

  8·7

  women

  11·5

  17·8

  17·2

  19·5

  23·1

  274
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Real percentage increase in average gross weekly earnings between April 1979 and April 1989 for full-time non-manual employees

  Industry

  Percentage increase

  Production and distribution of electricity

  33·3

  Manufacture of office machinery and data processing equipment

  56·4

  Retail distribution

  41·1

  Railways

  35·1

  Banking and finance

  45·8

  Banking and bill discounting

  43·3

  Business services

  58·9

  Accountants, auditors, tax experts

  55·0

  Social security

  1—

  Higher education

  41·0

  School education (nursery, primary, secondary)

  30·0

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey.

  Note:

  1 In 1979 this category was grouped with National Government Service.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 539 if he will publish a table showing (a) the top and bottom deciles in each case, (b) the corresponding figures for manual workers in manufacturing industry and non-manuals in the public sector and (c) the estimated increase in output per head in railway signalmen.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The available information is shown in the following table. There were too few railway signalmen and shunters in the new earnings survey sample for reliable estimates to be made of the top and bottom deciles.

  Information on changes in output per head of railway signalmen is a management matter for the industry.
  275

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

  Percentiles 10 per cent.

  25 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  75 per cent.

  90 per cent.

  Manufacturing manuals

  men

  0·6

  5·7

  10·6

  14·2

  18·2

  women

  6·7

  6·9

  9·2

  13·8

  22·0

  All manuals

  men

  1·5

  6·0

  9·8

  13·4

  16·5

  women

  10·1

  10·3

  12·2

  16·6

  24·3

  Public non-manuals

  men

  12·2

  22·5

  27·5

  27·6

  30·0

  women

  16·0

  26·1

  38·2

  44·1

  40·7

  Private non-manuals

  men

  14·0

  23·1

  33·7

  40·7

  49·2

  women

  25·3

  30·8

  40·8

  50·3

  64·5

  Percentage increase in pay 1989–1993

  Railway

  men

  —

  26·5

  18·1

  21·7

  —

  women

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  all

  —

  26·5

  18·1

  21·7

  —

  Public manuals

  men

  7·3

  4·4

  3·0

  2·1

  1·6

  women

  1·0

  4·1

  7·0

  10·9

  12·3

  all

  5·0

  5·8

  3·8

  2·1

  0·8

  Manufacturing manuals

  men

  0·3

  0·3

  1·4

  2·2

  2·0

  women

  6·2

  6·3

  5·6

  7·2

  8·7

  all

  4·1

  2·5

  1·9

  2·3

  2·4

  All manuals

  men

  1·5

  1·6

  2·2

  2·3

  3·0

  women

  2·5

  3·6

  4·7

  7·0

  9·4

  all

  2·0

  2·8

  2·2

  2·3

  3·2

  Public non-manuals

  men

  10·7

  9·3

  10·9

  10·5

  10·5

  women

  14·8

  11·2

  11·4

  12·3

  13·0

  all

  12·0

  10·0

  10·4

  9·3

  10·7

  Private non-manuals

  men

  -0·2

  -0·1

  1·2

  2·8

  4·1

  women

  7·9

  9·3

  10·6

  12·0

  10·8

  all

  6·9

  6·6

  5·1

  4·7

  4·2

  Average gross weekly pay (£)

  Percentiles 10 per cent.

  25 per cent.

  50 per cent.

  75 per cent

  90 per cent.

  1993

  Railway signalmen and shunters

  men

  —

  260·3

  323·4

  429·4

  —

  women

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  all

  —

  260·3

  323·4

  429·4

  —

  Public manuals

  men

  178·2

  206·2

  247·9

  306·3

  375·9

  women

  111·7

  137·6

  171·7

  214·4

  266·6

  all

  150·7

  190·5

  234·5

  291·3

  360·9

  Manufacturing manuals

  men

  173·9

  215·5

  271·8

  338·9

  418·2

  women

  118·5

  139·2

  168·5

  209·7

  264·3

  all

  149·4

  190·5

  251·3

  321·9

  402·3

  All manual

  men

  160·9

  201·2

  256·4

  324·0

  407·1

  women

  109·6

  130·5

  162·2

  205·8

  263·7

  all

  140·3

  181·4

  239·1

  308·8

  391·1

  Public non-manuals

  men

  223·8

  296·2

  388·2

  476·6

  594·9

  women

  169·6

  203·4

  272·2

  366·4

  433·1

  all

  183·6

  228·4

  322·1

  410·6

  510·6

  Private non-manuals

  men

  186·1

  253·9

  356·4

  498·3

  702·1

  women

  135·8

  167·0

  218·9

  293·3

  391·7

  all

  153·4

  201·9

  289·8

  422·4

  604·0

  Source:

  New Earnings Surveys
  276 277
  Mr Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer, 12 July Official Report, column 539 comparing the increase in the real earnings of categories of full-time non-manual employees, if he will publish a table adding the percentage change since 1989 in real average weekly earnings of (a) full-time primary school teachers, (b) hospital porters, (c) hospital ward orderlies, (d) NHS ancillary staff, (e) NHS maintenance staff, (f) local authority manual workers in England and Wales and (g) manual workers in the (i) footwear, (ii) textiles, (iii)' clothing, (iv) mechanical engineering and (v) motor vehicle industries; and if he will distinguish between male and female workers.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Full time MEN on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence: at April

  Percentage increases in real terms of average gross weekly earnings 1989–1993

  Percentage

  Analyses by occupation

  Primary and nursery education teaching professionals

  17·1

  Hospital porters

  6·5

  Hospital ward assistants

  —

  Analyses by agreement

  NHS ancillary staff Whitley Council

  9·3

  NHS maintenance staff

  0·9

  Local authority manual workers NJC (England and Wales)

  9·8

  Analyses by industry (manual employees)

  Footwear

  11·6

  Textile

  7·8

  Clothing, hats and gloves

  -2·3

  Mechanical engineering

  0·2

  Manufacture of motor vehicles and parts

  -1·2

  Full time WOMEN on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence: at April

  Percentage increases in real terms of average gross weekly earnings 1989–1993

  Percentage

  Analyses by occupation

  Primary and nursery education teaching professionals

  16·9

  Hospital porters

  —

  Hospital ward assistants

  9·5

  Analyses by agreement

  NHS ancillary staff Whitley Council

  15·2

  NHS maintenance staff

  —

  Local authority manual workers NJC (England and Wales)

  10·9

  Analyses by industry (manual employees)

  Footwear

  6·0

  Textile

  4·9

  Clothing, hats and gloves

  5·1

  Mechanical engineering

  7·2

  Manufacture of motor vehicles and parts

  5·5

  Full time EMPLOYEES on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence: at April

  Percentage increases in real terms of average gross weekly earnings 1989–1993

  Percentage

  Analyses by occupation

  Primary and nursery education teaching professionals

  16·5

  Hospital porters

  6·3

  Hospital ward assistants

  3·6

  278

  Full time EMPLOYEES on adult rates—pay unaffected by absence: at April

  Percentage increases in real terms of average gross weekly earnings 1989–1993

  Percentage

  Analyses by agreement

  NHS ancillary staff Whitley Council

  11·1

  NHS maintenance staff

  2·1

  Local authority manual workers NJC (England and Wales)

  9·4

  Analyses by industry (manual employees)

  Footwear

  12·1

  Textile

  8·9

  Clothing, hats and gloves

  3·6

  Mechanical engineering

  0·7

  Manufacture of motor vehicles and parts

  -1·2

  Sorce:

  New Earnings Survey

  Note:

  "—" denotes sample number too small and/or standard error too large for reliable estimate

  Cricket (Overseas Players)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions his Department has undertaken recently with the Test and County Cricket Board concerning work permits for overseas players; and if his Department has issued new advice during or resulting from these discussions.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The arrangements for issuing work permits for overseas players are discussed on a regular and routine basis with the governing bodies of cricket, including the Test and County Cricket Board.

  During and as a result of these discussions, the Department has advised the cricketing bodies on a number of matters concerning work permits. New advice has been issued by the Department where these discussions have raised issues which have not previously been clarified.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase or decrease in the number of full-time adult males and females in employment since(a) 1984 and (b) 1990; and to which of the factors and reforms listed in section 5.1 and annex 2 of "Employment: The Challenge for the Nation", Cmnd. 9474 he ascribes the change.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The period since 1990 covers a trough and a peak in the unemployment cycle. Between the trough in April 1990 and the peak in December 1992, claimant unemployment in Britain grew by 1.37 million. Since then it has fallen by 395,600.

  Claimant unemployment has peaked below its previous high point in 1986, and it also began to fall at an earlier stage than in the previous recovery in the early 1980s. A wide range of Government measures, including those in the White Paper referred to, are likely to have contributed to these encouraging signs.

  Incomes
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the changes in real incomes of full-time adult male manual workers in manufacturing, full-time adult male non-manual workers in the private sector and non-manual public service workers(a) from

  279
  1979 to 1989 and (b) from 1989 to 1993, and the corresponding changes in productivity and unit labour costs.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is in the following tables:

  Real percentage increase in average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates whose pay was unaffected by absence

  Males

  1979–89

  11989–93

  Manufacturing manuals

  11·9

  0·9

  Private non-manuals

  39·8

  5·9

  Public service non-manuals

  27·1

  12·7

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey.

  Note:

  1Adjusted for change in occupational classification in 1990.

  Annual increases in unit wage costs and productivity

  Unit Wage Costs

  Productivity

  Actual percentage increases 1979–89

  Actual percentage increases 1989–93

  1979–89

  1989–93

  Manufacturing

  78

  18

  48

  12

  Whole Economy

  107

  23

  22

  6

  Salary Range

  Age 16

  Age 17

  Age 18

  Age 19

  Age 20

  Age 21

  4,500–4,999

  2

  33

  1

  —

  —

  —

  5,000–5,499

  —

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  5,500–5,999

  —

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,000–6,499

  —

  —

  108

  26

  —

  —

  6,500–6,999

  —

  1

  11

  156

  153

  123

  7,000–7,499

  —

  —

  47

  28

  65

  117

  7,500–7,999

  —

  —

  1

  74

  16

  33

  8,000–8,499

  —

  —

  —

  21

  6

  4

  8,500–8,999

  —

  —

  1

  9

  155

  208

  9,000–9,499

  —

  —

  3

  16

  93

  355

  9,500–9,999

  —

  —

  —

  10

  72

  211

  10,000–10,499

  —

  —

  —

  1

  17

  69

  10,500–10,999

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  22

  11,000–11,499

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  11,500–11,999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  12,000–12,499

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  12,500–12,999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  13,000–13,499

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13,500–13,999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14,000–14,499

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14,500–14,999

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  2

  48

  175

  342

  584

  1,162

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency Offices (Scotland)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each Benefits Agency office in Scotland, showing(a) the number of employees and (b) the number of claimants receiving benefit through these offices; and how much each office had paid out by way of (i) crisis loans and (ii) community care grants under the social fund in each of the last five years.

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

  Health and Safety
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will accept the recommendation made in "The Environmental and Occupational Risks of Healthcare," published by the British Medical Association, on making further resources available to the Health and Safety Commission; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I am satisfied that the Commission has adequate resources to fulfil its responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974.

  Young People
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Employment if he will list the rates of pay and the numbers employed in his Department at each age up to 21 years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following table shows the numbers of staff employed in the Employment Department at each age up to 21 years. The salaries have been grouped, for convenience and to preserve confidentiality, into bands.

  In addition to the staff shown in the table, there are three people in this age range who are paid an hourly or daily fee.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 18 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of employees in each Benefits Agency office in Scotland and the number of customers receiving benefit in those offices. Also, how much has been paid out by way of Crisis Loans (CL) and Community Care Grants (CCG) under the Social Fund in each Benefits Agency (BA) office in Scotland for the last five years.
  The latest available data for the number of employees in each BA office in Scotland is for May 1994 and for the purpose of consistency is provided at District level; this is given at Annex A.
  The latest data available for the number of customers receiving benefits in each office in Scotland is for May 1994 and is only available at District level. 1 have provided details of the benefits authorised and paid from these offices and this is given at Annex B.

  281
  However, it should be noted that a person may be in receipt of more than one benefit at any one time and may therefore appear in these figures more than once.
  Information in respect of the Social Fund for the offices you require is not available prior to April 1990. However, I have provided expenditure data from April 1990 and this can be broken down to each Branch office in Scotland; this data is given at Annex C. In April 1991 the Benefits Agency was established and from that date the information is only available at District level; this data is given at Annex D.
  I have enclosed the information and a copy has been placed in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Council of Mortgage Lenders
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met the Council of Mortgage Lenders.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last met the Council of Mortgage Lenders on the 8 December 1992.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from the Council of Mortgage Lenders on the introduction of a mortgage benefit scheme and the level of income support to meet home owners' mortgage interest costs.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Council of Mortgage Lenders regularly keeps us abreast of its view.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of(a) the consistency of performance by local authorities in the administration of housing benefit and (b) the effect on this performance of the publication of a league table of performance indicators; and if he will make it his policy that league tables of local authority performance should be published.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I am aware that levels of performance by local authorities in the administration of Housing Benefit vary and am currently considering the impact on performance that the publication of national league tables could have. However, in accordance with the citizens charter, every local authority is required to publish information about the level of its own housing and council tax benefit performance by 31 December. I understand that the Audit Commission intends to publish all of this information early next year.

  Restart Courses
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, how many(a) men and (b) women have had their benefit cut for failure to attend a restart course in Great Britain (i) as a whole and (ii) in each region.

  Mr. Burt
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 July 1994, column 633]: The available information is in the table.
  282

  Unemployed claimants who received a reduced personal rate of Income Support following failure to attend or complete a restart course during the period April 1991 to March 1994

  Area

  Number of reductions

  Anglia

  1,900

  Chilterns

  2,000

  South London and West Sussex

  2,400

  West Country

  1,600

  East London and Essex

  1,300

  South East

  2,000

  Wessex

  3,000

  East Midlands

  1,500

  Midlands and South West

  600

  West Mercia

  1,600

  Wales

  1,500

  Merseyside

  1,400

  Greater Manchester

  2,800

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  3,600

  Tyne Tees

  3.100

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,000

  North and West Yorkshire

  1,800

  Scotland and Northern

  3,200

  North, Central and West Scotland

  1,600

  East of Scotland

  3,100

  Total

  42,000

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100, and are subject to amendment.

SCOTLAND

  Wildcats
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 499, for what purpose were the licences to take wildcats issued; and what methods were employed.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Licences to take wildcats were issued for scientific purposes to help build up a picture of the number and distribution of wildcats in Scotland.

  This involved wildcats being fitted with radio collars to allow their movement in the wild to be tracked, tagging to identify individuals, and the taking of blood samples for genetic analysis.

  The wildcats were taken by live-trapping, briefly sedated while being examined or tagged, then released back into the wild.

  Seals
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the protection of seals.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Seals receive protection under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, and the Government have no plans for a seal cull.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will list the members of the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I have appointed Dr. Charles M. Glennie, CBE to the Boundary Commission for Scotland on 31 October 1994. The other members of the Commission are:Madam Speaker — ex officio, chairman

  283
  The hon. Lord Davidson, appointed as deputy chairman by the Court of Session on 25 September 1985 and subsequently re-appointed.
  Professor Urlan a Wannop — appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland on 6 October and subsequently reappointed.

  All of the appointed members terms of office expire on 31 December 1996.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he will publish details of the level of access funds provision in Scotland for 1994–95.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A total of £4.14 million will be available for the access funds at higher and further education institution in Scotland for academic year 1994–95. This compares with a total of £3.83 million in 1993–94. The provision for 1994–95 thus represents an increase of 8 per cent. over 1993–94.

  The sum has been allocated between the three funds as follows:

  £ million

  Undergraduate Fund

  2·5

  Postgraduate Fund

  0·79

  Further Education

  0·85

  The 1994–95 allocations have been notified to the individual academic institutions in Scotland.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Kynoch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve the way in which the Scottish Office sponsors non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Office is currently responsible for 49 executive non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs–110 advisory NDPBs and 14 tribunals. These bodies received Government funding of £1.5 billion in 1993–94–10 per cent. of Scottish Office total resources—and play a significant role in the delivery of Government services in Scotland.

  The business of ensuring the accountability of these NDPBs to me, and through me to Parliament, is a key task for my staff at the Scottish Office. Last year, therefore, the Scottish Office carried out an efficiency scrutiny to look for ways of improving still further our sponsorship arrangements.

  The scrutiny report clearly identifies a general shift over recent years to a more strategic relationship with NDPBs. This involves delegation to each NDPB, to the maximum extent practicable, of responsibility for running its own affairs, within an agreed strategic framework. But across the Scottish Office the pace of change has varied considerably. The scrutiny report recommends a co-ordinated approach to the process of change.
  284
  I welcome the scrutiny report, and have put in hand a three-year programme to implement its recommendations. This will comprise new training and development programmes for staff involved in sponsorship; the provision of more advice and assistance to these sponsor staff; and action programmes for putting strategic frameworks into place for each NDPB as appropriate.

  Taken together, the range of initiatives set out in the action statement will clarify relationships between sponsor and NDPB, and strengthen further the accountability and effectiveness of NDPBs in Scotland.

  I have today placed copies of the efficiency scrutiny report and the action statement in the House Libraries.

  Pollution (Mines)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the legal framework governing ferruginous pollution from abandoned mines.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 17 October 1994]: The recent consultation paper "Contaminated Land—Clean-Up and Control" sought views on a number of issues, including the possible removal of the existing defence provision and exemption from clean-up costs for pollution caused by water permitted to flow from an abandoned mine. The responses are currently being evaluated and the outcome of this review will be announced shortly.

  Incomes
  Dr Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average per capita as a percentage of the United Kingdom average; and what were the equivalent figures in 1979.

  Mr. Stewart
  For 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, average household income per head in Scotland was 99·9 per cent. of the United Kingdom average. This is a provisional estimate. Equivalent figures for 1979 are not available as household income was not calculated on a United Kingdom regional basis prior to 1984.

  Derelict Land
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he has had from Scottish Enterprise about the work of the earthworm in accelerating the rate of recovery of derelict land, to which he referred in his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow on 6 September.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Scottish Enterprise has confirmed that it is aware of the possible beneficial effects of earthworms in recovering derelict land. Indeed, it has had some work done on its behalf on this issue by the Strathclyde Greenbelt Company. Scottish Enterprise's environmental unit would be happy to provide the hon. Member with further details should he wish to contact it direct about the matter.

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

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
The Right Honourable Sir Donald James Nicholls, Knight, Vice-Chancellor, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and thereby created a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Nicholls of Birkenhead, of Stoke D'Abernon in the County of Surrey—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Taylor of Gosforth and the Lord Woolf.
Lord Dubs
Alfred Dubs, Esquire, having been created Baron Dubs, of Battersea in the London Borough of Wandsworth, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the Lord Clinton-Davis, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Swan Hunter
3 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken or will take in support of the Swan Hunter shipyard to avert its closure.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Ministers persuaded the European Commission, as an exception, to allow the warship yard to benefit from the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund for future commercial ship contracts. Considerable efforts have been made by the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry, and receivers to find an alternative buyer for the shipyard, regrettably so far without success.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the average age of ships in the world's merchant fleet is some 18 years and that that will mean that there will be many orders for merchant ships over the next 10 to 15 years? Is it not highly desirable that Swan Hunter should be able to participate in meeting those orders?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that may well be so. Of course, the Swan Hunter shipyard has been dependent on warships following a decision taken in the early 1980s. It is a commercial decision for the yard whether to make warships or commercial ships.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us recognise that efforts have been made by the Government to help in these very difficult circumstances? However, will he not also agree that the workforce in the shipyard is perhaps the best in the world, and certainly among the best in the
202
world, in all grades? Will he particularly take note of what has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote? I believe that that is the most important issue in this situation. Is it not possible for the Government themselves, apart from the Europe Union, to make some interim payment or give some form of interim assistance until the crisis has passed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says about the workforce. It is a very good workforce. However, in the end one has to operate in the commercial world. The fact is that because of the release of tension which has occurred throughout the world over the past few years the demand for warships is considerably less than it used to be. That is the difficulty in which Swan Hunter finds itself. It would not be appropriate for the Government to support one shipyard over and above any other.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it. not be a tragedy if this famous yard, with its great reputation for ship building, were firmly and finally to close? Surely the Government can take some steps at least to hold the position for the time being while steps are taken to find whether other support can be obtained?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that closure would be a tragedy. It is something about which all of us feel most concerned. However, the fact is that if there is no demand for the type of ships which Swan Hunter builds it is very difficult to keep the shipyard in being. I can tell my noble friend that until quite recently the Ministry of Defence offered Swan Hunter the opportunity to bid for contracts. The acceptance of a contract would have to be on the understanding that the business was on a sound commercial footing.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, as the royal yacht is coming to the end of her useful life, and is useful in promoting trade fairs and so on around the world, will the Minister consider the possibility of a new royal yacht being built at that shipyard?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the replacement of the royal yacht is a different and rather wider subject than the continuation of a specific yard at Swan Hunter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of us were encouraged yesterday to hear Mr. Tim Eggar praise manufacturing as being good for this country? Is not shipbuilding manufacturing as much as anything else? Is it not the case that many ships are being built all over the world? As the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, said, will not the demand increase? Will the noble Earl listen to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and take action to keep this shipyard operating in preparation for the undoubted upturn in shipbuilding?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that manufacturing is highly desirable. Shipbuilding is manufacturing. However, in order to keep any organisation going it has to have orders and customers. Swan Hunter shipyard specialised in warships. There is now less of a demand for warships than there used to

203
be. That makes it difficult for those companies which have concentrated on that sphere. We shall do all that we can to help, but in the end it must be a commercial judgment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, none of us can be indifferent to the closure of this shipyard. I do not believe that there is any difference between Government and Opposition on that. However, following the Question of the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, it must be possible with sufficient effort for that shipyard to diversify into merchant shipping and away from building warships.
Did the noble Earl read the story in this morning's paper which stated that the Samsung deal involved an £80 million sweetener from the Government? If that is possible, cannot a rather smaller sweetener—if I may use that vulgar word —be made available to Swan Hunter shipyard to help it to make the change from what it used to undertake to what many of us believe it could successfully achieve in the future?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that in the mid-1970s Swan Hunter built tankers, refrigeration ships, and so forth, as well as warships. In the 1980s the shipyard made a policy decision to build warships only.
With regard to Samsung, the noble Lord is perfectly correct that a grant is available. However, the two cases are not comparable. Assistance to Samsung was provided under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 in response to an application for an investment project which will create more than 3,000 jobs in an area of high unemployment. With regard to Swan Hunter shipyard, Her Majesty's Government have done everything possible to help the receiver to sell the yard as a going concern.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as there will be an upturn in world shipping demand in due course, I am anxious that we do not read in the newspapers such questions as, "Why is Great Britain not participating in that upturn?" The answer will be that we have closed down our shipping industry too soon, as with other industries. Am I not right that this is a matter of urgency? If the Government do not take action quickly we shall not have the Swan Hunter shipyard.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I entirely understand the noble Lord. However, the only way that we can keep a shipyard going is by giving it orders. All orders given by the Ministry of Defence are on a competitive contract. The fact is that when given the last competitive tender Swan Hunter was considerably higher than its next competitor. If we were to follow the noble Lord's desire, it would mean that to keep Swan Hunter going we would have artificially to grant it a contract at the expense of some other companies.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, there has been pressure on the Minister from all sides of the House. Therefore, will
204
he now agree to discuss the issue with his right honourable friend and respond in a more positive way than has been possible today?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I accept the concern that has been expressed around the House. I share that concern. I do not believe that there is advantage in my discussing the matter with my right honourable friend, who is himself particularly concerned. I come back to the basic point. If one keeps a shipyard going, one can do so only by giving that shipyard orders or by it winning orders. The fact is that that shipyard has not won against other competitors. Since fewer warships are now required than in the past, that puts great pressure on the manufacturing industry.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the first and urgent requirement is to get the yard out of receivership so that it can bid effectively for any merchant ship orders that become available?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the firm is in receivership because of the state of its finances. As I explained, the Ministry of Defence has offered contracts to the firm. It continues to invite Swan Hunter to bid for Ministry of Defence work and to offer the company the opportunity to secure further work. However, in the end it depends on the firm's ability to manufacture whatever product it is competing for at a competitive price.

Cross-Media Ownership
3.10 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to introduce changes in the law relating to cross-media ownership.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Government's review of cross-media ownership raises a number of important issues which require careful consideration. An announcement about the outcome will be made once the Government have determined the best way forward.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the long delay on the Government's part in making clear their intentions in the matter is now causing great uncertainty and speculation? Has she noticed that in Scotland the Daily Record and the Daily Mail, which belong to the Mirror Group Newspapers and dominate the tabloid press in Scotland, have bought themselves into being the biggest single shareholder in Scottish Television? That company dominates commercial television in Scotland. Is that not a dangerous threat and a warning to the Government that they must make their policy clear on the matter?
Baroness Trumpington; My Lords, it is better to have a little delay and get it right in the end. The Mirror Group shareholding in Scottish Television is within the 20 per cent. limit prescribed by the current ownership rules. Scottish Television remains bound by the positive programming and consumer protection measures

205
enforced by the ITC. Those help to ensure that Scottish viewers will continue to receive high quality programming and impartial news coverage.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sure that we all acknowledge that the technological changes taking place in the industry and the convergence of the various sectors of the media mean that existing systems of controls are not always appropriate. Will the Minister confirm, however, that the basic purposes of those controls—the protection of the quality of the product, the reasonable dimension in our media and the diversity of ownership—will be maintained in any future government proposals?
One point may be of interest to the rest of the media who seem to assume that ahead of them lies a bonanza from a Murdoch-style deregulation. Is the Minister aware that the future Labour Government will protect those basic principles of quality, regionalism and diversity through the most severe application of monopolies and media regulations?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a rather wide-ranging supplementary. The review was necessary and timely in view of the rapid technological change. It is important that we are not rushed into decisions on media ownership. I cannot be drawn into speculation about the outcome of the review, but one of the issues which the review has had to consider is, I agree, that any changes must bear in mind the importance of maintaining a sense of national and regional identity.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, are not some of the arguments becoming a little tired, old-fashioned and outdated? The number of different sources of broadcast and printed information available now to the public is so vast and varied that many people would regard further regulation as pure bureaucratic indulgence, to no sensible purpose.
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.

Forestry: Planting Targets
3.13 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the recent forestry review Statement, they will state the new targets for planting private and state forestry for the next five years.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, the Government's planned expenditure in the current year will provide for 24,000 hectares of planting by the private sector through the Woodland Grant Scheme and 9,000 hectares by the Forestry Commission. Those figures include both new planting and restocking. Figures for 1995–96 to 1997–98 will be published next March in the Forestry Commission's chapter of the Scottish Office departmental report.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister accept that his figures are somewhat distorted by
206
including restocking? Restocking of woodlands is inevitable. The Question which I asked referred to new planting which provides for timber for future use. Does the Minister accept that in the past five years £1 billion has been invested in the wood processing industry in this country—a considerable contribution to the manufacturing sector? But while that wood processing sector advances, we assume that supplies will become available.
Will the Minister accept that the planting figure for the Forestry Commission last year was just over 1,000 hectares? When I had some responsibility for those affairs, it was 23,000 hectares. Will the Minister further accept that the private sector fell last year to 16,000 hectares, of which 60 per cent. is non-commercial hardwoods? In the light of those figures, can the Minister give any guarantee to the wood processing industry that supplies will be available in the years ahead?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question on the Order Paper referred to levels of planting and I believe that I answered it. The Question was concerned not just with new planting. I fully accept the noble Lord's point about the tremendous level of inward investment that the wood processing industry has seen over the past 10 years. It has brought many welcome jobs to the country and we want to see that success story continue.
With regard to the levels of planting, it is the Government's belief that new planting should be concentrated in the private sector but that there should at the same time be a strong public sector as well. The Forestry Commission delivers high quality timber to the industry. Our self-sufficiency in timber as a nation will grow over the next few years and I have every confidence that the area which is planted with timber will continue to increase at a healthy rate.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what proportion of planting of broadleaved trees is envisaged within the targets that my noble friend mentioned?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the level of broadleaved planting last year, including restocking, was approximately 47 per cent. of the total area planted; 53 per cent. was planted with conifers.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what percentage of our annual timber requirements we now import from abroad and whether in the past year there has been any increase or decrease in that percentage?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are approximately 15 per cent. self-sufficient in timber. Over the next 20 years, that figure is expected to double and to increase further thereafter.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that while the excessive encouragement of hardwoods may well look pretty in about 20, 30 or 40 years' time, it will be worth no more than firewood in what will then be smokeless zones? Does he agree that

207
it is, therefore, largely a waste of resources which should be concentrated on softwood in order to feed our industry and the employment that goes with it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend emphasises the need to have a flourishing commercial sector, and I could not agree with him more. However, the Government also believe that it is highly desirable to encourage the other benefits afforded by forestry, including nature conservation, countryside recreation and landscape enhancement. All those are delivered by the Government's forestry policy and in particular by the system of grants, regulation and guidance that the Forestry Commission so ably provides.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I welcome the Government's recently stated commitment to maintaining access in new forests as well as in existing forests? However, does he understand that local authorities will find it difficult to meet some of the levels of payment which have become normal for that exercise? Will there be any attempt to establish guidelines about how the levels of payment should be regulated?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are anxious that the public should continue to have access to woodlands which are sold. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in July, every effort will be made to secure access agreements which guarantee access to the public on foot to such woodlands. We shall encourage local authorities to respond positively when they are offered access agreements; we shall allow them more time to consider the agreements; and we shall meet their reasonable legal costs.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Forestry Commission is the only body which can provide a strategic overview of the planting in Scotland of hardwood and softwood trees and also, very importantly, set an example in relation to access, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Nicol? Does he further agree that the Forestry Commission has a very good record in that respect? Do the Government accept the necessity for the Forestry Commission retaining its very important role in the strategic control of forestry in Britain?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes some very good points. The Forestry Commission allows the public free access to all its woodlands, subject only to any legal constraints and considerations of safety. Following the Forestry Review, the commission will now seek to purchase the freeholds of leased woodlands in England where there is a strong demand for countryside recreation, and about £900,000 will be provided for that purpose.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, although I welcome the Minister's support for what the Forestry Commission does, how is it consistent with the fact that in a matter of 15 years planting has been run down from 23,000 hectares per annum to 1,000 hectares per annum
208
last year? Is that an indication of the Government's support for the Forestry Commission and the benefits that it provides in many ways to the nation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, since 1979 we have seen about⅓ million hectares of new planting in Great Britain. In fact, the afforested area of the country has doubled since the time when the Forestry Commission was established. We can be proud of that. In relation to land area, we have done more to build up our forestry area than almost any other country in the world. Our policy remains one of encouraging forestry expansion, and we expect that the extra resources that we have announced will lead to substantial increases in planting.

Income Support
3.22 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why there has been an increase in the proportion of the population dependent on income support from 12.6 per cent. of the adult population last year to 13.1 per cent. of the adult population this year.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the rise in numbers from May 1992 to May 1993 is due to an increase in the number of claimants who are over 60, disabled, lone parents and unemployed. The latest figures show a considerable reduction in the rate of increase in the first three groups and a fall in the numbers of unemployed claimants.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may first welcome the Minister to his post at the Department of Social Security. Am I right in understanding that his Answer amounted in effect to saying that the rise in numbers was due to everything? I am a little puzzled. The unemployment figures have been falling since December 1992, but the income support figures are continuing to rise. I cannot understand that incongruity; can the Minister help me to do so?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for welcoming me to my post at the Department of Social Security. It certainly appears to bring me to the Dispatch Box quite frequently.
Perhaps I can help the noble Earl. His Question on the Order Paper, which I know came from a previous Written Question, related to figures up to May 1993. The noble Earl is of course right: unemployment was already falling at that point. That is why I was able to say that, for exactly the reason he mentioned, the most recent figures show a decrease in the numbers seeking income support under the unemployed category. The fall in unemployment over the past 20 months or so has been quite considerable.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a fact that one of the demographic factors—I believe that my noble friend mentioned it—is the

209
increase in the number of elderly people in this country? Can he translate that in relation to the figures that he has given and say how far it may be a separate factor?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is right. The number of elderly people has increased—and not only the number of elderly in absolute terms; there is an increasing number of very elderly people, who of course require the provision of services such as nursing home care and so on, which costs the system quite a lot of money. That is a major factor. Between May 1992 and May 1993, the figures for the over-60s went up from 1,643,000 to 1,736,000. That line certainly is increasing, unlike the unemployed line, which is coming down.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the Minister say when someone becomes very elderly; and is it the same for men as for women?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I almost feel like saying "pass" on that question in this House, as I think I might get into quite hot water. I believe that the usual definition of the very elderly is over 80.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is it not the case that not only are there more families on income support but that they have also become poorer as well? Will the Minister confirm that the real income of the poorest tenth has fallen by over £400 a year since 1979, while the real income of the richest tenth has risen by nearly £14,000 a year? (That was government information, given in response to a parliamentary Question.) Do the Government still believe that the rich are too poor and the poor are too rich?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked me a question that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Measures of wealth are very difficult to quantify, but what is true is that over the 15 years of Conservative government every section of the community has become better off—some, I freely admit, faster than others. What is certainly true is that we currently spend something like £16 billion on income support, which I gather, when one calculates it, works out at £300 a head for every person in our country per year.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may come back on that point. The Minister told the House that the real income of all sections of society has risen. Is the Minister not aware of the figures for households whose income is below average, which show that the real income of the poorest 10 per cent. has fallen by £400 a year since 1979? Is that not a shocking indictment of any "trickle down" theory of economics?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I stated what was my understanding. The noble Baroness has been in this field for much longer than I have, and I shall certainly check my statistics when I go back to the department. My understanding is that, for example,
210
since 1988, low income families in this country have received on average something like £13 a week extra due to the 1988 reforms that we made.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me why 25 per cent. of children are on income support, as is mentioned in recent figures?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the reasons for that will be largely the same as those that I gave to the noble Lord's noble friend at the beginning, but obviously they are concentrated on the unemployment line, and indeed on the lone parent line. It is simply a reality that the number of lone parents in our country has increased very considerably. That is a major factor in increasing the number of children on income support.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, speaking as one of the very elderly Members of this House, who has had the advantage of a detailed study of the figures involved, can we have an assurance from the noble Lord that he will go back to his civil servants and re-instruct them in the art of obtaining correct information? Will he then come back to the House and admit what my noble friend has already said to be true and verifiable; namely, that since 1979 those in the bottom 10 per cent. of the population are in real terms 14 per cent. less well off than they were in 1979? Will he undertake to correct the figures and the impression that he has given today and come back, after consultation, with the truth?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have no doubt, given my experience this week, that I shall be invited to the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions in the future on this and related subjects. As I said earlier, I am perfectly prepared to say that I will check the position. If I am wrong, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be at me fairly frequently to hear me backtrack.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, with reference to the Minister's statement that every section of the community is better off than in 1979, can he explain to me how that can be true, given the large increase in unemployment from something under 1 million to 2½ million? Are those people better off too?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that these things are relative. Of course the increase in unemployment is very worrying. I remind the noble Lord that every government—if I recall correctly, and I say it with a little nervousness at the moment, having been called to account for my statistics a moment ago—since the war, including that of the noble Lord, left office with rates of unemployment higher than when they came in.

University of London Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with an amendment.

Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Earl of Arran.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 12 [Staff commission]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 30:Page 8, line 33, leave out ("and may include provision as to") and insert (", the appointment and removal from office by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, which I believe was moved at the end of the last Sitting. In case it was not, I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister may have spoken to the amendment but we did not have an opportunity to debate it. It seems obvious that the primary intention of the Government is to give the Secretary of State powers to remove from office the chairman and members of the staff commission. We are very concerned about that, not only because of the content of the clause and the powers already available to direct the staff commission in its consideration of staffing matters: we are concerned because the Minister has now decided to take to himself powers to sack the commission. That is a very strong power indeed. As the saying goes, it would sharpen awareness very greatly if the commission thought that any decision it took could end in it being dismissed en bloc. It is a worrying development and certainly we are not happy with it.
It should be borne in mind that no such power was included in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I wonder why the Government have suddenly decided that they need the power now. At Committee stage of the Bill, during the debate on the independence of the staff commission, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, said:"There is no intention on the part of the Secretary of State to interfere with the independence of the staff commission". —[Official Report, 13/7/94; col. 1908.]Why have Ministers now decided to include a new provision in the Bill to allow the sacking of the commissioners and when did they so decide? Is the advice that the commissioners give just too independent and is it the Government's view that they must have final control of the commission? In that case, with all the circumscribing controls, it could not possibly be called an independent commission. Clearly we cannot just accept that statement from the Minister.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, let me reassure the noble Lord that this amendment was suggested by the draftsman. Noble Lords will notice that it applies to the appointment and removal from office of the chairman and members of the commission. Quite simply, the view was taken that the wording of the
212
clause as it stands makes provision as to the constitution and membership but does not deal specifically with either appointment or removal.
It is clear that there has to be a power to appoint Equally there needs to be provision for the possibility of removal in particular circumstances. That is why the amendment has been tabled. It is a drafting amendment. There is no intention to use the power in any way to interfere with the independence of the commission. It is simply there to make clear that the Secretary of State has the necessary powers to ensure that members can be appointed and removed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that it is a pity that we did not have that explanation at the beginning. Could he say whether there is any precedent for this power in any other Bill? If so, perhaps he could read it into the record.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord on that matter. Supplementary to what I have already said, there was no such provision in the previous legislation. That was because it was not done by means of an order-making power.
As noble Lords will know, your Lordships are very vigilant about the use of order-making powers. They are very insistent that the orders should only be in conformity with the powers given under the legislation. For that reason the draftsman advised that, in order to be sure that the order-making power covers both the appointment and, if necessary, the removal of members, the amendment should be tabled.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I assume that the power would only be used to adjust the commission and not to sack the whole body, which is part of the implication. Obviously, if the Secretary of State was so minded, because of this clause he could sack the entire commission if he did not agree with it.
We shall examine the matter and see whether there is anything to be done in the next days and perhaps we could have a written explanation from the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved. ]
Clause 13 [Compensation for loss of office or diminution of emoluments]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, the regulations made under this section shall amend Regulation E2 of the Local Government Superannuation (Scotland) Regulations 1987 so that any person who—

(a) is the holder of any such office or is in any such employment as may be prescribed for the purposes of this sub-section; and

(b) attains or has attained the age of forty-five on or before 31 March 1996 but has not attained age fifty at that date; and

(c) fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed,

shall be eligible to receive the benefits payable to or in respect of him under the relevant superannuation scheme on the date he attains the age of fifty.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason for this amendment is that there is a new provision which amends the compensation regulations made under Clause 13(2) to enable employees aged under 50 but 45 and over on the date on which they are made redundant to trigger superannuation benefits on reaching 50. At present, employees in that position have to wait until the age of 60 before booming eligible for superannuation benefits.
At the date of reorganisation there are two categories of employee for whom the compensation regulations must cater: those aged 50 and over and those under 50. Under the existing arrangement, those over 50 and made redundant will be eligible to receive superannuation benefits, while those under 50 and made redundant will be required to wait until they are 60 before receiving their superannuation benefits. On the basis of previous practice and the specific problems that are likely to be caused by reorganisation in Scotland, special provision should be made for those in the age band 45 to 50 years who are made redundant.
Over the past few years local government has seen the early retirement of many employees over the age of 50. The age profile of staff, particularly those in senior positions, is much younger than was the case in previous reorganisations. The most vulnerable group therefore will be those aged between 45 and 50. They are likely to find the greatest difficulty in securing further employment.
The amendment will enable employees between the ages of 45 and 50 on the date of redundancy to trigger a superannuation benefit for themselves when they reach the age of 50. They would therefore not need to look as far ahead as 60. One assumes that there would be an adjustment because they will be receiving superannuation rather earlier than would otherwise be the case.
The shadow staff commission recently considered the question of compensation for loss of employment and earnings. Its advice to the Scottish Office environment department—a copy of which the Minister probably has—accepted many of the arguments put forward by the staff commission. However, the commission opted to recommend that staff aged 48 or 49 be given the option of either receiving a redundancy payment or waiting until they are 50 to obtain superannuation benefit. We think it would be better, given the validity of the argument, that that facility should be offered to all those in the 45 to 50 age group. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I rise simply to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. The strongest argument in present-day circumstances is that those between the ages of 45 and 50 are particularly vulnerable and in a situation of difficulty in having to seek further employment. I hope that the arguments put forward so ably by the noble Lord will be considered sympathetically by the Government.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lord Carmichael. I must declare an
214
interest in that I advise UNISON on some of these matters. I raise only one question in addition to those already raised.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord suggested that it was the Staff Advisory Committee which would be advising on this issue and his reason for not wanting the amendment in the Bill was that it was not much use having an advisory committee if one did not take its advice or wait to receive it. I understand that. But bearing in mind that we held a similar discussion on 13th July last—quite a long time ago—when the matter was pretty well aired, has the Minister any knowledge as to whether the Staff Advisory Committee looked at the question? Also, as a result of our discussion has the Minister received any communication from that committee? If not, does the Minister think that perhaps the committee has been remiss?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, everyone appreciates that, as with the matter we were discussing in Committee, the question of pensions and redundancy terms is among the most sensitive of the issues with which I have to deal. On a previous occasion, when discussing this matter in Committee, I indicated that it was premature to discuss the amendments at that time because the Government were awaiting the advice of the then Staff Advisory Committee. In the meantime, the committee has become the shadow staff commission. It was the report of that body, dated 17th August this year, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, referred a moment or two ago.
The Government received the report. We all know that in the meantime the commission has been considering the matter and consulting local authority employers and staff interests in relation to the document. It is in that light that in due course the Government will have to put forward proposals for the necessary regulations. Noble Lords will know—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—that there are parallel considerations taking place under the reorganisation of local government in both England and Wales. They are slightly further forward because they have draft regulations upon which there is consultation.
The present position, therefore, is that there is consultation on this document and then there will be a period of consultation on the Scottish regulations when they come forward in a draft form. For that reason I repeat that the proposals are at this stage premature. They are also unnecessary because the matter can be dealt with under existing legislation—the Superannuation Act 1972. That is the normal way for it to be done.
I hope, therefore, that my explanation will reassure your Lordships that the matter is under consideration. I am not able to give the details of the final decisions on the matter because they have not yet been made. The issues are well focused, not only in the representations made but also in the committee's report which was made available to the Government.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. As I am sure he

215
realises, it is an important point because it concerns staff who were secure in a job in which they were doing well and whose position has changed because the Government decided to change the whole system of local government in Scotland. We may eventually come back to this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Property commission]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 35:Page 16, line 8, leave out ("and may include provision as to") and insert (", the appointment and removal from office by the Secretary of State of the chairman and members of the commission,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 35. However, I apologise for misleading your Lordships in that I had not spoken earlier to Amendment No. 30.I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Joint committees and joint boards]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 17, line 5, after ("have") insert ("(i)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36, with your Lordships' leave I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37 to 40.
Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 reflect the undertaking that I gave to the Chamber on Wednesday 13th July to take away and consider a similar Opposition amendment. I have now done so and the amendments before us mirror, albeit with slightly different drafting, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing.
The amendments have the effect of requiring local authorities who wish to apply to the Secretary of State for a joint board to advertise their intention in local newspapers. Only after waiting for eight weeks and considering any representations which are made as a result of the advertisement will the authorities be permitted to approach the Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are technical drafting changes. They are required in order to make it clear that the need for councils to agree the terms of any order setting up a joint board relates to a board being set up at the request of local authorities. I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for bringing forward the amendments, albeit in a slightly different form from those moved by myself in Committee. I am grateful that he honoured the commitment he gave to us during our discussion at that stage.
Included in this group of amendments is Amendment No. 41, which deals with the whole question of the removal of the proposed new Section 62B to the 1973 Act. That proposed new section gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers as regards the creation of joint boards. Under the proposed new Section 62B, the Secretary of State is taking unto himself powers to
216
establish joint boards even when local authorities do not request that. We regard the provision as being draconian and dangerous because it would give the Secretary of State, without recourse to Parliament, wide-ranging powers to reorganise local government yet again. It is obvious that, if the Secretary of State has such powers without recourse to Parliament or a request from the local authority concerned, he can place the functions under a joint board and effectively reorganise local government yet again.
We do not see the need for the provision because Section 211 of the 1973 Act is not being repealed. That section gives the Secretary of State these reserve powers and the Minister has not made out a case for extending them as proposed in new Section 62B. The basis on which local government was founded was that local authorities knew when it was necessary to have a joint board. They were aware of local opinion in their areas, but here we are moving away from that concept of local government and into a new field. The Secretary of State can say to local authorities, "Whether you want it or not, I am going to establish a joint board".
That cannot be healthy even for the diminishing democracy that we are suffering under this local government Bill. There is no need for the provision. I hope that, against the background of my comments and the fact that Section 211 of the 1973 Act is not being repealed, the Minister will look closely at the matter. He would be wise to accept Amendment No. 41, because the Secretary of State has no need for these powers, nor has he any right to have them. In democratic terms, we regard that as being most important and for that reason I speak as I do to Amendment No. 41.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am pleased that in inserting these amendments my noble and learned friend has accepted the Opposition's advice. It will make plainer to the public precisely what councils are doing when they co-operate and form joint boards. I too support the amendments.
As regards Amendment No. 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, I recollect that in Committee my noble and learned friend stated that he hoped that it would not be necessary to use the power to impose a joint board. He said that it was very much a reserve power. However, one can imagine a situation in which in the public interest it would be essential for councils to co-operate and to form a joint board. For some reason which one cannot predict they might find themselves unable to do so. It appears that, for the sake of good local government, a reserve power is not out of place and I believe that we should sustain the Bill as it stands.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat that the Secretary of State hopes that it will not be required of him to exercise the power at any time. However, if the power is required to be used, it will be subject to the full parliamentary scrutiny of an affirmative resolution. It must also be preceded by consultation with the local authorities concerned.
I wish to emphasise that the services involved would continue to be run by the local authorities concerned. In such circumstances, the Secretary of State's only role would be the setting up of a joint board. He would not

217
appoint its members, although he would set out the numbers to be represented from each authority. Neither would he be involved in the decisions which any board took as regards service provision. Those matters would remain wholly the responsibility of local government.
I suggest that this is a minimalist safety net which is nevertheless required. It seeks to minimise the Secretary of State's involvement while offering a guarantee that action will be taken if necessary.
During the passage of the Bill we have heard on a number of occasions that noble Lords have been anxious about the break-up of certain regional functions such as trading standards or the public analyst service in Scotland. I note Amendment No. 113A, standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove and Lord Porter of Luddenham. Its import is that the Secretary of State shall by order establish a joint board. As regards such services as the public analyst, I believe that such a joint board is unnecessary. However, if there is anxiety that such services will not be properly delivered, this is a back-stop provision to allow for that to be achieved. As with public analysts and trading standards, those concerned with individual services have generally welcomed the reserve power and consider it to be a useful tool should the new structure fail to provide an adequate standard of service.
We believe that the provision is sensible and will not be required. Indeed, if the new councils provide satisfactory services, the provision will have no use at all. A balance must be struck and I hope that our proposals will meet that balance.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before the Minister completes his comments, will he explain why it is thought necessary to take the powers under the proposed new Section 62B when Section 211 of the 1973 Act, which gives the Secretary of State reserve powers, has not been repealed? Why is it felt necessary to reinforce the reserve powers that the Secretary of State is retaining under Section 211 of the 1973 Act?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not dealing specifically with that point. 1 understand mat such a power is given to the Secretary of State but it is not as extensive as the noble Lord indicates. It would be for the Secretary of State to introduce such a board where the local authority was failing in its statutory duties. It would not be suggested that local authorities were deliberately failing in the public duties imposed upon them—a case that was urged upon me in relation to the public analyst—but that this would be the most efficient way of delivering important services. Therefore, in that context, a different power is required. However, the noble Lord is right in saying that Section 211 performs a valuable service in the event of a failure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 40:
Page 17, line 7, after ("functions;") insert ("and
(ii) advertised their proposals in accordance with subsection (1A) below;").
Page 17, line 15, at end insert:
("(1A) Before applying to the Secretary of State under subsection (1) (c) above, the relevant authorities shall place in at least one daily newspaper circulating in their areas an advertisement—

(a) giving brief details of what they propose to do;

(b) giving an address to which representations about the proposal may be sent; and

(c) fixing a date, being not less than 8 weeks after the date on which the advertisement appears, within which representations may be made,

and they shall include with their application evidence that an advertisement has been placed.

(1B) Where any representations are timeously made in response to an advertisement placed in accordance with subsection (1A) above, the relevant authorities shall consider them and shall include with their application a statement that they have done so.").
Page 17, line 16, leave out ("shall be in terms agreed by the relevant authorities and").
Page 17, line 37, at end insert:
("() An order under subsection (1) above shall be in terms agreed by the relevant authorities.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved. ]
4 p.m.
Clause 23 [Duty to prepare decentralisation schemes]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 20, line 7, after ("proposals") insert ("for the delegation of their decision-making and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this grouping of amendments seeks to improve the current arrangements for decentralisation and consultation referred to in Clause 23. The amendments address three themes. The first is a delegation by the new unitary authorities of their decision making. The second is the timing of consultation for decentralisation schemes and the breadth of those consultations. The third is the role of the Secretary of State in ensuring that decentralisation schemes are properly carried out.
Amendment No. 42 focuses on delegation by the new unitary authorities of their decision making. However, since the new councils will not be of uniform size and nature, the Bill should allow flexibility and some discretion for the new councils to tailor decentralisation schemes to suit local conditions. Thus, at first it might appear unnecessary to insert into the Bill a duty to delegate decisions. Yet, as it stands, the Bill is so vague as to permit councils to adopt only cosmetic measures, such as local information points or the decentralisation of some services—for instance, the facility to pay council tax. But if, instead, decentralisation does manage to become at all meaningful, then to some degree decision-making apparatus and budgets must be decentralised also.
The second theme in the grouping, and addressed by Amendment No. 43, is the timing and breadth of consultation for decentralisation schemes. Clearly it is important that the present councils, which have local knowledge and which in many cases already operate decentralisation schemes, should have some input during the transitional period between April 1995 and

219
April 1996, when structures for the new councils will be determined. Thus the timescale currently proposed for the publication of decentralisation schemes by April 1997 is not very satisfactory; nor has a deadline been laid down in the Bill for implementation of schemes. New councils could, if they so wished, delay implementation until the year 2000 and beyond. These amendments do not specifically deal with the question of implementation dates, but I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Minister can look into that matter.
Another related aspect which is not addressed by these amendments is the question of costs. While in the long term mechanisms such as area committees may be more cost effective man traditional structures, in the short term, of course, decentralisation measures, if carried out properly, mean that additional resources will be needed. In view of that, can my noble and learned friend the Minister affirm that this point will be addressed in the guidelines issued by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State?
Thirdly, there is the role itself of the Secretary of State and the perceived effect of his guidance on decentralisation. This theme is addressed by Amendments Nos. 45 to 48 inclusive. At the moment the Bill states that councils will adopt a scheme and then send a copy of that scheme in its adopted form to the Secretary of State. That appears to mean that the Secretary of State will have no interest in ensuring that his guidance has been followed and he will not have the chance to amend a scheme which does not comply with it.
Amendments Nos. 45 to 47 seek to place the obligation on councils to send a copy of their draft schemes to the Secretary of State for approval before the schemes are adopted. That will afford the Secretary of State an opportunity to suggest changes to any scheme which he considers does not comply with his guidance. Hence, in connection with that, Amendment No. 48 sets out to strengthen the wording in the clause to make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State will in fact issue guidance after consultation with local authorities.
Taken together, therefore, the overall purpose of this group of amendments is to ensure that decentralisation schemes are thought about and put into place early in the transitional period before the new councils are up and running. Just now, as it is, the Bill presents a real danger that authorities will tack on bits and pieces of decentralisation to the structures of the new councils, that this will be done in an ad hoc and unsatisfactory way and well after reorganisation. It is also essential that decentralisation schemes shall have been conceived while the specifications are being drawn up in 1996–97 for the new wave of services to be submitted to compulsory competitive tendering in 1997–98 in order to achieve optimum competitiveness. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I would like briefly to support the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. One of the least attractive features of the whole Bill is the fact that it is an exercise in centralisation. That is certainly the case so far as Fife is concerned. A good deal of the
220
local interest and knowledge which is available to people who have given public service in the localities may be lost in the process of centralisation. The amendments which have been spoken to by the noble Earl are designed to make explicit the need to establish meaningful decentralisation of decision making. That is very important in getting acceptance of the new regulations that are proposed in the Bill for local government. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances on this tidying-up amendment, which should make centralisation less attractive and encourage the consultative process, which is particularly important in the transitional period. I support the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, Clause 23 is one of the most important clauses in the Bill because, without it, I do not believe that the new system will work properly. With it, I believe that, if decentralisation is properly carried out by councils, the arrangements in general should be a success. My noble friend Lord Dundee has done very well to have raised these matters and to have expanded a little on his thinking.
There is undoubtedly anxiety, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has said, that the new councils may not take decentralisation seriously. That anxiety exists principally among those who have been most deeply involved in the present system and who see some of the arrangements which they have made which do work being forgotten by their successor councils.
During the debate on the future of the Highland Council, I said how it seemed to me that the plans which it is now beginning to formulate were likely to bear good fruit. Other councils are thinking about this matter very seriously, as we were told at the time by my noble and learned friend. We hope that that will continue. I know that the North-East Fife District Council, which invited me to discuss the matter earlier on before Report stage, is anxious on this score. I have heard other councils express anxiety too. Like other noble Lords, I have had correspondence. I received a letter only yesterday from Wigtownshire Council. The question is whether the Bill as it stands can do the trick, whether strengthening is needed and also whether the suggestions made by my noble friend Lord Dundee are the right ones.
Amendment No. 42 would perhaps clarify what has to be done. But it does in fact repeat the first subsection of the clause. I am not sure whether my noble friend's suggestion is necessary. I shall be interested to hear what my noble and learned friend the Minister has to say about that.
Amendment No. 45 does concern me because it suggests that the Secretary of State for Scotland can in fact disagree with what a council is planning to do in the way of decentralisation. I suppose that he can continue to disagree in such a way that he would tell a council how to structure and run itself because decentralisation would be a large part of the planning for the structure for a future local authority.
In the brief of the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities about Amendment No. 41, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, they say that

221
they are horrified at the suggestion that as a fallback position the Secretary of State for Scotland might say that councils must have a joint board. However, a number of councils have written to noble Lords to say that they will be happy for the Secretary of State to stipulate what decentralisation there should be. I do not think that that is the right way of doing it, although I can understand what they are getting at. The public must watch the decentralisation plans closely. Some councillors who will not be on the successor authorities will be among the public and they will be able to take part in the consultation. It seems to me that the vigilance of the public, rather than giving overall powers of dictation to, in this case, the Secretary of State, is the way to achieve the objective. I am not sure whether the amendments are the right ones, although I see what my noble friend is getting at.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, my name is one of those in support of the amendments. Of course, the amendments are second best to the setting up of cohesive local authorities in the Highlands and Fife where the community is as one and where they have operated in that way for some time. Under the present structure of the Bill, I can see that the Secretary of State, to whom we are already delegating enormous powers, will have even more power.
The Bill is not logical in that if you want people to speak, they have to have a forum in which to do so. Without a Scottish Assembly, they have no forum, so more and more power devolves upon the Secretary of State. Nevertheless, I think that the amendment is important for the future of democratic local government. As the noble Earl said, there must be a real and genuine devolution of power and not merely some powerless advice-giving body. The Secretary of State has a heavy responsibility and as,"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely",I hope that our nice Ministers will not go the way of all flesh, become like the Archangel Gabriel and believe that they are always right. There is a definite problem here which I hope that the Government have taken on board. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the debate has raised some interesting points in relation to the very important question of decentralisation. I agree with the noble Baroness that this issue is a cornerstone of the new structure of local government in Scotland. That issue was raised repeatedly in our deliberations on Highland Regional Council and it is clear from what both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, have said that the issue also causes concern in Fife which will be covered by a single council under the proposals.
I do not in any sense wish to play down the importance of those decentralisation schemes, but the first of this group of amendments would require councils to include proposals for the delegation of decision-making in their decentralisation schemes. On the surface, and considering Fife or Highland, this
222
would appear to be no bad thing. However, given the diverse size and nature of the new authorities, we consider it important not to be over-prescriptive in terms of specifying what should or should not be included in such schemes. What is appropriate for geographically large and predominantly rural areas will not necessarily be appropriate in much smaller and more densely populated urban areas.
The Bill as drafted, therefore, allows the new authorities flexibility to determine for themselves what is best for their own particular areas, taking into account local needs and circumstances. It will be for each new council to consider whether decision-making should be devolved as part of the decentralisation process.
The noble Earl pointed out that the Bill sets a. date for the submission of schemes. It will also be required that the schemes should state the date by which the plans will be implemented. We consider that it would be preferable to allow local authorities to decide their own timetable in keeping with their own needs. However, we hope that the date or dates chosen will be discussed with local people and that a mutually acceptable timetable will be chosen. By requiring councils to publish their timetables, we are ensuring that this will be one of the issues on which there will be consultation.
Turning to Amendment No. 43, I acknowledge that it would be useful for the shadow authorities to discuss decentralisation with existing authorities prior to their dissolution. The experience and background knowledge of members and officials will be of great assistance to the new councils in determining how decentralisation measures could best be introduced or improved. In practice, I am confident, however, that such dialogue will occur in the majority of cases. I am aware that in some parts of the country that dialogue is already successfully under way. There is no doubt either that much of the expertise which currently rests within the existing authorities will transfer to the new ones.
We are conscious also that the shadow authorities will have to address a whole host of issues during the first year and our clear preference is to leave the new councils themselves to reach a view on competing priorities. Size and the geographical make-up of council areas might determine a difference in priorities.
Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47 would require councils to submit their decentralisation schemes to the Secretary of State for approval prior to their adoption. However, although it does not seem to have been recognised, the whole ethos running through the Bill is to give authorities maximum flexibility to devise local solutions which are best suited to local circumstances. We believe, for the most obvious of reasons, that this is particularly important in the field of decentralisation. The nature and extent of decentralisation are best decided locally and for that reason we have not considered it appropriate for central government to take on board the role envisaged by the noble Earl. I believe that the noble Baroness appreciated that that would be an undesirable centralising activity.
This leads on to the last amendment in this group, which seeks to change the Secretary of State's discretionary power to issue guidance on decentralisation schemes to that of a firm commitment.

223
Perhaps I may assure my noble friend that the Secretary of State has every intention of issuing guidance to the new authorities. Its precise content will be dependent on consultations yet to take place with local government interests. I listened to what he said about costs, but clearly it would be appropriate for us to carry through those consultations with local government interests. We shall take a close interest in current best practice and reflect carefully on the consultation issue.
I hope that those who have contributed to the debate will be reassured that we see with equal force the desirability of such decentralisation schemes, but it would be somewhat contradictory if the Secretary of State were to take too centralising a role in determining just what that decentralisation should be.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his remarks. He began by referring to the amendment which attempts to address the decentralisation of decision-making and pointed out that he did not want the Bill to be too prescriptive. Therein some danger lies. Although I recognise that there is always a danger of building in too many powers for the Secretary of State, we must look at the opposite danger which is that authorities may not decentralise at all. If they should be so minded, it will be very difficult (once the Bill is enacted) to find a way to implement the guidance of the Secretary of State and the thrust of the general wishes on decentralisation which are encapsulated in the Bill.
Regarding the amendment, which addresses the consultation process itself and which seeks to bring in to it demitting authorities, which at the moment are excluded, my noble and learned friend makes the point that dialogue is going to happen anyway and therefore we do not want in an officious manner to state exactly how it will happen. The composition of the authorities— the people who do the jobs—will probably be roughly the same; and very often authorities are strongly minded not to change their way of looking at things and to be fairly centralist in how they run their affairs. Therefore if there is a new proposition, as there is in this Bill, to be different and to decentralise, authorities may not wish to do that very actively unless there is some light measure of compulsion as proposed within this amendment.
The other point my noble and learned friend may wish to consider is that the demitting authorities clearly have a wealth of experience in these matters which could possibly be wasted if they are not consulted in the transitional period when everybody hopes to draw up schemes which are as useful as possible.
Finally, on the question of what the role of the Secretary of State should best be, there is a worry that the guidance he will shortly give to the new authorities may have no bite at all if accompanying that guidance there were not to be some measure (particularly in Clause 23) of compulsion on authorities and of supervision by him which thus made sure that he was in receipt of draft schemes before they were implemented rather than after that event. Of course if he were only to learn of the schemes at that time there would be nothing he could do if they failed to comply with this guidance.
224
Nevertheless, I take on board the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. In theory, if we were to have, God forbid, a wayward Secretary of State for Scotland then he might impose upon the local authorities something that would be undesirable. However, I think we would agree that such a contingency would be so unlikely that it is hardly worth considering.
With these remarks, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister might be able to look at the question of balance to be afforded, not necessarily by these amendments but by the themes which they seek to introduce, so that current arrangements can be improved in two respects: the first being the composition of decentralisation schemes which are put together as a result of the experience of the demitting authorities; and, secondly, to make sure that meaningful decentralisation is not evaded but is carried out. My noble and learned friend could perhaps consider how to effect this better than the provisions of Clause 23 enable us to. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 44 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Financing of new authorities prior to 1st April 1996]:
Lord Mackay of Benshie Lord Mackay of Benshie moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 21, line 37, leave out ("he considers appropriate") and insert ("will provide sufficient money to meet their total expenses actually incurred up to 31st March 1996.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is on the old theme that the Secretary of State has the power to lay down exactly what the shadow authority may spend in the very difficult period of setting up the new authority. In another place the explanation for this rigid proposal was that one could not give the shadow authority a licence to print money—I think that was the phrase used—but it is not the permanent authority and so it is unlikely to throw money about for the sake of doing so. It is the shadow authority and will be dealing with all the imponderables that arise during a period of change. Given the fact that it will not know how many people will be made redundant and what costs will have to be met, the feeling is, very understandably, that the Secretary of State will fix a sum which he thinks appropriate and then quite happily load any extra on to the council tax for the local areas concerned. I have introduced this amendment simply because it is a simple point. I look forward to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, as my name is also to the amendment. He put the matter succinctly. The Minister must have realised that the amendment is designed to provide for the full cost of reorganisation because we are not absolutely happy about the wording at present in the Bill.

225
The Secretary of State's public expenditure plans announced in December, and confirmed in Committee by the Minister for Local Government, contain a provision outwith the local government settlement for £23 million in 1995–96 to cover the estimated costs for the new authorities; during the shadow period. In addition the Secretary of State has included within his plans for next year £25 million to be spent by existing local authorities on reorganisation costs.
I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate pays great attention to the points raised in the CoSLA report. He has mentioned that once or twice during the earlier stages of this Bill. The report is entitled Local Government in Scotland: A critical evaluation of costs and states that the cost for preparing for change could be as much as £75 million. While at first sight the difference between the £48 million provision (that is, £23 million plus £25 million) and the £75 million in the CoSLA report may not be regarded as significant in overall local government expenditure terms, the important fact is that the Government's provision appears to embrace, in their view, all the reorganisation expenditure in 1995–96, including redundancy payments. Of course we do not yet know what the redundancy costs will be, but the Government's provision also includes IT and property costs, whereas the CoSLA figure of £75 million specifically excludes these and identifies them separately. The Government seem to have included them.
During consideration of a similar amendment in another place the Minister rejected the amendment as giving the shadow authorities a licence to print money. This cannot be the case given that the shadow authorities will not be involved in the delivery of services. Rather they will be concerned with establishing themselves and planning for the future. However, given that the Secretary of State may have underestimated the costs of establishing the new councils, it is wrong that the additional costs will be borne by the council tax payer. Therefore the amendment seeks to ensure that ways are found whereby the Government finance the full transitional costs necessary to create the local authority structures which they have insisted upon: I repeat, the Government have insisted on these changes and not the taxpayer.
This amendment also provides the opportunity to air more fully than was possible at an earlier stage the whole question of how accurate or otherwise are the Government's overall estimates of the costs of reorganising local government in Scotland. In this context both the transitional and ongoing cost estimates provided to date by the Government have been questioned and severe doubts have been expressed in many quarters as to their validity.
The Minister will surely accept that the local government financial structure is a fully tried and tested one. Local government can think ahead to decide with a fair amount of accuracy what new demands will be made on the services in the new circumstances. Local government's figures differ greatly from those the Government have put forward. There requires therefore to be confidence in and confirmation of the overall level
226
of expenditure which will be incurred. That is particularly so given that the Secretary of State has confirmed that the financial implications of the reorganisation will fall to be met wholly by the Scottish block estimates. It follows therefore that even if, in the unlikely event, the Secretary of State's estimates are correct, to the extent to which the transitional costs are not all met from ongoing savings, they will require to be funded at the expense of essential public services or an increase in council tax.
But if, as is widely considered likely, the transitional costs do turn out to be higher and/or the expected ongoing savings do not materialise, the impact on those essential services and on council tax levels could be great. I am sure that the Minister realises that the council tax is already a burden on many families in Scotland. So that those issues can be given a wider airing, I support the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I too support the amendment. It seeks to ensure that the Government finance the full transitional costs required to create the local government structures upon which they have insisted. That is important. The local authorities have not asked for this reorganisation. Indeed, local authorities in Scotland are in general opposed to reorganisation. CoSLA, the appropriate authority, has opposed the reorganisation. All we are asking is that the Government finance the full transitional costs of a system that they have imposed upon local government.
With what little commercial ability I possess, I have examined the anticipated costs that the Government have projected for the exercise. They would never get away with it in the City of London. It is a guess. It is a guess as to property valuations and redundancy payments. It would never be accepted as a reasonable prospectus. Since there is so much guesswork, and so many suppositions have been made, we should accept that if there is an overspend in this area it is the Government's responsibility and not that of the people who pay the poll tax.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I of course have a great deal of sympathy with local government and with the amendment, because the costs of the transitional period are difficult to predict. I was a councillor during the transitional period of the last reorganisation all those years ago. I remember the enormous breadth of the decisions that we had to make. At that time, local government was bringing many small councils into fewer large councils. The proposed procedure is the reverse. It is even more difficult to predict what it will cost. I have read with great care the CoSLA brief on this matter. I can see what its anxieties are.
I shall listen with great care to what my noble and learned friend has to say about this issue. I hope that the Government are watching carefully what the figure is likely to be. Parliament should not give the new councils a blank cheque so that they can spend anything they want with the assurance that the United Kingdom taxpayer—that is who it will be—will refund the whole

227
cost. That would be a recipe for disaster. I do not believe that we can agree to the amendment, and I hope that the House will reject it. However, my noble and learned friend's answer is important. The Government should be looking carefully at what will have to be built in to the funding of local government so as to achieve proper arrangements for the new councils.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may add a word or two to what was said by my noble friend Lord Carmichael, and take up the point just made by the noble Baroness. The noble Baroness said that we should not ask United Kingdom council tax payers to fund the cost of this proposal. By implication does that mean that there is to be no reorganisation of local government in England, and that the people of Scotland have to bear the total cost of this massive blunder on their own?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord becomes too carried away with his theme, I said the United Kingdom taxpayer not council tax payer. I was referring to the fact that were the amendment to be passed the Government, on behalf of the United Kingdom taxpayer, would have to pay the whole amount. The funding of local government in the normal way would be a combination of payment of a large proportion by the taxpayer and a small proportion by the council tax payer. It has nothing to do with reorganisation in England. The noble Lord should not take us along that path.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, from what the noble Baroness said, there is an implication, whether it is income tax payers or council tax payers, that somehow the people of Scotland alone should meet the cost of this reorganisation. The truth of the matter is that the people of Scotland do not want the reorganisation. So why on earth should they bear the brunt of the cost when there is not to be a similar exercise in England?
On the issue of the reorganisation in 1974, if the noble Baroness was a councillor, as she says she was, she must recall that the Labour Government—although the legislation was introduced and passed under the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, it was implemented under the stewardship of the late Lord Ross of Mamock—provided transitional rate relief to help councils handle the reorganisation. Some indication will need to be given to local authorities. I do not suggest that they should be given a blank cheque to spend money on all sorts of grandiose schemes and claim that that is the cost of reorganisation. That is not what I am suggesting. Nor are the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and my noble friends Lord Carmichael and Lord Taylor of Gryfe. We are suggesting that there should be an indication to local authorities during the transitional period that transitional help will be given in relation to the cost of the reorganisation. We are asking for no more and no less. It is a reasonable suggestion, and it should be accepted.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I assume that when the new shadow authorities come into existence next April they will receive an initial statement from the Government of the grant that they are to receive. Given the tremendous
228
variation in the estimates of what the transitional costs will be, it is not impossible that the Government could find that what they put out in April next year as to what they are giving might turn out—without any extravagance by the authorities concerned—not to be sufficient.
In those circumstances, I presume that an additional grant would then be made. The language in the Bill does not talk about "the grant", it talks about "grants" in the plural. I assume that that is meant to cover grants to the different authorities and that the provision must be in the plural in that sense. I hope that it does not exclude the possibility that an additional grant should be made to a local authority or authorities if that should be found to be necessary. I do not suppose that it is the intention that, if the shadow authorities do not receive sufficient money, the deficit from the expenditure they previously incurred will be carried over.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should deal with this carefully to make sure that the House understands exactly what is contained in the clause as it stands and what is now proposed.
As it stands, the clause provides that the new local authorities will be funded during their shadow period— that is, from 6th April next year through to 31st March the following year—either by grants, which is indeed in the plural, provided by my right honourable friend or by borrowing subject to the consent of my right honourable friend.
I take this opportunity to advise your Lordships that my right honourable friend has still to take his decision on which of those funding methods should apply or, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy anticipated, with her great experience, whether there might be any merit in having a combination of the two options. Meanwhile, discussions are taking place between Scottish Office officials and CoSLA precisely on that issue.
However, the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to oblige my right honourable friend to fund the shadow authorities by means of grant and wholly to preclude the alternative borrowing option. That would in effect pre-empt the discussions which are continuing, and I suggest that that would not be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, indicated that he did not expect that it would be the totality of the expenditure which came from the Secretary of State, but that some of it would. That is what we anticipate will emerge from the discussions. If this amendment were carried, my right honourable friend would be under an obligation to pay the shadow authorities whatever amounts they might decide to spend. It seems to me that that goes too far. I shall not say that it is a licence to print money but as October gives way to November, it would seem to be something in the nature of an early Christmas present to the new authorities. I cannot believe that the local authorities would anticipate receiving such funding to be spent without any regard to the totality.
As it stands, the clause allows my right honourable friend to exercise an appropriate degree of control over the shadow authorities' expenditure, and that is entirely in keeping with his role and responsibilities. Official

229
discussions are also taking place about the appropriate level of funding for the shadow councils. As I say, CoSLA is being consulted.
I hope that with that explanation and a clear indication of the discussions which are under way, it will be appreciated that what is proposed in the amendment goes too far. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he clarify the position with regard to grant or borrowing? If the borrowing option is chosen, that will cost the local authorities a hatful of money.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, I should explain that as the clause stands at present it would allow for the totality of the costs to be borrowed with the agreement of the Secretary of State or for a grant to be made by the Secretary of State, or a combination of both—a grant and some borrowing. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy anticipated, discussions are presently under way between officials of the Scottish Office and CoSLA in order to decide what is the most appropriate balance and the best way of dealing with the matter. It seems to me inappropriate that the borrowing option should be wholly excluded at this stage.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord would say that of course the Government will not provide a specific sum and drive the local authorities to pay the rest. I cannot say that his assurance satisfied me. The question of the balance between borrowing and grant is extremely important. I accept that my amendment goes too far, but I am not satisfied with the noble Lord's reply and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs L

Avebury, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Barnett, L.

Ezra, L.

Bath, M.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Foot, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Geraint, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Glasgow, E

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

[Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gregson, L.

David, B.

Grey, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Desai, L.

Haskel, L.

Diamond, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

230

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rees, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Richard, L.

Hughes, L.

Rochester, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Russell, E.

Judd, L.

Seear, B.

Kagan,L.

Serota, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mallalieu,B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Thomson of Monifieth,L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

[Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monkswell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Mulley, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Nicol, B.

Whaddon, L

Peston, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

4.53 p.m.
[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. ]
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Nursery Education
Nursery education
. For subsection (2) of section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 there shall be substituted—
"(2) The duty imposed on an education authority by subsection (1) above shall include the provision of school education in nursery schools and nursery classes, or other provision as defined by the Secretary of State, for any child—

(a)who has attained the age of four years and has not attained the age of five years, and

(b) whose parents or guardians indicate that they desire such provision to be provided.

(2A) An education authority shall have power to provide such provision for any child who has not attained the age of four years, but shall not be under a duty to do so.
(2B) The expenses incurred by education authorities by reason of the duty imposed by subsection (2) above shall be defrayed out of grants made by the Secretary of State out of money provided by Parliament for this purpose.
(2C) This section shall be brought into force by order, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, before 1st August 1996.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I confess in introducing my amendment that I have had some difficulty with it. I have not had difficulty with the substance of it or the philosophy which lies behind it. Nor do I expect the noble and learned Lord, when he replies, to disagree with my underlying philosophy in the light of what transpired at the Conservative Party conference on the subject of nursery schools.
This is not the first time in your Lordships' House that I have raised the subject of nursery school education, or, to put it more accurately, pre-school provision. And I must say that on the occasion on which we debated the subject as it relates to the whole of the United Kingdom, the noble and learned Lord's noble friend Lady Blatch was most encouraging. That gave me the signal that perhaps I could expect some encouraging
232
news although it has come rather later than I had hoped. I think that all noble Lords who support the substance of my amendment will agree that what the Prime Minister said at the Conservative Party conference on the need for pre-school provision was very encouraging.
Nevertheless, we are left, following the Prime Minister's remarks, wondering when the policies are to be implemented and exactly how they will be implemented. That is why I have sought to introduce this amendment in your Lordships' House in this particular Bill. I felt that there was in Scotland strong feeling on the issue. This has been borne out in recent times by the number of letters sent to various organisations and principally to the Scottish Office. We are debating a subject which, if not fashionable, is certainly one that people are now addressing more urgently. That is not to say that other countries have not addressed the problem of pre-school education in a way which puts us somewhat in the shade. I do not wish to exchange statistics —as occurred at a previous stage of the Bill—with the noble and learned Lord. Our statistics may be at variance but I think I am right in saying that we have a great deal to do in this area.
I shall not burden your Lordships with the philosophy behind this matter as the arguments are known. The philosophy that I am expressing is not that of my colleagues on these Benches although I am gratified to see that three of them have added their name to the amendment. I do not think that anything I say will in any way offend them. If I offend them, I am sure I shall be collared as soon as I leave the Chamber. I have a child at nursery school at the present time and I have older children who have also attended nursery school. I have an elder son who went to school in Scotland and I myself spent some time at school in Scotland. I remember that time with great affection. I had a rather attractive Scottish accent which unfortunately I have lost. If I had not lost it, I believe I might be more compelling in my remarks in this debate.
What really bothers me are the great changes that are taking place in our society. When I say "our society" I do not wish noble Lords to think I am not including Scotland and that, as someone who lives south of the Border, I am just using this Bill as a convenience. I am all the time thinking of Scotland because all the problems are clear there and they are echoed, perhaps to a greater extent, in the rest of the United Kingdom. Young children who have not reached the age of full-time education, whether they come from families of good economic means, or from deprived backgrounds, will have to face, in 15 to 20 years' time, a world which is vastly different to that of today in many important respects.
The most important difference—I do not believe that anyone who is involved in economics, business or related activity would argue with this point—is that we in this country can no longer expect to see full employment going hand in hand with productivity and economic growth. I believe almost the opposite is happening. In order for this country to achieve economic growth of the kind which the Government certainly hope to achieve—I hope that this Government and successive governments will achieve it—we will inevitably need to

233
rely on advanced technology and added value products in manufacturing. That, of necessity, involves employing fewer people rather than more.
One can therefore draw the conclusion that in 15 to 20 years' time, if one is not careful, and if the encouraging scenario I depict comes about, we will be in danger of having widening divisions in our society rather than narrowing ones because a small proportion of people who are clever enough, able enough and successful enough will earn a great deal of money, but there will be a great number of people who will not be so successful, through no fault of their own. More importantly, there will be a percentage of our society—as there is now— who may even be described as being socially excluded.
It is to combat those widening divisions that I bring my thinking to bear on the need for nursery school provision. In our society we see increasing truancy and delinquency and, particularly relevant in Scotland, we see increasing problems with drugs among young people. I asked a supplementary question today at Question Time as to why 25 per cent. of children in the United Kingdom are on income support. I received a very able reply from the noble Lord on the Front Bench to the effect that the main contribution to that sad scenario is that a large proportion of children are looked after in conditions of relative poverty by single, unmarried mothers. Generally, if work is available, single unmarried mothers will want to go to work and they will want some form of provision for their children.
The difficulty I have had in drafting the amendment is related to the fact, as I said at the previous stage of the Bill, that in an ideal world in which all children had the same abilities and the same support from their families, nursery school provision, as generally understood, would do admirably and we would not need any other form of pie-school provision. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It has been shown in some parts of Great Britain and in other parts of the world that other provision leading into nursery school or full-time education is sometimes more appropriate whether that is in the form of playgroups, which have increased enormously in recent years, or other types of provision. I have attempted to provide for that in my amendment. It has been extremely difficult, for legal reasons which I have not understood and which even my advisers have not fully understood.
I apologise for the many changes to the wording of the amendment, but 1 have sought to make it possible for local authorities, under a definition provided by the Secretary of State, to meet children's needs, whether that is in deprived areas or where there is greater input from parents, or, for whatever reason, other provision apart from nursery schools is more appropriate.
The other change I have made in recent days has been to match the remark of the noble and learned Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister that it is the intention of the Government, as soon as they can possibly arrange it, to provide pre-school education for four year-olds. I would have preferred, and I believe that most people would have preferred, that it apply to three year-olds as well as to four year-olds. That would better meet the requirements of my previous remarks relating
234
to other types of provision because, generally speaking, playgroups and so on are more suitable for three year-olds than for four year-olds.
I believe that increasingly there is anxiety that there is a likelihood of more and more children finding themselves in difficulties when they enter full-time schooling. They will be unable to cope because of the misfortune of an accident of birth which means that they have little support at home. That makes it very difficult for them to achieve in full-time education at the pace and rate which is necessary in an increasingly competitive world.
If that situation is allowed to continue there will be a shocking waste of talent among children who do not have access to nursery schools or playgroups or who are late developers. Such children might well have benefited and been able to shine in full-time education at a later stage. Such children will continue to be fodder for the juvenile courts and suffer other misfortunes in their lives.
I shall be most surprised if the Government disagree with anything I have said. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will mention the cost of such provision. We all know that it will be expensive. We all know that local authorities which will have to administer such provision will not be able to do so out of their present funding and that there will have to be direct funding from government. It is a large sum, but it would be an amount well spent. I shall not bandy about figures relating to American findings, which have been well publicised, concerning the money saved in the long term if pre-school education is provided, in terms of later productivity. Those arguments have been well rehearsed and, even if they fail to accord with the statistics, I do not think that anybody would disagree with the thinking behind them.
Inadequately drafted it may be, there is nothing in the amendment which need cause any great problems of understanding. It seems to me that Scotland is in an excellent position to be in the vanguard in providing something which is really necessary in our nation. It is important for us to narrow the gap between ourselves and other countries which have come to realise sooner than we have that we need to take care of our young children before they reach school age so that they can cope with an increasingly competitive world. I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord's remarks. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, one point occurs to me. I support entirely the aims of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. What worries me is how the schools would be staffed, because nursery school teachers and playgroup teachers have to have training. The training takes time. It seems to me that it would be very difficult for local authorities to have to provide these schools starting in April 1996.
I would certainly support some amendment saying that local authorities had to make plans to phase in these schools gradually by a certain date—perhaps in five, six or seven years' time—as suitably qualified teachers became available. I also make a plea that they should

235
be able to recruit teachers who are not necessarily trained by the education authorities themselves but who may be Montessori-trained teachers or teachers trained by other independent organisations.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I support the amendment moved with expert authority by my noble friend Lord Falkland. I wish only to speak about one aspect of the amendment. That arises partly from what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has just said. There is now generally a positive climate of opinion concerning the importance of pre-school education. My noble friend Lord Falkland referred to the Prime Minister's remarks at the Conservative Party conference. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the importance of training. The more professionally trained those who work in pre-school education the better. However, it is important not to allow the ideal to be the enemy of the good in this field. In that I have particular support for the concept of the pre-school playgroup. In earlier years when I was more actively involved in these matters there was inclined to be an almost theological dispute between professionally trained nursery school teachers and the new pre-school playgroup movement. I found the pre-school playgroup movement one of the most impressive examples of mutual self-help in local communities. That enables one to go further and faster than if one had to wait for the provision of fully professionally trained nursery school teachers. In supporting the amendment I place emphasis on that aspect.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I confirm my sympathy for the noble Viscount's philosophy on this issue. However, I have considerable reservations about the method implied by his amendment. It is a question of emphasis.
I do not doubt that local authorities have a valuable role to play in making pre-school education available. However, as the noble Viscount pointed out, they are only one mechanism among many. Other forms of provision exist. He referred to playgroups. The 1993 annual report of the Pre-School Playgroups Association states:"Playgroups are unique because they harness the skills of parents in the education of their children… After all, parents know their own children best and research has shown that parents are often much better than teachers in promoting language and other intellectual abilities".Research conducted in 1987 by Osborn & Milbank— it may be of interest to the noble Viscount—on a representative sample of 700,000 children in this country demonstrated that those who had attended some form of pre-school education achieved higher test scores than those who had not. More importantly, the PPA's 1993 report states:"Children whose mothers helped in some way at the pre-school institution had better vocabulary at ages five and ten, were better at reading and mathematics at ten years old and were assessed by their teachers as having better communication skills than those whose mothers did not help".The important point is this. Parent-led, as opposed to statutory, provision is the more important way forward and should be in the van of our efforts to make
236
pre-school education more universally available. We would do a considerable disservice to both children and parents if we did not recognise that.
I am, too, concerned that, by inference, the passing of effective control of our three to five year-olds into the hands of anonymous education authorities could invest the whole issue with a political dimension wholly inappropriate at such an intensely vulnerable and formative period of the child's development. The prospect of pre-school education being used as a political lever by individual councils fills me with horror. I do not say that it will happen, but it could.
Equally important is the issue of choice. The Minister emphasised that point in Committee. However, it is not simply a matter of choice. There is a more fundamental issue to address. It is one to which my noble friend referred when he stated in Committee:"We must guard against the danger that by favouring one element we may cause another to fall by the wayside".— [Official Report, 21/7/94; col. 424.]In that regard, the PPA has advised me that, aside from the issue of funding, the single desire which lies at the top of its wish list is an integrated approach: that no one form of provision be given favour over any other. I fear that the statutory provision of nursery education, as envisaged by the noble Viscount's amendment, could jeopardise that. Some of the jealousies and rivalries inherent in the situation could be needlessly perpetuated.
Funding is an important issue. The figures that I cite refer to England rather than Scotland. However, I am advised that, proportionally, the situation is similar in Scotland. The figures are mildly interesting. The total voluntary contributions to the PPA in 1992, including payment of fees, amounted to some £101 million, whereas the total contribution from public funds, from both central government and local authority sources, was £8.5 million. I make no judgment as to the rightness or otherwise of that discrepancy, but it is nonetheless indicative of how much good work could be threatened if the emphasis in pre-school education were to be weighted towards statutory provision at the expense of voluntary provision.
It would be extremely dangerous to underestimate the value of the pro-active involvement of parents in the operation of pre-school education provision. By attempting to write into statute an obligation to provide pre-school provision, we run the risk of giving not only bad—if that is the right adjective—but also good parents an excuse to relinquish that most basic of responsibilities at a time when their child's innocence and inquiry remain at their most acute and when it is still possible to instil habits which will inform that child's attitudes for the rest of his or her life. Worse than that, such a measure could persuade parents that this most important responsibility does not even exist. After all, it is human nature to follow the line of least resistance. In other words, if the local education authority is making such provision, let us have it. What is required is not statutory provision but statutory funding.

237
For the reasons that I have outlined I oppose the noble Viscount's amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may agree with part of what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has said. There always has to be room for voluntary participation. I join those who pay tribute to the voluntary sector in every field. I do not wish it to be taken that anything said in the debate in favour of the amendment so ably moved by the noble Viscount is a criticism of the voluntary involvement; it is anything but that. It is not a criticism of the voluntary involvement but a recognition of the limitations of the voluntary sector. I shall seek to demonstrate that.
First, I congratulate the noble Viscount and his colleagues on having the foresight and vision to read the Prime Minister's speech before it was written and to table the amendment giving all Conservatives opposite the golden opportunity to troop through the Lobby in support of what John Major said at Bournemouth as recently as Friday of last week. I am absolutely certain that those Conservatives who listened so intently and waved their Union Jacks so enthusiastically at the Prime Minister's speech never dreamed for a single moment that they were about to have this early opportunity today to show how much they favoured what the Prime Minister said in relation to nursery education.
I shudder to think that any Conservative on the Benches opposite will have the courage to go through the Lobby and vote against his own Prime Minister. As the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, stated, the Prime Minister gave the commitment that nursery education (I prefer to call it pre-five education) for all would be introduced. He went so far as to charge the government Minister, Mrs. Shephard, with the duty of working out the scheme. We now have it. The amendment is on the Marshalled List. We are reforming local government in Scotland. We have been told time and again that we are off to a new start. It is a golden opportunity to make that new start by the Minister accepting the amendment. In fact if the Minister refuses the amendment, he will be at No. 10 Downing Street before he knows where he is. As we say in Scotland, his jacket is on a rather loose nail if he refuses the amendment.
I refer to the provision of nursery education in Scotland. I am glad that as always the noble Earl, Lord Minto, is in his place. I refer back to a comment that he made in Committee. He stated openly, as he would do as Convenor of the Borders Region, that a great many people wanted the facility but, quite frankly, they could not afford it. Therefore there is little or no provision in the Borders Region. In the Western Isles there is absolutely no provision for nursery education. Grampian Region is within a whisker of the Government's target figure for providing pre-five education for all children. There is a good story to tell, too, in such regions as Tayside, Fife and Central. Therefore the picture is patchy.
The amendment seeks to implement the commitment that was given by the Prime Minister at Bournemouth that the matter would become a statutory responsibility. The Prime Minister also said that it would require
238
funding which would be found. When we talk about phasing it in, the Bill does not become operational until 1st April 1996, so a good period is available for phasing the whole proposal in.
That brings me to the question of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, about training. It has been possible to train the teachers to an expert level in Grampian, Tayside, Fife and Central regions. There is a training pattern available for any other area of Scotland that cares to take it up and introduce it. However, cost comes into it. Let there be no doubt about that. It was one of the points the Prime Minister spoke about when he made clear that it would become a statutory obligation and that funding would be found.
As I understand it, the Minister has received a copy of the letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, Mrs. Diane Daly and her colleague, Judith Gillespie. They wrote to the Prime Minister on 13th October asking him to instruct his colleagues in the House of Lords to give their support to Amendment No. 51. I am not the best person in the world at replying to letters overnight and I am fairly certain that the Prime Minister has not yet replied to the letter. However, the Minister can do it for him today merely by accepting Amendment No. 51, so ably moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's requirement for a statutory provision, we are not going against pre-school nurseries. What is more, there is a great deal with which we agree in what the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said. However, one must remember that however good the voluntary effort is, the provision of nursery education or any kind of education by people who are specially trained in it has a great advantage. I speak as a non-parent and the last thing I wish to do is to be critical of what is provided by parents. But we all know that voluntary provision by some parents is, to put it mildly, not expert. We need the experts in what is a critical and difficult area. Because children are small and have little experience of life does not mean that they do not need expert handling. The mingling of the expert with the voluntary provision is surely what is required.
I hope that we shall not be beguiled by the attractiveness of pre-school education into ignoring the necessity to have a statutory base with everyone working towards properly trained teachers. Of course, it is desirable that parents should take part in that education; it is common practice now. In many schools, parents assist in educating children from the statutory school age of five. There is nothing new about bringing parents in to collaborate with the professionally trained, and that is desirable.
Some children stand in great need of pre-school education because, dare I say it, not all parents are as adequate as we would like. One cannot rely on "mother love" or whatever passes for it to provide adequate care for children in the important early days. That is why we need a statutory body and to incorporate professionals

239
while using the additional help that comes from the voluntary sector together with the advantage of parents going in and out of schools.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I go along with what the noble Baroness said. I agree with every word. I am glad that the amendment was moved. I appreciate the trouble taken by the noble Viscount over the wording. He has moved towards what his advisers in Scotland suggested. Some of them sent me copies of what they had written.
However, there are two snags to the amendment. Before my noble friends or the House troop into the Lobby with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, because it is not possible to reject the amendment, I wish to point those snags out. I think I am right in saying that as the amendment is worded—and it is not just technical wording—the provision which it makes is that,"any child … who has attained the age of four years and has not attained the age of five years, and … whose parents or guardians"would like it, should have the opportunity of pre-school provision. Those noble Lords who are based in Scotland will know that not only do arrangements vary in the different local authorities which are responsible for education, but, also, children are allowed to go to primary school at different stages. My noble and learned friend may have the figures for four-and-a-half year-olds, who are already in primary school. Some children go even before that age; it depends when their birthdays fall. There is a system of appeal in local authorities for parents who feel that their child should go to a primary school and where difficulty is being experienced in getting into one. Likewise, a number of children do not enter primary school until they are nearly five-and-a-half.
It would be a pity if any amendment to the Bill cut across the good practice of some local authorities. I think that I am right about that. I have not checked with any local authority, but I have exercised the system for a number of years and I am not aware that there has been any change. It is a good way of doing things and it would be a pity to spoil it without careful thought.
There is also, I think, the implication in the amendment that there would be specific funding for nursery provision. Quite apart from the arguments for or against specific funding, it occurs to me that there would be a temptation in local authorities to discourage children from moving into primary school and out of nursery provision because there would be extra money for nursery provision which would not be available if they were in primary school. I think that that would be the case and it would be bad motivation.
The intentions of the amendment are, I understand, precisely what the Prime Minister indicated in his speech. But the amendment will not do as it is. There would be considerable difficulty in wording the legislation when it comes to the point because the flexibility for children to move into primary schooling is important. It is important for parents and for people who cannot be at home with their children that when the children are ready for primary schooling and the school considers they are ready they should be allowed in.
240
Primary schooling is full-time and nursery education is part-time and it is important that children should move on to primary schooling when they are ready and should not be held back in nursery school.
So there are snags to the proposal. However, I am not against it in spirit. I hope that we shall not divide because I should not like apparently to vote against nursery schooling. Nevertheless I could not possibly vote for the amendment, with my understanding of nursery provision as it is in Scotland.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, mentioned that in Committee I supported the future of nursery schools within my own authority, the Borders Region, in Scotland. I did so, and I stand by it entirely. However, I do not think that the matter is quite as simple as it may have been made out this afternoon. I know that we are studying the further introduction of nursery schools. We already have some in a limited number of rather diverse communities, but they are nothing like sufficiently well spread or provided for.
The report which is coming to us has taken something like five months to produce, even in the smallest region in Scotland. I think that the introduction of the provision within the Bill in this simplistic manner, making it operative by August 1996, might be asking a great deal. I am a little concerned that truthfully I have not had the time to give my attention to the subject in the depth that I should like in order to speak to your Lordships' House.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I hope that when the Minister comes to give his response he will clearly dissociate himself from a number of remarks that were made earlier from the Benches behind him, remarks which were very extreme in character. I paraphrase, but for example they apparently deplored the thought that nursery school provision might come under some form of political control.
Local authorities are elected in the main on the issue of political choice. So far as I am aware, at least for most of this century, clear political attitudes have been struck in local authority areas at election time. That does not necessarily suggest to me—or at all—that elected members do not then make decisions on advice proffered to them. Education generally is under some form of national political control. The educational ethos which develops from this present Government will be very different to anything that I myself would wish to support, but that is another matter. I hope that the Minister will make that distinction when he comes to address the House.
I also feel quite strongly that it is naive—I put it no more strongly than that—to think that ordinary folk have real areas of choice when it comes to deciding whether their child should go to a local authority nursery, if one exists, or whether they should make private arrangements. They simply do not have the money to make that kind of choice. The truly disadvantaged, be they children or parents, seldom have the opportunity to

241
make that kind of choice either. It is about time that matters of that kind were clearly spelt out in this House, and we hope that the Minister will do so now.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, perhaps I may join others who have complimented the noble Viscount on his prescience in putting down an amendment to cover just this matter so shortly after the Prime Minister addressed the issue in Bournemouth. The matter was previously debated in Committee but I appreciate that there is a very real interest in and indeed knowledge about the issue in this House. I am happy that we have returned to it with this amendment.
At that time I said that our long-term goal was a full range of options, including the private and voluntary sectors, which would satisfy the requirements of all parents of pre-school children. The Prime Minister's statement last Friday brought that goal an important step nearer. He gave a firm commitment to continue the expansion of nursery education, and to do so through initiatives taken within the lifetime of this Parliament. This amendment clearly recognises that significant policy development.
All government departments, including of course the Scottish Office, an; now working on proposals to provide places for all four year-olds whose parents wish to take them up. My honourable friend the Minister for Education at the Scottish Office has made clear that as part of that process he will consult those in Scotland with an interest in pie-school provision.
Our aims are these: to build on the good work of existing nursery schools, nursery classes and playgroups, to give parents a choice and to ensure quality. I am bound to echo the words of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that this is not an entirely easy matter. It will not be easily achieved. It will be a complicated exercise. We are concerned to ensure that by expanding provision in the public sector we do not crowd out either private nursery schools or voluntary playgroups. Without exception in the course of this brief debate, all manner of tributes have been paid to such groups for the work that they do and how they clearly satisfy a large number of parents with the provision that they make.
If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I think he misunderstood what was being suggested. There is excellent provision to be found in some parts of this country organised voluntarily by the Pre-School Playgroups Association. In that respect— and I shall return to it—it was considered undesirable to bring such excellent voluntary activity necessarily within a statutory framework. I certainly believe there to be a danger.
The steps that we are taking will be geared to encouraging sensible growth in pre-five provision while preserving the best existing provision. It will of course take a little time to work out all the details. There are very many issues to address, including the cost of the new measures. As the Prime Minister said, this is also a long-term proposal.
I recognise that the noble Lords who sponsored this amendment have attempted to reflect those aims in the clause. I am indeed grateful to them for the indication
242
of support that it gives to our new proposals to expand nursery education. I wish to be reassuring on this matter. We have made a pledge and we intend to stick with it. But it would be inappropriate, and at this stage premature, to proceed with this amendment which would obstruct how we go about the careful implementation of our pledge, taking as it will some work and some time.
I know that the noble Viscount wrestled long and hard to have the amendment framed as accurately as possible, but not only would it pre-empt the work that I have indicated is necessary by constricting the options that can be examined in our discussions both inside government and outside it with the relevant voluntary bodies; it could also be damaging in other ways. For example, we shall be starting the process of expansion within the lifetime of this Parliament, But this amendment is designed to complete the expansion before August 1996. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, pointed out that within such a timescale there are very real issues to be addressed with regard to the training of nursery teachers to an appropriate level.
There would also be very considerable costs. That is recognised. It could be as much as an additional £25 million a year in Scotland. There is no doubt that sooner or later that expenditure will have to be taken on board, given the pledge. But completion within the timescale that is set by this amendment appears to us to be simply unrealistic.
A further matter concerned me, and I have hinted at it already. I understand that the amendment is intended to ensure that local authority provision includes playgroups. That causes me some difficulty. I have joined in the compliments paid to those who make such provision within the voluntary sector. In the light of the comments that have been made in the course of this debate, while there may be a very real desire, as my noble friend Lord Northesk indicated, to see those playgroups which already exist and which operate very satisfactorily statutorily funded, it is quite another thing to suggest that they should be brought within the control and management of a local authority. I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord intended, but that is what I clearly understand from the clause as it is presently drafted.
We want to ensure that there is a wide range of provision and that real quality is available in whichever part of the system parents choose to place their children. I have acknowledged the desire in the amendment to achieve just those things. However, for the reasons I have given, some of which are technical—the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, highlighted yet further technical difficulties—while I welcome the opportunity to spell out- once again the pledge that the Prime Minister gave, I have to say that I do not believe that it would be in the best interests of those who want to secure the best pre-five education in Scotland that this amendment should be carried.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his courteous and detailed reply. I am, however, very disappointed with it. I must say straight off that there was one thing which surprised

243
me greatly—if I understood correctly his reservations. How would it have been possible for the Prime Minister to have stood up on the rostrum at the Conservative Party conference and given the undertaking to the nation that he made if he had had the kind of reservations expressed by the noble and learned Lord? I do not believe that he could have done so.
The difficulties which the noble and learned Lord sketched out are enormous, as he said. I do not agree with half of them. For example, I do not agree that the provision of nursery school education, or other provisions as defined by the Secretary of State, as I said in my amendment, will in any way crowd out existing provision offered by playgroups or other groups.
With regard to training in playgroups, it has reached an exceedingly high standard in England. I know rather more about that. I am told that in Scotland it has gone in a parallel direction. I have not heard from either of the playgroup associations that they would in any way feel that they would be crowded out. Indeed, they would welcome the provision as defined in my amendment.
I agree that from many aspects the drafting of my amendment is not entirely satisfactory. Obviously it has not been clearly understood even by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, whose interesting and fascinating speech I shall read in Hansard. I thought that I had dealt in the drafting of my amendment with many of the reservations that he expressed. I clumsily tried in the drafting to make it possible for local authorities to choose or opt for playgroup provision where it is appropriate. It is up to them to judge.
Playgroup provision is a lot cheaper. It is not because those who teach in playgroups are inadequate. It is because an enormous amount of goodwill and dedication by volunteers goes into the playgroup association working with mothers. The results, as shown in different parts of England and particularly in deprived areas, bear that out in a way which brooks no contradiction.
Incidentally, I put down my amendment before the conference. If I had shown the same accuracy in backing horses all my life, I should probably not be in this Chamber but on the racecourse.
I take on board all the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, who has followed closely the development of my amendment and knows the difficulties that I faced in bringing it to your Lordships' House. I also take on board some of her reservations. However, I do not think that they are insurmountable. I also thank other noble Lords who have contributed. I am only an amateur politician, with probably only a short lifetime in your Lordships' House, should present trends continue; but the remarks which come from the noble and learned Lord smack to me of procrastination. I cannot believe that he has not taken on board my point. The longer the provision of pre-school education of whatever kind in this country is delayed, the greater the waste of talent and the potential for delinquency, which will continue and grow apace in a way in which it has not grown before. That is a frightening thought. I feel that the Government need to get on with this matter. The Prime Minister intends to get on with it. I cannot
244
understand why the Scottish Office does not intend to get on with it. I cannot accept it. I must test the opinion of the House.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dubs L

Avebury, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Barnett, L.

Ezra, L.

Bath, M.

Falkland, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Foot, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bottomley, L.

Geraint, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Glasgow, E

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

[Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gregson, L.

David, B.

Grey, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Desai, L.

Haskel, L.

Diamond, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

230

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rees, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Richard, L.

Hughes, L.

Rochester, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Russell, E.

Judd, L.

Seear, B.

Kagan,L.

Serota, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mallalieu,B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Thomson of Monifieth,L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

[Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Monkswell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L

Mulley, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Nicol, B.

Whaddon, L

Peston, L.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Redesdale, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Goschen, V.

Addison, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Gray, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gridley, L.

Aldington, L.

Halsbucy, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Hardwicke, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Astor, V.

Harvington, L.

Balfour, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Birdwood, L.

Henley, L.

Blatch, B.

Hives, L.

Blyth, L.

Holderness, L.

Boardman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howe, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Inchyra, L.

Burnham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Butterworth, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Cadman, L.

Kenyon, L.

Caithness, E.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Kintore, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Long, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Lucas, L.

Chesham, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord

Clark of Kempston, L.

Chancellor.]

Coleridge, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Manchester, D.

Crathorne, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cross, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cumberlege, B.

McCoIl of Dulwich, L.

Davidson, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mersey, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Milverton, L.

Downshire, M.

Minto, E.

Dundee, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Ephinstone, L.

Newall, L.

Eton, L.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Finsberg, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Foley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gisborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

231

Platt of Writtle, B.

Stewartby, L.

Polwarth, L.

Strange, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Rawlings, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Rennell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Renton, L.

Swinton, E.

Renwick, L.

Tebbit, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Teviot, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Trumpington, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ullswater, V.

Seccombe, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Selborne, E.

Vivian, L.

Shannon, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Sharples, B.

Westbury, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Wharton, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Windlesham, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L. a

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Airedale, L.

Haskel, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Healey, L.

Barnett, L.

Hughes, L.

Bath, M.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

[Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donoughue, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Dubes, L.

Rochester, L.

Russell,E.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Stedman, B.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Foot, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gallacher, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Geraint, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Glasgow, E.

Wamock, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

White, B.

Gregson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Grey, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Coleridge, L.

Ailsa, M.

Colnbrook, L.

Aldington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Crathome, L.

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Cross, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Davidson, V.

Astor, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Balfour, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Blatch, B.

Digby, L.

Blyth, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Boardman, L.

Downshire, M.

Borthwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elles, B.

Brentford, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Burnham, L.

Ephinstone, L.

Cadman, L.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gisborough, L.

Carnock, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Gray, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Halsbury, E.

Chesham, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Harmsworth, L.

245

Harrowby, E.

Northesk, E.

Harvington, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Orkney, E.

Henley, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Hesketh, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hives, L.

Pender, L.

Holderoness, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Howe, E.

Prior. L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rawlings, B.

Inglewood, L.

Renton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rodney, L.

Leigh, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Long, V.

Seccombe, B.

Lucas, L.

Selborne, E.

Lyell, L.

Sharples, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mackay of Clasfern, L. [Lord

Skelmersdale, L.

Chancellor.]

St.Davids, V.

Stewartby, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strange, B.

Mancroft, L.

Strathclyde,L. [Teller.]

Marlesford, L.

Slrathcona and Mount Royal, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sudeley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinton, E.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Milverton, L.

Trefgame, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Trumpington, B.

Mottistone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Munster, E.

Vivian, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Newall, L.

Wakeham, L.

Norrie, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
Clause 133 [Directions by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 28, leave out lines 11 to 19 and insert:
("(4) Where a Structure Plan area extends to the district of more than one planning authority, the planning authorities concerned shall set up a Strategic Planning and Transportation Joint Board to carry out the functions conferred upon them under sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 8 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 52, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 to 62.
The Bill empowers the Secretary of State for Scotland to designate areas over which joint structure planning will be required and will oblige the relevant new authorities to form a joint committee for that purpose. There is no precedent for what is in effect a voluntary joint committee to fulfil a statutory function (structure planning) in this way. There are joint strategic planning arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom— the London Planning Advisory Committee, the London and South East Regional Planning Conference, West Midlands and so forth—but those are essentially advisory to the relevant Minister.
Experience of voluntary joint strategic planning committees shows that they are only effective when they have a common cause, but that effective decision-making can be difficult, if not impossible,
246
when conflicts of interest need to be resolved. For example, there could be competition between members' interests to secure development or resistance to its acceptance—the old NIMBY (not in my backyard) factor.
An important consideration is involved and the Secretary of State, on page 20 of the Green Paper, indicated his perception of the differences between a joint board and a joint committee. His words are well worth repeating:"An important distinction between joint boards and the contract or joint committee models is that under the contract or joint committee models the individual authority retains its statutory responsibility for the service concerned, whereas under joint boards the authority shares its statutory responsibility with other authorities".
A joint committee is essentially a group of representatives, from distinct constituencies or interests, which is seeking to find a common approach to strategic issues and to act on that. Experience indicates that independent joint boards are far more effective than joint committees because they can overcome conflicts of local interest and provide greater clarity of decision-making. A further consideration in favour of a joint board rather than a joint committee is its ability to maintain its own directly employed core advisory staff—not a huge staff—properly resourced for that purpose. A joint committee would have to rely on ad hoc working arrangements of a much less satisfactory kind because obviously there could be a change of staff from meeting to meeting.
It was suggested that Amendments Nos. 57 to 62 be considered at the same time as Amendment No. 52. Amendment No. 57 is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I know that his interest will be in transport and that is one of the points that I wish to emphasise. One important piece of legislation that was enacted in Scotland —in fact all over Britain, but particularly in Scotland—was the creation of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. It would be a great disservice to the Scottish people, particularly the people to the west of Scotland, if that service was discontinued. In the context, therefore, of a complete reorganisation of Scottish local government the size of the transport passenger area should be decided by Parliament and not later by the Secretary of State.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, in another place, indicated during a debate in Committee in the House of Commons that the new authorities would be consulted on the extent of the passenger transport area. As the new authorities will not be elected until the spring of 1995, it is unlikely that the necessary consultation and assimilation of the responses will permit a decision to be taken prior to the autumn of 1995. That is extremely short notice prior to the implementation of the new arrangements which should be in place from the spring of 1996, particularly when the arrangements for the passenger transport authority will need to be determined, including joint board membership, requisite staff appointments and various working relationships with other authorities.
It is also possible that some of the new unitary authorities may take decisions relating to their own staff structures which envisage a PTA of a different size than

247
that which finally emerges. That could mean that staff are appointed by those authorities which undertake functions that may subsequently become the responsibility of the passenger transport authority.
Any arrangement whereby the Scottish transport executive's duties and responsibilities will be handed over to unitary authorities is likely to result in considerable duplication of effort as each builds its own administrative structure. The many benefits and economies of scale of central control administration would be lost.
The successful dial-a-bus scheme, daytripper, rural area day card schemes and zone cards and multi-model schemes are examples of schemes administered by the Strathclyde PTA. They operate throughout a large part of the region. I live in the area and I can assure your Lordships that the schemes are effective and well liked by local people, in particular some of the concessions that are possible because of the scale of the operations.
In order to retain and build on the economies of scale and professional expertise which have already achieved substantial efficiency benefits and the cost-effective delivery of public transport services in passenger transport areas one should take in all the authorities within Strathclyde. The PTA is able by its size and scale of operation to procure supplies and services at attractive rates and that would not be possible for small local authorities. It is also able to draw upon an established level of highly professional expertise in a range of activities, and that would be difficult to establish elsewhere given the relatively restricted scale of operation outside this area.
The proposed fire and police authorities will cover the whole of Strathclyde. It is logical that the same should apply in the case of public transport and that the area of the three authorities should be the same. The rail services, which have been supported financially under Section 20 arrangements, extend to all of the new authority areas which are being created out of Strathclyde Region and all of those services should fall within the passenger transport area.
I hope that the Minister will look at the scheme with great care. It is one of the real successes in transport and in the movement of people in the west of Scotland; in fact, in Britain as a whole. I hope that the Minister will give it his blessing. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I support the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. In so doing, I must declare an interest as regards my long association with the Passenger Transport Executive Group. For a number of years the noble Lord and I have often been on the same side on transport issues. He has mentioned all the points that I had intended to raise and I shall not waste the House's time by adding anything more. I support everything that he has said.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I too support the amendment. Adequate, successful and efficient passenger transport arrangements are essential for the
248
quality of life in any community. Glasgow provides an outstanding example of successful passenger transport planning. It has a PTA that works and it has brought together all the elements of urban transport; that is, the buses, the subway and the railways.
The railways are important. I know that we have passed the Bill relating to the privatisation of the railways but I can detect no enthusiasm for investing in them. However, assuming that people take up the franchises in the privatised railways, the planning authority will need to have negotiations with separate franchisees. As regards Glasgow, there may be six different franchises for the different railway lines that come into the area. I suggest that the PTA, which has successfully handled negotiations with British Rail to provide an adequate and complementary service to the buses and other forms of transport, has done an outstanding job. If your Lordships accept the amendment it will be possible to ensure the retention of the expertise and efficiency in planning and the sensitivity to local needs as demonstrated by the PTA. Accordingly, I support the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, as normal, I rise only briefly. Amendment No. 62 is grouped with Amendment No. 52. Few Members of this House are not eligible for concessionary travel and it is extremely important to many people throughout Scotland. I hope that the Minister will accept Amendment No. 62 or reassure the House about concessionary travel schemes throughout Scotland.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, this group of amendments addresses a number of different points. I shall mention first Amendment No. 52, which deals with the structure plan. Some of the new authorities will be large enough for it to be appropriate for them to prepare their own structure plans. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, recognised in his speech, there will be instances where some kind of joint working between two authorities, or among a number of authorities, is likely to be required. The question is how that is to be achieved.
Your Lordships are aware that under the terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 there are powers for the local authorities to work by means of joint committees. That is one way in which the necessary work on structure plans might be taken forward. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that they have not always been successful. In one sense they are the most democratic way because they remain the individual authorities, elected and so forth. However, as he recognises, there can be difficulties. If that happens, there is provision in Clause 20 for the incorporation of joint committees and power is given to the Secretary of State to establish joint boards.
The power already exists, although it is in a generalised form and applies not only to this particular area. If in the light of experience local authorities want the setting up of joint boards, the machinery already exists in the provisions which will be inserted into the 1973 Act by Clause 20. The structure of the statute is such that it takes care of the points raised by the noble Lord.

249
There was a unanimity of view among those who spoke that Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority had been a success. I do not believe that your Lordships can do other than note that Clause 40 envisages that there will be a Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. The amendment provides that it should be defined as having the same area as the existing authorities; namely, Strathclyde.
When the Bill was in another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State indicated that it was not envisaged by the Government that the boundary of the new authority would be less than the boundary of the existing passenger transport authority. That was not envisaged as being so.
The purpose of the power which is given here in the Act for the Secretary of State to define the area of the authority is to make sure that it is the most appropriate area. Strathclyde may have been a satisfactory unit, but your Lordships can surely envisage that there might be occasions, for example, where a railway line ran a little further than the existing boundaries of the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority. Therefore, there might be some advantage, in certain circumstances, to extend the boundary of the new authority a little way to take in that particular area of line so that it falls within the overall area of the new authority. In other words, it is to allow for perhaps minor adjustment—as things develop over the years there is power to vary it—to take account of other matters of that kind. That is the reason why the power is put in this way and the definition is not tied strictly to the pre-existing regional council boundary. As I said, it is not envisaged that the area will be smaller than is covered at present. I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships on this matter.
Turning to the question of concessionary travel schemes raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, your Lordships are aware that Section 93 of the Transport Act 1985 empowers local authorities to provide concessionary travel. These are discretionary powers and the decision whether or not to provide them is a matter for individual local authorities.
The new authorities; will retain these powers from 1st April 1996 because the 1985 Act provisions will apply to them just as they apply to the present authorities. Of course it is the case that there will be some areas where there will be splits. Lothian is an obvious example. Nonetheless, it will be for the individual local authority, in the way in which we have indicated, to discuss with neighbouring authorities the provision of concessionary fares. I am sure that many of your Lordships are thinking of areas such as East Lothian. People might wish to go into Edinburgh and would therefore be travelling across a boundary. At the moment they would all be within Lothian.
We do not envisage; that there will be difficulty for local authorities to reach agreement on these matters, which will be taken into account. The level of support being given to these schemes will be taken into account when the revenue support grant for the councils is considered just as they have been hitherto in the regions. Therefore, I do not believe that there is any reason to think that the new change will result in any reduction in the number of concessionary travel schemes. I am well
250
aware that this provision is something which is much appreciated by the people who benefit from it and they would therefore be expected to make their anxieties known to the new local authorities as they have to the old ones.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, by and large the Minister has reassured me and, I believe, also the people who support the idea that Stratfaclyde PTA should be broadly kept within its existing borders. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who is deeply involved with public transport. It is quite correct to say that he and I have been involved for a very long time, going back to the tragic and appalling blunder of the deregulation of buses. We must accept the fact that we cannot decide for all time that a boundary will never change. With the words that the Minister has used, I am happy to ask for the permission of the House to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Reorganisation of police areas]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved. ]
Clause 36 [Fire services]:
[Amendment No. 54 not moved. ]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 32, leave out lines 34 to 41.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, drew attention to the fact that the provisions in subsection (9) of this clause are unnecessary. Briefly and simply, the point is that since there are to be no changes in the areas covered by the eight Scottish fire brigades there is no need to require the fire authorities to prepare fresh establishment schemes. For that reason, in moving this amendment perhaps I may also mention Amendment No. 115 to Schedule 13, which is consequential on the deletion of the subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for bringing forward this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Roads]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 37, line 27, at end insert:
("12G. The Secretary of State shall, by 31st December 1994, publish preliminary proposals governing those lengths of roads which it is proposed should become trunk roads and indicating the arrangements which will apply in respect of the existing or future agency agreements under Section 4 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another facet of the fact that if we change the local government boundaries in Scotland that another group of difficulties arise; namely, guarding the trunking and de-trunking of roads. It sounds a very dull subject, but I can assure the House that from the Ministry of Transport's point of

251
view and that of the Scottish Office this subject gives rise to a great number of delegations to the Scottish Office to have a road trunked or de-trunked.
The amendment is to allow an early and proper assessment of the implications of the changes in the staffing and budgetary requirements of the new unitary authorities. The existing authorities must know which agency or new unitary authority will be responsible for particular routes if they are to comply with the requirements of the consultation set out in Clauses 44 and 54 of the Bill. Clause 44 requires consultation with successor authorities on traffic regulation orders. Clause 54 requires consultation on entering into contracts to carry out work including road construction and improvement.
Modifications to existing agency agreements will have major staffing and financial implications for the new unitary authorities. With existing agency agreements the maintenance of all roads in a local authority area are managed—and that includes in some parts of Scotland winter maintenance—by the same authority. Their removal from local roads authorities will lead to confusion in the public mind as to who is responsible for the maintenance and management of the roads.
Amendment No. 63 deals with another facet of the road system; namely, the traffic control systems within local authorities. The purpose of the amendment is to retain the traffic control systems without the need for intervention by the Secretary of State. Again, the Scottish Office industry department document The Government's Response to Where Now, A National Driver Information Control Strategy for Scotland, carried out in Scotland, was published in October. It clearly states that local authorities will remain responsible for local traffic control systems.
There is therefore no need for the Government to take on powers allowing them to dictate local traffic control systems to the local authorities. The existing clauses would allow the Secretary of State to remove the management of traffic control from a council although that council would remain the roads authority for other roads functions, such as maintenance and road safety. The provisions could allow the Secretary of State, through the proposed roads directorate, an executive agency, to impose traffic control policies contrary to the wishes of the council. Furthermore, the executive agency may eventually be privatised, leading to a completely unacceptable exercise of power.
I have some reservations. There is no doubt that in the past the Secretary of State had to take over control of roads in certain areas from local authorities but that should be done only in co-operation with the local authorities. We should not put provisions on the face of the Bill stating that the Secretary of State may at any time take over such responsibilities. Quite a long time ago now, the Secretary of State had to take control of the issue of pedestrian crossing licences. Local authorities could deal with the matter only with his permission. There is a long history as to why that happened. Nevertheless, I believe that there should be sympathetic co-operation between the Secretary of State
252
and the local authority which is responsible for the roads. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am somewhat concerned about the amendment because page 37 of the Bill states that Sections 12A to 12E (and really Section 12F as well) apply only until 1996, but the positioning of this amendment gives me the impression that the proposed new Section 12G which it is proposed to insert in the Roads (Scotland) Act would apply for ever. I am not sure that that is a good thing to do. The other provisions appear to be temporary, but the effect of the amendment might last for a long time.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I should like to deal first with the review of trunk roads. Amendment No. 56 states that the Secretary of State shall publish preliminary proposals by the end of this year. It might be of assistance if I were to tell the House the position at present. Work has been done on the review of the trunk road network and on the review of agency arrangements. I can advise your Lordships that a consultation document on the trunk road network will be sent this week to local authorities and other interested parties. The agency arrangements will have to be reviewed in the light of the new circumstances, including the reorganisation. The consultation document on that matter is not quite as nearly ready as that on trunk roads, but it should be available shortly. I hope that that will reassure your Lordships that progress is being made on this important matter.
Amendment No. 63 seeks to delete Clause 62.I find it surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, wishes to remove that power. Nobody disputes—and the noble Lord accepts—that as far as possible traffic control matters should be dealt with by local authorities. The provisions seek to deal with the position when authorities have not made satisfactory joint arrangements for the exercise of their functions under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will be familiar with the stretch of road into Glasgow from the direction of Edinburgh where there are many overhead signs. We are dealing with traffic systems that pass through different areas. Therefore, it will be necessary to ensure that in the unlikely event of local authorities not making satisfactory arrangements some power is available to the Secretary of State so that he can make such arrangements. Clearly, this is a matter of great importance given that it involves road safety. It is for that reason only that the reserve power is provided. We hope not to have to use it, but it is there in case it is needed.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 108 and 120.I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will welcome Amendment No. 108 because it deals with a

253
matter that he raised in Committee. The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 requires notice to be given to the road works authority whenever utilities want to place their apparatus on a public road. Authorities are required to keep a register and the Secretary of State may arrange for that to be done by using a central register. The islands councils have indicated that they do not wish to use a central register, and it has been decided that it is not necessary. The matter can be dealt with perfectly satisfactorily on a local basis in their case.
For that reason, it is possible to accept an amendment such as that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. Therefore, I hope that the new clause will achieve what the noble Lord wishes. Your Lordships will notice that an additional requirement has been placed on the Secretary of State in that he must consult any road works authority before excluding it from a central register. He must also consult any utilities with apparatus in a road for which such a road works authority is responsible. We thought that such matters should be provided for, but the principle remains the same.
Amendment No. 120 is a technical amendment which arises from an error that has been drawn to our attention by a local authority. There is an inconsistency in the definition of "road" in Section 46 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 and the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. The result is that local planning authorities are at present given a power to repair and maintain public roads and other rights of way other than roads and footways, but because "road" was given too wide a definition by the 1984 Act local authorities do not at present have the power to carry out their duties with regard to public rights of way. The small amendment seeks to cure that anomaly in the wording. The effect is to make clear those rights of way which are to be maintained and repaired by local authorities and the public roads which are the responsibility of the roads authority. What this does is to define a dividing line between those two things. We are grateful to the North-East Fife District Council for drawing this matter to our attention. I regret that I did not altogether gather the tenor of the technical point drawn to my attention by my noble friend Lord Balfour. I wonder whether he would be content for me to write to him on the matter.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanations. He may have realised that halfway through my description of Amendment No. 63 I began to realise myself that there were flaws in it. I am grateful to him for pointing them out, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 62 not moved. ]
Clause 42 [Power to secure management of traffic control system]:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved. ]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
Chief social work officer
(". For section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (director of social work), there shall be substituted the following section—
"Chief social work officer.
3.—(1) For the purposes of their functions under this Act and the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of this Act, a local authority shall appoint an officer to be known as the chief social work officer.
(2) The qualifications of the chief social work officer shall be such as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as the Government's amendments concerning the post of director of social work and Amendments Nos. 107A and 183 on directors of education all relate to the internal management of the new councils, I think it is convenient that we should deal with those matters together. I propose to open by commenting on the social work matters. I shall then listen to what is said.
In our debate on 14th July I undertook to reflect on the concerns noble Lords had expressed on the proposal to abolish the statutory requirement for local authorities to appoint directors of social work. We have considered carefully how best to meet those concerns while still affording the new authorities as much freedom and flexibility as possible in determining their own internal structures and management arrangements. I said in July that we were certainly not in the business of making changes for the sake of them but we recognise that we live in an ever more rapidly changing world and we must ensure that local authorities are not hampered in how they adapt to new conditions and new opportunities. We have always recognised the vital contribution which social work services make in our community.
As your Lordships will all be aware, all the duties and responsibilities in respect of social work services carried out by the current regional authorities will pass in their entirety to the new authorities. Vulnerable groups dependent on community care and child care services can be reassured about the continuity of service expected from the new authorities. Equally, the courts and children's panels can be assured that there should be no diminution in the standard of services provided. Indeed, we look to continued improvements in all these areas.
We recognise the very particular responsibilities which fall on social work services. As I have mentioned, they affect personal lives, individual rights and liberties to an extent that many other local authority services do not. The human rights issues involved are complex, and decisions must often be taken with the greatest of care. In addition we are aware that social workers are facing change on several fronts. A good start has been made to the implementation of the new community care arrangements but this is necessarily a continuing task. Significant progress has been made in establishing national standards for social work services in the criminal justice system, which are much appreciated

255
now by the courts. Important changes in child care services following the White Paper Scotland's Children are already under way, with more to come.
Against this background we considered how to recognise these factors and also the need to give the new authorities flexibility in their internal organisation. The main amendment we propose is a new clause which will require every authority to appoint a chief social work officer who is professionally qualified. Many authorities will no doubt decide to appoint a professionally qualified director of social work since social work is a major local authority service second only to education in expenditure terms. Such an appointment will clearly satisfy the terms of the new clause.
Other authorities may decide on a different structure. They will, however, be required to appoint a professionally qualified chief social work officer. He or she will be responsible for the oversight of all the social work services provided or purchased by the local authority. A series of consequential amendments make clear the specific decisions and tasks for which that chief social work officer will be responsible in place of the present director of social work. I believe our proposal to be a good solution to the concerns which have been expressed and to which we have listened with great care. It meets concerns about professional accountability and it provides flexibility for the authorities in their internal management arrangements. I invite your Lordships to agree to the new clause in Amendment No. 64 and to the consequential amendments.
So far as social work committees are concerned, we consider it essential that local authorities have maximum flexibility in their organisation. So far as social work directors are concerned, I believe that the new clause we propose covers the point. I beg to move.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am grateful personally to the Minister. I am sure that I speak, although I am not authorised to do so, for the Association of Directors of Social Work and their colleagues when I say that the Minister has handled sympathetically the whole question of the appointment of directors of social work or a chief social work officer. I am particularly glad that the Minister made clear that his amendment indicating that authorities have to appoint, or may appoint, a chief social work officer with a recognised social work qualification does not disbar an authority, if it so desires, from appointing a director of social work.
The sticking point—and it was one I recognised right away —was the whole situation where under the 1973 Act directors of social work were given statutory powers. There was no doubt in my mind that that was causing some concern for local authorities; for example, in spending programmes. A director might say, "I am intending to discharge this function and you will have to find the money". Obviously that was causing problems for local authorities. I say sincerely that I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which the matter has been dealt with.
256
The Minister kindly mentioned Amendments Nos. 107A, 173 and 183 in this group of amendments and standing in my name on the Marshalled List. Amendments Nos. 173 and 183 refer to the repeal provisions in Schedule 14 to the Bill and refer, in the case of social work, to the repeal of the provision whereby a local authority will be required to appoint a social work committee. I am minded to accept the Minister's argument that local authorities can be left to decide whether or not they want to have a social work committee. I am certainly not intending to go to the wall on that argument, but if I may—I gave notice to the Minister that I would want to return to the matter at the final stage of the Bill—I want to impress upon the Minister the other aspect of the amendments: namely, the appointment of a director of education or a chief education officer. I am not suggesting, nor would I suggest, that the same arguments applied in the social work question apply directly in the field of education. It would be wrong to try to draw that parallel. Nevertheless, education, as we all accept, is a very, very important matter within local government.
It is incomprehensible that any local authority's education system should be run by an administrator who, however professionally well qualified in administrative matters, does not hold a recognised educational qualification, because, after all, directors are responsible for curriculum development, the intake of children, planning primary school provision, secondary education and a whole host of professional aspects of education, including teacher placement and training. Those are important matters. It may well be—I am always prepared to confess my mistakes —that in withdrawing Amendment No. 50, in a sense, I withdrew the wrong amendment. That is why I am giving the Minister notice that I shall want to return to this issue on Third Reading.
I want to adopt the same fall-back position as has been adopted in relation to social work, although, as I admit, the two are not directly comparable. Perhaps the Minister will take the amendment away and consider it before Third Reading, and possibly come back with more or less the same solution: that a local authority may if it wants, or may not if it wants, appoint a director of social work, but that where a local authority does not appoint a director of social work it would have to appoint a chief education officer who had a recognised educational qualification.
It is not just on this side of your Lordships' House that there is anxiety about this matter. The anxiety goes right across the education field—parent-teacher organisations, the Educational Institute and all the professional organisations representing teachers. There is unanimity on this point. We need a professionally qualified person to guide and direct the education policies of any local authority.
I recognise that the problem was created, not by the Government, but by local authority chief executives who in response to the White Paper offered the Government the solution that if it were all left to chief executives, the chief executives would make the appointments. I recognise that. I am not trying to score points or anything like that. Because that happened, that does not

257
mean to say that we should not look at the problem rather more closely than I suspect the chief executives looked at it and come back and reconsider the point again, and, possibly, if the Minister can see his way clear, arrive at a solution to the education question similar to the one at which we arrived satisfactorily in relation to social work. I leave those preliminary thoughts with the Minister with the hope that we can return to this matter at a later stage and that in the intervening period he will have given further consideration to what I have said.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as one who expressed concern in Committee, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, in thanking the Minister for moving Amendment No. 64. I wonder whether the Minister will clarify one or two matters when he winds up. Is it envisaged that chief social work officers will have a staff or a committee and their own budget? I am not clear as to what the set-up will be.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I want to add to what has been said for those who may not be familiar with all the provisions of the Bill. In relation to Section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, Section 5(1B) can be found on page 185 of the Bill. It is in paragraph 78 of Schedule 13. That might be of benefit to those who have not been studying the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for the new clause moved in relation to social work. It is welcome and helpful to proceedings on the Bill. I rise primarily to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, on his Amendment No. 183 and to join in his plea that the Government will, as they have over the social work arrangements, have a second serious thought about the arrangements in relation to directors of education. I agree fully with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the two situations are not by any means parallel but that there is a special case to be made in relation to the statutory position of directors of education.
I believe there is now a welcome consensus in the country and in your Lordships' House on the general importance of education. Despite the Division on nursery education we had a little while ago, there is an underlying consensus about the overall importance of education in terms of the social problems of our contemporary communities and the training of our young people for a position in an increasingly competitive world.
Against that background, it is a serious, retrograde step to see the disappearance of the statutory position of directors of education. Education has always played a notable part in Scottish history and tradition. Directors of education are a notable part of that educational tradition. The Association of Directors of Education, for which I do not speak, but like other noble Lords I have received its material, has of course written to the Minister on this matter. The association makes the important point that was; made by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing: it is anxious to assure the Government that it is flexible with regard to the need to take on new
258
management responsibilities which are different from the narrow professional responsibilities normally associated with being a director of education. The association underlines that, while its members are ready to show that flexibility in taking on responsibility for other areas linked to education but not directly educational, the critical position remains that education, as it says, is seen as vital to ensure that the. education service receives the correct priority as a major service in local government.
I would therefore go a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, in pressing the Government to reconsider the matter to the extent of retaining the statutory post of director of education. If they are not willing to do that, perhaps they will apply the welcome thinking that they have done in relation to arrangements associated with the chief role in the social work field of local authorities to the issue of directors of education, and provide at the Bill's final stage for the appointment of an officer who might be known as the chief education officer.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I part company with some of my noble friends in that, although Amendment No. 64 is better than nothing, it is flaccid. It is the Government pussyfooting around. I know of no one in the field of social work who is even remotely impressed by the gesture. The truth of the matter is that there should be directors of social work statutorily based. The point of impact of need in the huge urban conurbations is so increasingly serious that it definitely and absolutely weakens the strength of social work involvement. To that extent, although the amendment is an improvement on what existed before, it is nothing like good enough. I feel that I need to say that this evening.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble Lord who has just spoken means because I understood my noble and learned friend to say that the chief social work officer is to be responsible for the service. Those were the words that he used. Therefore, the question for the councils will be whether or not to have a social work committee. If it is a small council, it will be free to combine with another committee if it so wishes. That is the freedom they want. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is divided on this matter. As I understood it, it was quite happy with the Bill.
I should like my noble and learned friend to make clear one matter because I have followed very closely the matter with regard to directors of education. I understand that my noble and learned friend is keen to look carefully at the social work side because at present the director of social work has quasi-judicial responsibilities in the system which require an individual to be there to carry out those responsibilities. Is my noble and learned friend able to say whether there are similar responsibilities, although I suspect that they may be on a smaller scale, which directors of education have? Does that argument transfer across?
As I said on Second Reading, I am extremely reluctant to tie the hands of local authorities on this matter. Of course, the large authorities will wish to put someone in charge of the education service and not in

259
charge of anything else. One can see that; of course they will. But there are small authorities within the system that may wish to have shared responsibilities.
I know from experience, as will other noble Lords, that where there is a director and a committee running a huge service that may create a power base which it is quite difficult for an authority to contain. I was pleased with regard to the flexibility provided in the Bill. I thought that that was a good innovation. The chief social work officer does not necessarily have a committee to be a power base. He may operate in a different way. However, he will be responsible to the council for the running of the service. I wonder whether there is a need also for a chief education officer to be responsible for the service, whether or not there is a committee. That is an extremely important issue and I am not a bit convinced one way or the other as to what should happen.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have welcomed my amendment which allows for the appointment of a chief social work officer. I was surprised by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. He says that he knows of nobody in the social work world who is impressed by the provision. Perhaps he would like to read some of the journals in this field to see the reactions of the directors of social work. If he did so, he would discover that they approve warmly of what is being done.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that in moving the amendment I said that the chief social work officer will be responsible for the oversight of all the social work services provided or purchased by the local authority. Undoubtedly there will be a staff for which he is responsible but I do not wish to suggest that every single service would necessarily be provided by that staff. Services may be purchased in, as is frequently done at present.
There is an important distinction which my noble friend Lady Carnegy has identified. A number of the statutes, and primarily the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, impose duties and responsibilities upon the director of social work. A named individual has a responsibility there. We consider that to be the important factor which allows for a distinction to be drawn between a director of social work services and a director of education.
There would not necessarily be a social work committee. I indicated that to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. I invite your Lordships to reject the amendment which provides a statutory requirement for such a committee. However, one envisages that in most circumstances there would be such a committee.
As regards directors of education, I do not think that I can agree to take away the amendment but I do not propose to invite the House to negative the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. Therefore, he will have the opportunity to return to the matter on Third Reading. However, I take this opportunity to spell out why we believe that there is a distinction to be drawn. It may help to formulate the thinking of noble Lords.
260
As the noble Lord indicated, after consultation we received advice from five of the 12 education authorities that they favoured the removal of the statutory requirement to have a director of education. We do not consider the circumstances to be comparable in certain respects. First, unlike existing directors of social work, directors of education are not required to have any professional qualification. The requirement in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 is simply that an education authority,
"shall employ a director of education who shall be the chief education officer and shall hold office on such reasonable terms and conditions as the authority think fit".
Secondly, the case for ensuring that there is a clearly identified individual in every authority with responsibility for the professional oversight of social work is, in our view, much stronger. Social work decisions can affect personal lives and individual rights and liberties to an extent that other local authority services do not.
Thirdly, unlike the directors of social work at present, statutory duties as a rule are not specifically assigned to the director of education, but to the education authority itself; while some important duties, notably decisions about urgent admissions to secure accommodation, which is a very important responsibility, are conferred expressly on directors of social work.
There is provision within the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988 to enable the director or an officer of the education authority to attend school board meetings and specify a role for the director or an officer of the authority in relation to staff appointment committees. However, we do not see that there is a direct parallel to be drawn in that respect because those duties are not imposed simply upon the director of education but, as I said, the duties could be discharged by an officer of the authority.
There has been a considerable amount of consultation on this matter. Views within local authorities are very strongly divided. As I indicated, five out of 12 said that they did not want statutory provision for a director of education. We believe that there is a clear distinction to be drawn and we do not wish to adopt a comparable proposal in relation to directors of education.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will appreciate that during the summer we gave consideration to the matter. We looked to see whether a comparable arrangement should be made. I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment and if he wishes to return to the matter on Third Reading that is obviously a matter for him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 44, insert the following new clause:
("Defined Activities
Defined activities

.—(1) The Local Government Act 1988 shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this section.

261

(2) In section 2 (defined activities) after subsection (9) insert—

"(10) Without prejudice to his powers to make orders or regulations under any other provision of this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State shall by order provide that from 31st March 1995 until such date as may be specified in the order, being a date not later than 31st December 2001, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall apply in relation to local authorities subject to such modifications as may be so specified.
(11) Any such modifications as may be so specified in accordance with subsection (10) above shall, in respect of defined activities referred to in subsection (2) above prior to 1st October 1988, specify that the provisions of sections 6, 7 and 8 of this Act shall not apply to such defined activities until 1st October 1998 or such later date as may be specified in the order or regulations;.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are grouped together with Amendment No. 75. I should like to deal first with Amendments Nos. 65 and 66.
I return to the question of compulsive competitive tendering which I raised at Second Reading and again in Committee. I am grateful that on this occasion I have support on the question of CCT in the first two amendments because I think that there has been an acknowledgement in the progress of the Bill so far that this is a complicated matter and one which could be the stumbling block to the fulfilment of the Government's wishes for the new authority to become operative in 1996. For that reason, and because it is a complicated matter, I would like to take the House through the situation as it stands. At the present time the Scottish Office proposes that for the Local Government Act 1988 services the competition requirement will be phased back between July 1997 and January 1998. That is the first Bill.
For the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the services contained therein, the Government have proposed that the exemptions should not last beyond April 1997 and should not in any case apply to construction contracts worth over £½ million. In respect to these services, it is the view of local authorities in Scotland that the timetable is inherently flawed. It is clear that the proposed unitary authorities would have to bring together specifications from all the former authorities and distil these into a single comprehensive specification. The extent of this task cannot be underestimated as it will be necessary for the new authority to decide on levels of service to be provided; to decide upon the organisational structure to be adopted; and to decide upon budget constraints, packaging of work, availability of assets, conditions of contract and much else besides before work on specifications can properly commence. This is in itself a massive task, yet in addition the new authorities will have to reconcile extensive issues of incompatibility of systems and working practices. The proposed timetable would give very little time for either the development of management systems on the contractor and client sides or to carry out the rationalisation of services and service delivery mechanisms that will undoubtedly be necessary.
Bearing in mind government regulations on the tendering timetable, the preparation of contract documentation needs to commence a good year before contract start dates. This has been proved from
262
experience so far. For certain services this will mean that documentation will have to be prepared in July and August of 1996, by which time the new authorities will have been operating for only a few months. Account also needs to be taken of the fact that the key people in defining specifications and other matters will be the very same key people charged with the responsibility for establishing, providing and running the new authorities' information and control systems while in addition carrying out day-to-day operations. There are not many of these people qualified in this matter within each of the local authorities.
Many of the senior staff concerned with CCT preparation will at the same time be involved in a number of other major issues such as the budget process. Thus the proposed timescale, which would be totally unrealistic under normal circumstances, becomes totally unacceptable within the context of local government re-organisation. Both these groups of people, of whom as I have said we are short in number, lack specialist detailed knowledge of CCT. Hence, to impose this timetable might well prejudice the delivery of services and the proper preparation which is required for compulsory competitive tendering. Local authorities consider that the re-tendering of manual services should be introduced on a phased basis beginning in April of 1998. It is further considered that the exemption should apply for construction contracts worth over £½ million.
The second part of what I am trying to say to the House is that the Scottish Office proposes that the extension of CCT to professional services—that is quite different; those are white collar workers—should be phased so that one-third of contracts should be let by October 1997, a further third by January 1998 and a full 100 per cent. by April 1998. The white collar services to be exposed to CCT, and in particular legal, finance, IT and personnel services, all have a significant support role to play in the tender process for manual services. It is clearly evident that to put such support services out to tender simultaneously with the very services they are operationally supporting in the tender process is a wholly unreasonable proposal. In fact I feel that it would cause total chaos.
First, it is unreasonable and unrealistic for manual services to engage in the tender process and formulate business plans against such operational uncertainty. Secondly, the same key people involved in managing the manual tender process will be required to play an important part in the process for white collar CCT, and such a workload as that is untenable. Thirdly, corporate efficiency and effectiveness would be jeopardised by the inward focus of white collar support in attempting to deal with their own service. Finally, to expose direct and support services to compulsory competitive tendering simultaneously would mean that the specifications prepared for the support services could be decimated by the time the contract start dates arrive if the direct services contracts were won by an external contractor. There is, therefore, a particular problem in constructing meaningful specifications as the basis for legally enforceable contracts when much of the subject matter of the contract specification may disappear by the time the contract is intended to commence.
Given the impact of CCT for manual services and the inevitable disproportionate impact of re-organisation on central support services, it will be essential to finalise the tendering of all manual services before commencing the tendering process for white collar services. One must fully precede the other.
As regards the proposal to phase in white collar services over three-month intervals, local authorities in Scotland consider that this is totally impracticable. It would be more realistic to phase these services at 12-month intervals and certainly no less than six-month intervals. As the proposal currently stands, the second tranche would be tendered not knowing the outcome of the first tranche. The potential loss of one of the contracts in the first round could have a significant impact on the financial viability and structure of other services. For example—I offer these examples in an attempt to clarify the matter—if a personnel service's contract was won by an external contractor, this would have a major impact on staffing levels for other support services, particularly finance and information technology.
So we ask certain questions within local authorities. What happens if tenders are submitted for providing a support service to another service which is itself subject to CCT and that other service is subsequently awarded to an outside contractor? What then happens if an external contractor is awarded the contract for the support service? In such circumstances will the doctrine of frustration of contract apply?
The potential problems and uncertainties for contractors are self-evident. An extension of the timetable for phasing in white collar services would not only avoid those problems but would also recognise the fact that having to submit their own services to CCT will be a completely new learning exercise for local authority staff. In such a situation it is essential that sufficient time is allowed between contracts for authorities and staff corporately to assess the impact on their service providers and to make improvements for future contracts.
In local authorities in Scotland we are very nervous about the burden that is placed on the timetable by CCT. In relation to the timetable for re-tendering existing manual services already subject to CCT, for extending CCT to construction-related services and professional services, for introducing housing management CCT and extending CCT to other manual services, authorities will be expected to manage all those procedures simultaneously over a considerable period of time. Such a burden, particularly on support services, cannot be accepted, especially coming so soon after the proposed date for local government reorganisation.
The points outlined in this submission which I have attempted to make to the House and the noble and learned Lord serve to demonstrate fully the overall burden of the proposed CCT timetable on key officials managing the process and on key support services coming to terms with the process of managing change resulting from major upheaval and required to support numerous contract areas. I have also sought to demonstrate the difficulties of the inter-personal
264
relationships in developing new organisational structures and at the same time ensuring that the level and quality of service to the public are maintained.
Under the proposals as they stand councils would have to expand central support staff merely to cope with competition, which I suggest totally defeats its purpose. Alternatively, the new authorities will be left with no option other than letting contracts based on the existing packages and specifications. That is a course of action which may not be in the best interests of council tax payers or good value for money.
In the earlier stages of CCT between 1989 and 1993, local authorities were involved in the letting of two or three contracts at any one time, each contract being at a different stage. The new authorities are being asked to handle up to 10 times that workload, together with all their other responsibilities.
In conclusion, there is a major risk that under the proposed timetable the demands being placed on local authority resources will lead to poor documentation and preparation which will have serious consequences for client and contractor alike. If the Government are serious about the provision of quality services and value for money—and I can say that local government certainly is—then a much less congested timetable should be considered. It is the view of local authorities in Scotland, of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and of the local authority which I represent that the extension of CCT to professional services should not commence until October 1999.
Throughout I have accepted that the Bill will receive Royal Assent. I have also tried to identify from time to time areas about which I have the greatest concern. At Second Reading I raised this issue as a prime matter. Again in Committee I brought it to the attention of the noble and learned Lord in my belief that the future of local government in the next two or three years could stand or fall upon the relationship that it will have with compulsory competitive tendering. The matter is that important. It is for that reason that I beg to move Amendment No. 65.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I put my name to the amendment. I listened with great attention to the noble Earl, Lord Minto. He spoke from great experience and he has a great interest in the subject. The Minister would have a heart of stone if he did not decide that an extension of the date is the very least that we can expect after the explanation and examples given by the noble Earl. I support him fully.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I too should like to record my appreciation of the tremendous work that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, has put into his research into the Bill. In view of his practical experience I very much hope that the Government will take note of what he said.
Perhaps I may separate the proposed new subsections (10) and (11) of Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1988 in Amendment No. 65. In paragraph 159 of Schedule 13, on page 239 of the Bill, there is almost identical wording, inserted by the Government, to that proposed in subsection (10) in the amendment except

265
that the amendment states that the Secretary of State "shall", whereas in Ihe Bill it states that the Secretary of State "may".
Turning to the proposed subsection (11) of the amendment, I ask the Government whether further consideration should be given in respect of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Local Government Act 1988 as presently worded.
The compulsory competitive tendering matters which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, raised in Amendment No. 66 in respect of the functional work under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 should be carefully studied by the Government. Equally, I feel that Amendment No. 75 raises points which I feel sure, in view of the noble Earl's practical knowledge, deserve careful consideration.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, noble Lords have expressed admiration for the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. I, too, noted its terms with great care. His speech was not merely based on research but, quite clearly, on a familiarity with that area of work which I suspect is unequalled by anyone else in your Lordships' House.
The noble Earl addressed himself to the timetable embodied in the consultation document. The noble Earl's amendment seeks to put specific dates on the face of the Bill. I resist that in principle if for no other reason than that in due time those specific dates might be inappropriate for some reason. As the noble Earl knows, and as your Lordships are aware, with regard to the two Acts, the provisions of one are to be modified, and the provisions of the other are to be used, to provide measures for what I believe is known as the CCT holiday. That has been done by orders.
In July of this year the Scottish Office issued a consultation paper—a draft guidance on competitive tendering. That paper was issued to local authorities and others with an interest I have no doubt from the noble Earl's speech to your Lordships that the document has been well studied by him. However, it was very much a consultation document. In particular it asked for responses by 14th November. However, the bulk of responses have not yet come into the Scottish Office and therefore, the Scottish Office has not been able to consider the representations made. I understand that some representations have been received and some include points which are not dissimilar to those points made by the noble Earl.
The noble Earl considered that this area was one of the most important for local government in the coming years. The last thing that the Government wish to do is to end the CCT holiday or to introduce the new system of compulsory competitive tendering in a way that the effect would be the very reverse of what was intended. The intention is to improve the services and to make them more efficient. The noble Earl painted a scenario in which that objective would not be achieved.
It was precisely to take on board such points, and to reach a decision on appropriate dates in the light of that consideration, that the paper was issued. I hope that noble Lords will not consider me in any way discourteous if I do not even attempt to deal with the
266
details of the matter put forward by the noble Earl. The matter is out for consultation. Decisions have not been taken. Dates were included in the paper but they were dates to be considered in the light of all the representations made. I can assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State and his officials will take into account not only the representations which are received but in particular what the noble Earl said today. Those are the kinds of matters to be taken into account.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I did not expect him to accept absolutely the dates in the amendment. However, his answer has satisfied me so far as it goes: that the Secretary of State and his officials will look carefully at the responses to the consultation paper that they receive by the November date. However, should they fail to do so, the Bill having left the House, it will be a matter of great concern.
I do not consider the noble and learned Lord in the least offensive in not giving me the assurances that he thought I sought. I am pleased to note that he takes the matter seriously. If he does not do so, quite frankly, local government in Scotland will be in dire straits indeed.
I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall not move Amendment No. 66, although I shall speak to Amendment No. 75.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, would it be appropriate for me to speak to Amendment No. 75 now?
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I shall not be able to call the amendment until it arises in the order on the Marshalled List. I shall call it at the normal time.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that this will be an appropriate time at which to break for dinner. Perhaps I may suggest that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 8.25.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.26 to 8.25 p.m.]
Clause 47 [Amendment of District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 44, line 23, at beginning insert:
("() The District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 shall be amended in accordance with the provisions of this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Macaulay and with his permission, I beg to move this amendment. On these packed Benches that we are addressing this evening, I think we all agree that some issues which we discussed are not quite as important as others. This amendment, dealing with the retention of fines by local authorities in the district court areas, is quite an important issue. Over the. past few

267
years it has developed and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will take the point on board and examine it.
The position at the moment with the district courts is that local authorities can retain fines imposed for offences such as breach of the peace and assault. They can retain 100 per cent. of the fines for common law offences. With other offences such as those under the wireless and telegraphy legislation concerning people who have no television licences, fines are remitted in total to the Exchequer. For moving traffic offences such as speeding, local authorities can retain only 10 per cent. of the fines. That is also true in the case of parking fines imposed by traffic wardens, stationary vehicle offences and similar offences.
The noble and learned Lord appreciates, I am sure, that over recent years, because of the offer by procurators fiscal of fixed penalties, the district courts now deal with more fixed penalty offences as a proportion of their work. The net result is that, as a percentage, less and less of the fines imposed by the district courts are retained by district councils. Therefore, more and more of the expenditure of administering the district courts is incurred by the district councils. The income from fines has decreased as the expenditure on administration has increased. Obviously, when fixed penalties were introduced it was not appreciated that it would have an effect on the way in which the district court system operated and the retention of fines by local authorities.
Even in the case of a fixed penalty, if that fixed penalty is not met and is therefore converted to a fine, the local authority is only entitled to retain a certain small percentage of the fine as a handling charge. So that has become quite an important issue for the councils which administer district courts. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will give this matter the most serious consideration. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I would normally feel that it might be better for the authorities not to receive any of the money from the fines in case they urged the magistrates to fine more people and urged the traffic wardens to go around shopping as many people as possible, which is a policy that has rather been encouraged by this Government. I hope that the independence of the judiciary will be such that the money should accrue to the local councils, which carry most of the cost of running the courts. It seems to me to be quite sensible, particularly in the case of 10 per cent. for fixed penalties and one-third for a case that goes to court and results in a fine. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will take a sympathetic view and see that the courts are comfortable for the judges, and so on. It is a sensible amendment and I hope that he takes a good view of it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, a similar point was raised in Committee. I explained then that I did not feel able to accept the principle behind the amendment. As I explained then, the position between
268
England and Scotland differs. In England, the magistrates' courts do not retain any of the income which might be derived from the imposition of fines. On the other hand, in Scotland the position, as noble Lords have heard, though slightly complicated, is basically that common law offence fines are retained whereas those relating to statutory offences are not. That is subject to various other provisions and in particular in relation to fixed penalties.
Fixed penalties are remitted to the Exchequer by the courts subject to a retention of one-tenth of the sum. Where the offender does not pay and a fine is registered, it is an increased fine of which the local authority may retain one-third. So the sum is not insignificant. These are all provisions that are unique to Scotland.
The district courts are among the services that are provided by local authorities. The provision of these courts is one of the matters that are taken into account when revenue support grant is calculated. There is a slightly complicated way in which the fine income is dealt with, and so on; nonetheless, as the House can see, revenue support grant is calculated by reference to the overall expenditure and therefore it includes the cost of running the courts. If one were to change the system and allow them to retain all the income one would have to reconsider the question of revenue support grant. It is not an easy matter, and I can understand the feelings of those who are involved in the district courts.
It would be wrong to assume that because the courts may retain 10 per cent. of the fixed penalties that that is a wrong figure. The amount of effort involved—there is an effort in handling fixed penalties—is by no means the same as running a court case that involves the same kind of process. All those various matters must be borne in mind. As I said, it is not easy.
The position in England is different. If one were to depart from the present system one would have to think of exactly how a change would affect the overall revenue support grant for the local authorities. While I understand that changes in the pattern of their work have caused this point to be of some concern to local authorities, I really do not think that I can accede to the underlying principle. The matter has been reviewed on a number of occasions and we are satisfied that the present system, although it may seem anomalous, in fact works perfectly well.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, it is not my intention to divide the House on this issue, but I really must say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that I find it strange that he should respond to the debate in this way. Administratively it would be much more simple for the local authority to retain all the fines and for the matter to be dealt with in the revenue support grant arrangements, rather than to have all this nonsense of remitting 10 per cent. and retaining 33 per cent. I can imagine the administrative work that that involves. We have an opportunity to simplify the matter which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will not take. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Registration of births, deaths and marriages]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 45, line 30, leave out from ("in") to ("; and") in line 34 and insert ("subsections (1) and (3), for the words "director of social work" there shall be substituted "chief social work officer"").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Records held by local authorities]:
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 46, line 6, after ("the") insert ("professional custody,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 70 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 71, which is the more important amendment.
These amendments have three aims: first, to strengthen the powers of the Keeper of the Records of Scotland to approve the arrangements made by the new authorities; secondly, to ensure that the new authorities do not carry out ill-advised destruction of records; and, thirdly, to require new authorities to make use of professionally qualified staff.
The most important of these aims is the first: the requirement on the new authorities to obtain the approval of the Keeper of the Records for the provisions that will be made for archives. The change in wording may seem small, but the effect might be to rescue important records which would otherwise be destroyed. It is perhaps worth looking at the history of local archives in Scotland to see why that is so.
Unlike the situation in England and Wales, where there is a national network of county offices which has grown up since the war (and some even before the war), in Scotland no such offices existed at the time of the last reorganisation. There were offices for the important city archives of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, but not in the counties, mainly because of their much smaller size and income base.
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 made some attempt to improve the situation. Section 200 requires the new authorities to make "proper arrangements" for the records in their care. That has undoubtedly saved considerable quantities of records both at the time of the reorganisation of 1974–75 and since. But "proper arrangements" is so vague a phrase that in large parts of Scotland virtually nothing happened. Historical records still lie in private offices, basements and attics. In some cases they have been salvaged by museums and libraries; in others important records, known to have existed even 20 years ago, are missing, presumed destroyed.
To give the House an example, the electoral registers for the county of Lanarkshire disappeared in 1975, and the Ayrshire planning records are also missing. There are also records of 200 years or more, known to have been in Edinburgh, which cannot now be traced. There are particular grounds for concern over the position in
270
Lothian and Fife, where there is no archival provision. That is a rather disgraceful situation, especially as regards older records. For modern council records the problem is even more widespread. There have been gains since 1975 but they have been very patchy and incomplete and have depended entirely on initiatives by individual authorities. A large number of authorities have done nothing. The provisions for "proper arrangements" in 1975 were not very satisfactory, and the clause in this Bill is open to the same objection. The new authorities are to consult the Keeper of the Records and have regard to his views. Clearly that is not much of an improvement on the present position. The new authorities will be required to submit proposals to the keeper but if, in his opinion, the proposals are inadequate, there is not much more that he can do.
Amendment No. 71 would provide the basis for an adequate local archive service such as already exists in England and Wales. The only possible objection to it would involve increased government control. Not all the new authorities would welcome that but not all would resent it either. Much would depend on how the new powers were exercised.
A number of existing authorities have been willing to support the proposed amendment. There is certainly no question of any problem arising between the Keeper of the Records and local archivists in Scotland. As for the position of the keeper himself, no doubt he will welcome the powers that he will be given under Clause 52 even as it stands, but the amendment would strengthen his position.
I should like briefly to mention Amendment No. 70 which asks for records to be kept by professional archivists. The archival profession, which I have mentioned many times over the years in all kinds of record debates, is distinct and separate from that of those who have been trained as librarians. Archivists are trained specifically to list and catalogue records and to manage modern records efficiently. They must know how to preserve them correctly in the right atmospheric conditions.
I look forward to the response of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate or, if he does not reply, then the response of my other noble and learned friend, since there is a plethora of erudition on the Front Bench at the moment. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for the way in which he handled the archival situation in the Welsh local government Act.
These are useful and constructive amendments which will enhance the Bill. I realise that Clause 52 is good but I feel that the amendments would make it better. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it has fallen to me to answer, although I make no claims to learning other than those which my formal title gives me. As someone who from time to time consults records or archives, I understand the thinking behind the amendment, which is obviously that the provisions should be satisfactory.

271
I feel that my noble friend Lord Teviot was a little ungenerous in suggesting that the clause does not improve the situation. It does so in a very material way; namely, by providing for the local authorities to consult the Keeper of the Records of Scotland. There has hitherto been no formal requirement for that to be done. It is now written on the face of the Bill and will become a statutory obligation. That will be of the greatest possible significance.
My understanding is that the keeper himself is very content with the terms of the clause as they stand, which in some ways, if not precisely, mirror the provision for consultation with the Secretary of State; for example, in the Local Government (Wales) Act to which my noble friend referred. It does not provide for him to consent. I believe that that is right. It would be very difficult for the keeper, however distinguished, to have detailed knowledge of all the circumstances of individual local authorities throughout Scotland, their competing needs and their particular circumstances. I feel that it is better that the provision should be in the form it is, which requires the authorities to consult the keeper and have regard to his comments. I believe that that provides the necessary reassurance.
We feel that Amendment No. 70, which would provide for the persons concerned to be professional archivists, goes too far. One must have regard to the fact that there will be authorities of varying sizes. We believe that it is proper for them to be able to decide the appropriate level and qualifications of the staff whom they will employ. Wherever possible it is desirable that they should be professional archivists with the kinds of skills to which my noble friend referred. But we should not wish that to be a requirement. We believe that the appropriate safeguard is provided for by the obligation to consult the keeper and have regard to his comments. That is the assurance of the propriety of arrangements of the kind my noble friend seeks.
In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am sorry that there should be any disagreement. I do not think that I said that I was unhappy with the clause. I believe that the amendments which I put forward would help the clause. As to Amendment No. 70, I accept that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has properly explained the position, having taken on board the points I made. However, the keeper may not be able to go everywhere. I do not say that I shall, only that I may, reserve my position and come back at Third Reading. The Keeper of the Records of Scotland has to look after a much smaller area of archives than is found in England. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has to consider the public records where the holding is much bigger. I should have thought that the Keeper of the Records would be well able to undertake the provisions in the amendment.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment but I reserve the right to return, perhaps with another amendment, at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Restriction on disposal of assets and entering into contracts by existing authorities]:
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 71A:
Page 48, line 10, leave out ("and") and insert ("or
( ) where the new local authority within whose area the land will be situated will not be the new local authority with a legal interest in and exercising functions in respect of which the land in question is owned or held, any or all of the new local authorities which will have a legal interest in or exercise the function in respect of which the land is owned or held; and)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 71A and the associated amendment No. 74 tabled in my name deal with an anomaly in Clause 54. The clause defines the situation in which local authorities owning property in another local authority's area can sell or dispose of that property. A very good example is the fact that Lothian Regional Council owns an education centre in Highland Regional Council's area. Under the transition arrangements defined in Clause 54, Lothian Regional Council would require the permission and the authority of Highland Regional Council before disposing of the education centre. That does not apply only to Lothian Region and Highland Region: it applies to all authorities which own property or land in another authority area. We are proposing to take account of the anomaly—I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, tabled a government amendment in relation to this matter—and where application from one authority to another has been made and no response received within a period of six weeks, under Amendment No. 74 agreement will be deemed to have been given by virtue of the fact, ipso facto, that no response was received within six weeks.
It is obviously an important issue. Lothian Region or any other authority owning property or land should obviously be in control of that property or land and of whether to dispose of it rather than the other authority in whose area that property or land happens to be. With those comments, I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 relate to the disposal or sale of council housing stock by an existing authority and its exemption from the requirement to seek the consent of the shadow council. The reason for the exemption is that a shadow council may unreasonably seek to block the transfer of local authority housing stock by the existing local authorities.
One of the primary motivations for existing authorities to undertake stock transfers is the prospect of securing a capital receipt. Under the terms of subsection (10) as it stands there would be a requirement for the consent of the shadow council. If it wished to frustrate the stock transfer for political reasons or wished to secure a receipt for itself, it could withhold consent to the subsequent use of the receipt. It is in order to avoid the possibility of that specific difficulty arising that Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 are tabled.

273
As I understand it, the intention behind Amendment No. 71A is to ensure that, if an existing authority decides to dispose of a property which it owns outside of its area, such as that in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, then it should consult the new authority which otherwise may have an interest in the property. It was admitted by my noble and learned friend in Committee that it is a difficult area. It seems likely that there will be a range of circumstances arising. It is not easy therefore to prescribe a single solution. We felt, having thought about the matter carefully, that it was best to leave the occasional odd cases to be resolved by the authorities concerned rather than to legislate for every circumstance that may arise.
If one looks at the amendment tabled, it proceeds on the assumption that it will be possible to determine, detect and identify which new authorities will have a legal interest in the out-of-area properties—the outward bound school or whatever it may be. When one thinks about the matter, the situation is not always likely to be obvious. It cannot be said at this stage that all the new authorities in a region's area—for instance, Strathclyde—will necessarily have an interest in the out-of-area property. When one thinks of an outward bound school which had been used by Strathclyde, it may be that it was only as a result of various negotiations between the successor authorities that it became apparent which of the successor authorities wished to have an interest in the outward bound centre. It would only be when that had been determined that one would be able to see which authorities would be covered by a property transfer order. The amendment proceeds on the basis that that matter can somehow be determined in advance. For the reasons I have given, I do not believe that to be right.
An alternative approach may be simply to define the "relevant successor authority" as any new authority whose area falls within the area of the existing owner authority; for instance, in our example any authority which was a successor authority to Strathclyde. However, that could mean that Strathclyde was faced with a significant administrative burden in having to obtain the consent of 12 new successor authorities. That may be a complicated solution to something which is a relatively minor problem in practice. We believe therefore that it is more desirable and a more sensible solution to leave the local authorities concerned to negotiate their way through these cases. They are likely to be unusual and perhaps anomalous. It is therefore difficult to anticipate a solution and better to leave it to negotiations between the authorities concerned.
Amendment No. 74 again tackles a difficult issue. It is clearly important that the work of existing councils is not delayed unduly by the need to seek the consent of the relevant successor body. We must consider the matter carefully. We are concerned with major transactions, including capital contracts exceeding £2.5 million and asset disposals exceeding £250,000. They are obviously matters in which decisions are not to be taken lightly. One would hope that the new councils would be able to respond quickly on these matters. Nonetheless, the new authorities will have a lot of work
274
to do and thus we may be imposing too tight a deadline to require them to respond within six weeks, failing which there would be a deemed consent.
Though I accept that it is a difficult issue, on balance we believe that the amendment would create as many problems as it obviously seeks to solve. The Secretary of State is required to set the date after which the agreement of the relevant successor authority will require to be sought. In deciding on the appropriate date, the Secretary of State will keep in mind the need to ensure that the successor bodies are in a position to take decisions within a reasonable timescale. Though I fully admit that it is a difficult matter, I suggest that on balance the amendment is not one which is satisfactory for the reasons I have given. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
9 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I find that response astonishing. I am always amazed at the way in which the Government find it relatively easy to deal with issues involving political dogma. There has been no difficulty in the transfer of housing stock because the Government want capital receipts to continue to flow in from the sale of local authority housing. They will be disappointed, because there are precious few houses left to sell from local authority stock.
If it is easy to deal with the transfer of local authority housing stock it is equally easy to deal with the situation in relation to the Lothian Region's education centre and Highland Region. Clause 54 is the first example of the introduction of a new local authority structure in Scotland which immediately on introduction takes away powers from the existing local authorities. The situation is ludicrous. If Lothian Region decided tomorrow to sell the education centre in the Highland Region there is not a blind thing that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can do about it. He can do nothing to stop Lothian Region selling the education centre in the Highland Region between now and the election of the shadow authorities in April next year.
I shall not give Lothian Region advice about what it should do. It is ludicrous that the Government should tackle the problem in such an offhand way, knowing full well that between now and the election of the shadow authorities in April Lothian Region or any other local authority which owns land or property in another local authority's area can sell that land and property.
I do not want to delay your Lordships' House at this late hour but it is ludicrous that the Government should be looking at the problem in this way. It is very easy to transfer housing stock—it can be done at the stroke of a pen—but as regards the other item every difficulty is presented. I do not intend to press the amendment. Like all good lawyers, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has done his best with a bad brief. Tonight he has had not a bad but an absolutely appalling brief. However, he has done reasonably well and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 49, line 15, after ("to") insert ("—
(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 49, line 17, at end insert ("; and
(b) any contract entered into by an existing authority in or in connection with the exercise of the power conferred on them by section 24 of the Local Government Act 1988 (power to provide financial assistance for privately let housing accommodation).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 57 [Further provision as to discharge of functions by authorities]:
The Earl of Minto The Earl of Minto moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 51, line 16, at end insert ("but no such regulations shall apply to works contracts as defined in the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I return to the question of compulsory competitive tendering but this time on an item of detail rather than an item of timing and principle.
In the White Paper the Government made clear that some new authorities would consider the merits of joint arrangements of one kind or another, one authority with another, and that the Government were of the view that all the new councils should take advantage of opportunities to share expert advice and specialist facilities. In order to aid that development, the Government indicated that they would provide a flexible legal framework which enabled the local authorities to choose from a wide range of providers, including in most instances other local authorities.
Subsections (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the clause provide such flexibility. However, subsection (4) proceeds to give the Secretary of State power to regulate and control the new flexible power of local authorities to contract with one another to carry out any legitimate activity or service of local authorities.
I suggest that there is no need for such a regulatory power. The Secretary of State already has wide-ranging powers to control both the capital and in particular the revenue expenditure of local authorities through his capping powers. In addition, Clause 168 places a clear duty on local authorities to make proper arrangements for securing economy, efficiency and effectiveness in their use of resources.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, stated:
"The Government do not … consider that work subject to compulsory competitive tendering should fall within the powers granted to local authorities under the new provision, given that there is a clear private sector market for such work. As such, therefore, the Secretary of State would intend to make regulations excluding CCT contracts from the new arrangements".—[Official Report, 14/7/94; col. 2024.]
In correspondence with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Office has confirmed the Government's belief that, where a clear private market already exists for works, the powers available to local authorities under Clause 57 will not apply. However, the Scottish Office intimated that it does not intend that the regulations will affect any other powers that local authorities may have under legislation such as the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970, certain sections of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and other clauses of the current Bill.
Local authorities in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities are concerned that the proposed regulations could have a detrimental effect on current inter-authority arrangements or potential future arrangements which would assist in the better delivery of local authority services. In particular, the Minister's statement that CCT contracts would be excluded appears to contradict the "without prejudice to other powers" provision in Section 57(5) so that authorities can provide services to one another under the Local Government (Goods and Services) Act 1970 and enter into works contracts with each other under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. It must be remembered that such works contracts, where they exist, have been won in open competition and are, therefore, clearly seen as providing better value for money than the competing bids from private contractors.
My deep anxiety is that, if local authorities are expected to get the best value for money, an entire market within their own authorities is denied to them because it has to go outwith, to the private market. I cannot see why it should be that the council tax payers should be doing badly from the services that are provided within their council areas because they are having to go to a more expensive person rather than to the internal services that could be provided within local authorities simply and solely to answer the propagation of the private sector as opposed to the public sector in this particular area. This situation fills me with deep concern. I would therefore ask for something which is rather better from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate than we have had so far on the question of CCT. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the provision in Clause 57(4) reflects the same policy as is included in, for example, Section 25(5) of the Local Government (Wales) Act. The thinking behind the provision is that where Section 57 would otherwise be applicable, then the Secretary of State may exclude its application in certain circumstances by regulation.
The first point I make is that, as Clause 57(5) makes absolutely clear, the provisions of that clause are without prejudice to any other power which the local authority may have for arranging the carrying out of its activities, services and so on by another authority. For example, the other powers to which the noble Earl, Lord Minto, referred are not in any way abridged or restricted by the provisions of Clause 57. Nothing which I said on a previous occasion and nothing which I say now could be thought in any way to affect the other powers of the

277
local authority users. As the noble Earl may be aware, the purpose behind Clause 57, as in the case of Clause 25 of the Welsh Act, is to remove a doubt as to the powers in certain circumstances under the other legislation. That is the background.
The position is, and the Government believe, that whereas it does make sense for local authorities to be able to use other local authorities to provide services, that is not the provision which it is desirable to have recourse to where there already exists a proper market in the private sector for the provision of those services. Therefore, the Government have put into the Bill a power for the Secretary of State to exclude certain areas where it is thought that a sufficient market exists for the kinds of services to be provided by the private sector if the authority is not able to provide the services itself.
It is of course a power given to the Secretary of State to make regulations. Those regulations can be tuned and refined. In particular, the Secretary of State recognises that circumstances may vary and that the regulations may have to be fine tuned to reflect the variations in the circumstances. Therefore, I can say to the House that before making any such regulations under Clause 57(4) the Secretary of State intends to consult about their terms. The aim of Ministers will be to ensure that the range of powers available to authorities after reorganisation will be sufficient in the new circumstances. Therefore, it follows that representations about the scope of any regulations which make exclusions will be carefully considered. In the light of those assurances, 1 hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, so far I have not been satisfied by anything that has been said about CCT during the whole of the progress of this Bill and I am not very happy about the explanation that has just been given. Nevertheless, I shall read it in Hansard, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 51, line 24, at end insert:
("() Where two or more local authorities consider it appropriate, they may set up a body or bodies to be known as a service agency, or service agencies, for the purpose of providing to the local authorities such services as may be required.
() A service agency may provide such services and carry out such tasks for the local authorities as the agency and the local authorities may agree and in such terms and conditions as they may agree.
( ) A service agency may do anything a local authority may do in terms of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.
( ) A service agency shall be a body corporate with a common seal.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to set up an agency to provide specialist services to local authorities, such as those that are currently provided by regional councils but which will be lost or fragmented by the transition to smaller unitary councils.
The Government have already agreed that specialist services such as those of the assessor, fire, police, principal roads, reporter to the children's panel, sewerage and water cannot be adequately handled at unitary council level. The Government should be asking themselves whether those are the only services that need to be administered on a regional or national basis. We believe that there are other vital services which regional councils currently provide which will be lost on reorganisation unless a specific agency is set up to provide them.
Perhaps I may put a few questions to the Minister. What are the other such services that might be considered? What about the European Community liaison officer in Brussels who is working to help to secure Social Fund and Development Fund moneys for local authorities? What about the regional chemist who provides analytical services to smaller authorities from all over Scotland? Furthermore, central purchasing can secure contracts at significant savings because of its purchasing power.
There are many reasons why the creation of a central service agency would be beneficial. I shall give your Lordships just two others. The first relates to cost-effectiveness. The loss of economies of scale when the proposed 12 new councils in the Strathclyde area are created will have an effect on many of the services that are currently provided by regional councils, but the results could be most acute among the region-wide specialist services. Economies of scale are the raison d'être of the central purchasing operation in Strathclyde, which is able to achieve a cost reduction of between 10 and 20 per cent. in over 270 contracts on its turnover of £70 million. That is no small figure for a local authority.
The Strathclyde regional chemist operates a laboratory that is twice as large as all the others in Scotland put together. The cost is currently £4 million per annum, but it would rise to approximately £12 million per annum if fragmented among 12 authorities. The Blindcraft workshops in Strathclyde, which I know very well, provide a cost-effective training operation, employing large numbers of disabled workers, because of the regional council's ability to capture a market for their products.
Economies of scale would be helpful for service efficiency also. The regional chemist employs a wide range of highly specialised staff and can deal with technicalities ranging from food hygiene to radioactivity and industrial contamination. The legal and procedural specialisation of consumer and trading standards staff, dealing with advertising, metrology, fraud and public safety, would be less effective if divided among individual or ad hoc groups of councils.
For many of those services, the logistics of operating on a smaller scale would reduce their effectiveness. I should have thought that that would be self-evident. The requirement for a proliferation of headquarters and depots, together with administrative back-up, and the need to liaise with a much larger number of bodies would be a constant drain on their effectiveness.
I hope that the Minister will consider this matter carefully. Trading standards could be cited as another example because it is an area involving high technology

279
and sophisticated electronics. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment serious consideration and, if he cannot accept it today, I hope that he will consider returning with something similar at the very last stage. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask your Lordships to refer back to page 17 of the Bill. When your Lordships discussed Clause 20, I was under the impression that the new Section 62B of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 would cover the very points which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has just made about his amendment, Amendment No. 76.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Balfour has drawn attention to one particular provision, which is the new Section 62(B) in the 1973 Act. That is at the most extreme end of possible remedies. I am sure your Lordships are weary of hearing by now that the philosophy which underlies the Bill is that the authorities should be enabling authorities. That means that they can choose the way in which they discharge the functions which are laid upon them. They can use their own in-house staff to do it. On the other hand, they may choose to contract the work out to the private sector or indeed to the voluntary sector. That is another way. They can do it by means of the existing arrangements in the local government Act of 1973 by the use of joint committees.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, pointed to the disadvantages of that which may or may not arise in particular circumstances. Of course they can also make use of the provisions of Clause 57, since, unless the Secretary of State has made an exclusion order under subsection (4), the whole purpose of Clause 57 is to provide that a local authority may agree with any other local authority that the supplying authority shall carry out any activity or service. When one sees it written down, it refers to a local authority and another local authority, and so on, and it sounds as if it is one local authority agreeing with another local authority. Of course in practice there could be a number of authorities agreeing with one particular authority. It could, for example, be that all three of the Lothians—the East Lothian, West Lothian and Midlothian authorities— could all agree that a particular service might be provided by the City of Edinburgh.
It might make sense to take the examples to which the noble Lord has referred and say that, for example, trading standards would be provided by a lead authority which would cover an area. I am not saying that that would apply in those particular circumstances, but it might. There is a provision in the Act already which allows local authorities to take effective decisions, and decisions which would have regard to precisely the kinds of factor to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has referred. In particular it could mean that some services are better provided to a larger number of the population because they involve more costly specialist services, and so on, which are better done by fewer authorities rather than by all the authorities in Scotland.
280
There is no difficulty in arranging for that under the powers which are already in the Bill. For that reason, I do not myself see the need to introduce this provision, which is merely designed to achieve what we are quite satisfied could be achieved by the use of the other mechanisms provided for in this Bill and in existing legislation. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I always listen to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate with great care. I think that in this case he has really not quite answered the points I was trying to make. These are very important services, such as food safety and general consumer protection, which perhaps may need very quick assessment. That may not be all that easy if you have to go to another authority and they have their own hierarchy above them, instead of having one authority with a director who can push things to the right places at the right time and make the assessment of need.
The economies of scale have not been dealt with. An important point is that there may a conflict of interest with the authority to which one sends goods to be assessed. For instance, there may be a conflict of interest between East Lothian and Midlothian. I have never heard during our discussions on the Bill or seen in all the papers that we have received anyone talk about the philosophy behind the Bill. It is going rather far to talk about the philosophy behind the Bill. However, I am sure that we shall not get a great deal from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 78:
Before Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("New Water and Sewerage Authorities

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the functions of the existing local authorities immediately before 1st April 1996 as water and sewerage authorities shall be carried out on and after that date by the councils established in terms of Part I of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of the functions referred to in subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall, before the commencement of this Act, by order make amalgamation schemes amalgamating the local authority areas set out in the second column of the table at the end of this subsection into the combined areas set out in the first column of that table.

Table

Combined Areas

Local Authority Areas

Eastern

The Borders, Clackmannan, City of Edinburgh, Falkirk, Fife, East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian and Stirling.

Western

Argyll and Bute, East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Dumbarton and Clydebank, Dumfries and Galloway, East Dunbartonshire, City of Glasgow, Inverclyde, North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire, East Renfrewshire, Renfrewshire.

281

Northern

City of Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Angus, City of Dundee, Highland, Moray, Orkney Islands, Perthshire and Kinross, Shetland Islands and Western Isles.

(3) The provisions of sections 62A and 62C of the 1973 Act shall apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under this section as they apply to a Joint Board established by an order made under section 62A or that Act.

(4)Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding subsection, the membership of the joint boards established under this section shall consist wholly of councillors elected to the authorities established under Part 1 of this Act within the areas of the joint boards.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an important amendment, as I am sure the noble and learned Lords the Lord Advocate and the Minister of State are fully aware. Its purpose is to retain responsibility for water and sewerage within local government, and, just as importantly, to ensure that members of the new water and sewerage authorities are elected, and therefore democratically accountable, councillors appointed by the new authorities contained within the new water and sewerage areas.
The people of Scotland are firmly of the view that the most appropriate medium for the delivery of water and sewerage services is via the present arrangements. If however the Government persist in establishing the three new water and sewerage authorities, we would argue that those authorities should be controlled by democratically accountable members appointed by the unitary authorities.
The Government have argued consistently that their proposals will allow economies of scale and savings to be achieved. The establishment of three local authority-controlled joint boards will ensure that the same savings, if they exist, could be achieved by the amendment while maintaining democratic accountability. We do not lose three units, and we maintain democratic accountability, the maintenance of which is in line with the results of every major public opinion poll taken in Scotland.
I and many others believe—the Government should be aware of this—that so far as concerns Scotland the whole issue of the privatisation of water is on a par with the worries of the people of Scotland about the NHS. Their anxiety is as sharp as that. They feel that there is something wrong about the privatisation of water. I should like to make the following points in support of the case I am putting forward. In the consultation paper entitled Water and Sewerage Services in Scotland— Investing for our Future, which was published in November 1992, the Secretary of State for Scotland invited views as to the future arrangements for water and sewerage services in Scotland, linking the whole matter to his concurrent exercise on local government structure in Scotland.
The consultation document was disappointing. It was superficial and much less than even-handed in its treatment of the background to the services, the perceived need for change and the possible options which were identified by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's continuing refusal to publish the findings or even the terms of reference of the
282
consultants appointed to identify opinions is still a matter of resentment in Scotland, and is strongly deplored.
The regional and islands councils in Scotland, and their predecessor water and sewerage authorities during the past 150 years, have reason to be proud of their achievements, and the levels of service which have been provided traditionally to domestic, industrial and commercial customers. It is no wonder that there is no suggestion from any quarter that the services are other than efficiently and effectively managed and delivered or that customer satisfaction is other than extremely high.
Indeed, a Consumer Council survey has indicated that levels of consumer satisfaction with water and sewerage services in Scotland are higher than for any other public or private sector service in any part of the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of a recent letter which the Prime Minister wrote to the president of CoSLA which stated:"The local authorities in Scotland for many years provided highly effective water and sewerage services which the public rightly appreciate. The case for change is not that the local authorities have fallen down on the job but that a different structure is now needed if a very large investment programme is to be achieved over the next 10–15 years without further increasing public expenditure and putting pressure on the public sector borrowing requirement. This will require an organisation which can exploit new technology and economies of scale to the fullest extent, which can attract private capital under the Government's Private Finance Initiative and maximise efficiencies by adopting the best private sector practices wherever practicable".
Therefore, the whole defence of the Prime Minister was based on the old Treasury rules; namely, that if 10 per cent. of government money is spent on a scheme—for example, the Channel Tunnel—that goes into the PSBR. When it affects people as closely as this provision does, it is madness and even dangerous.
Our view is that such a statement provides no justification for removing those services from local authority control. Local authorities already have access to the Government's private finance initiative which involves the private sector building, owning and operating—the horrible mnemonic BOO —schemes and capital assets on behalf of the authorities for profit. Where that facility is seen to be the most appropriate and cost effective, it will be taken up. In addition, major construction and design works at present are almost exclusively undertaken by the private sector following competitive tendering, thereby achieving the types of benefit referred to by the Prime Minister.
We do not suggest that new reservoirs or new sewerage works should be built by in-house labour. Those are specialist jobs and contractors must be brought in to do the work. The requirement for major investment comes as no surprise to any of us. We have stressed repeatedly over the years that increased capital investment levels in water and sewerage services are required. That is particularly true with regard to sewerage. Areas such as Glasgow and Strathclyde have spent enormous sums on renewing sewers. That such investment was not made in full is not the fault of the regional or island councils which were prepared to

283
invest the money. It is basically the fault of the Government who were not prepared to grant the necessary expenditure consent.
It is not acceptable for the Government now to suggest that water and sewerage authorities have been in any way lacking in their commitment to new investment or that the Government's own conversion to acceptance of the need for investment should be the trigger for consideration to be given to removing those services from local democratic control.
On the basis that financial considerations are a major factor in the Government's wish to review the arrangements for water and sewerage services, the financial issues involved must be considered in some detail. I only hope that the Government are aware of the close, detailed analysis that has been made by a number of groups, in particular CoSLA. They have dealt with all the problems that have been put up, only to be pushed down. That is one of our main anxieties with regard to the Bill. It may be that at earlier stages I have been over-enthusiastic about the incredible job which the old councils did in the west of Scotland and in Glasgow which probably provided the best service with regard to water in the world. The water was taken great distances; for example, from Loch Katrine and other small lochs in that area.
Apart from the grant contributions to some recent sewerage schemes, the Government provide virtually no funding to assist local authorities to finance water and sewerage capital expenditure and investment programmes. Such expenditure is financed almost entirely by the authorities borrowing from the market and from the Public Works Loan Board, grants from European Community sources or from recycling proceeds from the sale of assets. There is an insignificant contribution from general taxation, and the annual cost of repaying interest and principal in respect of borrowing is met from fees and charges paid by the contractors.
I am sure the Minister is aware of many of the arguments. What we are concerned about is getting some answers that will make it possible for us to go to the people of Scotland and say, "We think we have saved the water industry from the mad process of privatisation". As the Minister must know, a massive 95 per cent. of Scots want to see the provision of water and sewerage services left in the control of local authorities. I know the Minister will ask how the opinion poll was conducted. I would be willing to test any method of assessing the attitude of Scottish people to this proposal. Ninety-five per cent. may have been a lucky number, but I believe that the figure will certainly be over 90 per cent. I hope that the Government are slowly becoming aware of that as this Bill slowly wends its way through the House. Believe me, we will return to this matter at some other point and I am sure that the people of Scotland will still think that the water industry is theirs and does not belong to any quango that may be set up by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I of course support this amendment if the circumstances are such
284
that we must have these boards, whose ultimate purpose we are all suspicious of. Although I have given the Government notice of my next point, I wish to state that I shall move the amendments that stand in my name separately. I wish to withdraw them from their grouping. I understand that that is my undoubted right
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I feel that in this case Amendment No. 78 is defective in respect of the table. Almost at the bottom of the table one sees the words "and Kinross". I draw your Lordships' attention to Schedule 8 to the Bill which states that the Eastern Water Area includes,"The former county of Kinross (in this Schedule referred to as the first added area)".The reason behind this, as far as I can gather, is that all water from various reservoirs in Kinross goes south and not north as would be the case in Amendment No. 78. Also I feel that the Government made it extremely clear at Committee stage that they really were looking for the very best expertise in the persons appointed within the provisions of Schedule 7. For those two reasons I really am against the amendments moved by the noble Lords opposite.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I hope I may add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Carmichael in support of these amendments. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is one of the most vital and important issues in this local government Bill and it is right and proper that we should spend just a few more minutes on this whole question. If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, if Amendment No. 78 is defective, let me assure him that it is not half as defective as the Government's proposals that are contained in the Bill itself.
These are the most insulting proposals ever put before the people of Scotland. For over 100 years local authorities in Scotland have run the water and sewerage industries. To suggest that somehow or other there is outside expertise that could be brought in which has greater knowledge than the people who have run the water and sewerage industries in Scotland successfully for so many years is an insult to local authorities in Scotland and to the people of Scotland themselves.
This is a vital issue. I was glad that yesterday Strathclyde Regional Council launched its final bid to seek to persuade the Government to back off from this idiotic scheme, which is not privatisation by the back door as so many people have said but privatisation by the front door. It is blatant privatisation. Figures published in the Glasgow Herald, which are the result of research undertaken by Strathclyde region, show clearly that water bills in Scotland, as was the case in England, will double under these proposals. The Government do not seem to be concerned about that.
The Government recently issued a document, which was put through every letter box in Scotland, setting out the Scottish Office predictions about future water charges, although I do not know what on earth the Scottish Office knows about future water charges. It was noticeable that there was no mention of history in that document. One does not need to look into the future;

285
one can look at the present. There was no mention in that document of what has happened in England and Wales, where water charges have more than doubled.
No doubt the Minister will talk about freeing these quangos from the restrictions of government finance and providing the ability to borrow on the market. It is noticeable that none of the English privatised water authorities has been able to raise more equity. Therefore, that is a myth.
I am prepared to accept that over the next few years tremendous sums of money will have to be spent on modernising and updating our water and sewerage system in Scotland, more in some areas than in others. The debate is about who pays and who gets the benefit. All the opinion polls, all the Strathclyde research, and every exercise which has been undertaken shows clearly that the people of Scotland are prepared to pay in exchange for receiving the benefit in relation to charges when the modernisation is complete.
The Government's position is completely different, and the Minister should be forthcoming enough to admit that. The Government's view is that private investors should pay and that private investors should pocket the profits when the modernisation is complete, through increasing water charges to the people of Scotland.
I listened yesterday—or perhaps it was today—when one of the noble and learned Lord's Ministerial colleagues answered a Question about the price of milk under the deregulation proposals which the Government have brought forward for the milk industry. There will not be anything cheap to drink in Scotland in a wee while: no water, no milk, and whisky is getting more expensive! I see the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, nodding vigorously in agreement. Every liquid that the Scots drink is being pushed up in price, and the Government are adding to that with this proposal concerning water.
The Minister can ignore what I say if he wants. That is for him to decide. But I give him an absolute assurance that the Scottish people will not ignore the issue. The Government talk about the BOO (build, own and operate) schemes. What a collection of letters! I never heard a better comment on the Government's proposals than BOO. The Scottish Office has the nerve to publish a host of proposals for financing prospective developments under the build own and operate schemes, five of which are within the Strathclyde Regional Council area and one of which covers five regions, without any consultation whatsoever with the regional councils involved. No one from the Scottish Office telephoned the regional councils at Strathclyde and Fife to ask whether they were in favour of the proposals, whether they had the price right, or whether the investment capital had been correctly calculated. There was not a word between the Scottish Office and local authorities. That is the cavalier manner in which local government in Scotland is now being treated by the Government.
Down through the years, the traditional way to develop communal services—it is the basis of local government in Scotland—has been to do so collectively, for the simple reason that individuals cannot do this on
286
their own. Those who could afford to would do so; and those who could not would not. That is the basis of municipalisation. that we do such things collectively.
There is no better example of municipalisation than water services. Throughout the years that system has served the people of Scotland well. As was revealed by the opinion poll conducted by the Strathclyde Regional Council, 90 per cent. of the people of Scotland were against the proposals; and still the Government, head down, go holus-bolus for this arrangement.
We shall not divide the House on the amendment tonight.
Noble Lords: Why not?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps if we were to divide the House tonight, the House would be counted out. However, we shall come back to the issue. I give the Government an absolute assurance that come April next year they will pay dearly in electoral terms for the proposals that they impose on an unwilling population in Scotland.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have listened most carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. He is remarkably adept at putting his case. I have to say that I am totally opposed to what he considers best for the people of Scotland. With regard to the plans that the Government have for the reorganisation of sewerage and water—I put the point again; I stated it in Committee— sewerage is the major cost and major problem which faces the people of Scotland. One has only to ask the people of Inverness what the problems are there, and what the costs will be. We have to make sure that those who will deliver the services to the people of Scotland are the right people so to do.
I go so far as to agree with the noble Lord that with regard to the local authorities in some areas— Strathclyde is a very good example—water and sewerage has been well delivered. The proposal does not mean that the Secretary of State will completely ignore the hand that councillors have had in the delivery of those services. However, I am sure that even the councillors themselves would disagree with the objective of the amendment, which ties the hands of the Government within those three new boards that will be set up so as to ensure that no one but councillors may deliver the best of all services.
There are huge changes to be brought about in Scotland in sewerage and water delivery. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, will talk about the islands. I knew something about that problem. I accept that the cost of water and sewerage delivery in the islands is a very real problem. However, I cannot stand here and let the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, say that the only way to deliver water and sewerage in Scotland is the way in which the local authorities have done it in-the past. We have to move on. There has to be co-operation.
There has been far too much talk about privatisation. The Government are right to ensure that the method of delivery of water and sewerage in Scotland will be

287
different from south of the Border and to learn from some of the situations which have arisen there. I have confidence that the arrangements proposed by the Government for the future will deliver cost-effective water and sewerage changes. Huge capital expenditure will be required when that is brought about over the ensuing years.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in what is now the third Second Reading debate that we have had on water. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, did not give us his reflections on Loch Katrine. I enjoyed them in the past and they were at least as revealing of the importance of the issue as anything else that we have considered.
The effect of Amendment No. 78 would be to set up joint boards of new local councils to deliver the water and sewerage services broadly but not precisely along the same boundaries as are proposed for our new water authorities. There were a number of points I would have wished to make, but I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for so eloquently reading out the letter from the Prime Minister which set out part of the argument that we found on in proposing that these changes should be introduced.
The present structure of 12 water and sewerage authorities in Scotland fits very well with the current local government structure of regional and islands councils. However, as we have discussed at some length, it is proposed that the structure of local government should change following the Bill. It then has to be accepted that we have to look again to see how those services can best be provided in the context of the changed local government situation.
As regards joint boards, they were, of course, one of the options canvassed in our 1992 consultation paper, Investing for our future. If the noble Lord reflects back that approach was by no means lightly dismissed in the paper. The advantages of such were indeed noticed— that they were local in nature, permitting the consumer's voice to be heard through elected representatives—and, as we discussed on earlier amendments, the precedent of joint boards is well established.
However, the consultation document also pointed out that joint boards had disadvantages, in particular that they would not appear to be the best way to organise services on commercial lines. That remains unashamedly at the heart of the argument, because it is an argument about resource utilisation.
What I think may have been the difficulty is that because the word "commercial" was used, it has given rise to the misconception that what we are talking about here is a privatisation. As my noble friend Lord Sanderson has absolutely accurately pointed out, we are not talking about privatising and we have no plans to do so. I take this opportunity in this House to repeat the pledge to that effect given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place on 17th May.
What we are concerned with is the efficient use of resources —and the resources in question are undoubtedly substantial. Water and sewerage are major
288
industries. They employ over 6,000 people, serve over 2 million households and supply some 2 million cubic metres of water every single day of the year. They are also increasingly making use of sophisticated and specialist technology. As I believe most noble Lords will appreciate, there is in prospect an investment programme over the next 10 years of some £5 billion.
What we consider to be crucial and desirable is that we should get a structure which can manage an industry on this scale with the greatest efficiency possible and also one which can maximise the contribution which the private sector funding can make to financing the necessary investment. We believe that the three public water authorities that the Bill proposes is the right approach. It is interesting that this amendment seems to recognise that there is at least some justification for a three-authority structure. We believe that the three authorities will all have sufficient similarities to permit measures of comparison which will allow the competitive stimulus that can only be of benefit to the consumer.
If at the heart of the anxiety that noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite have expressed is that there should be a local dimension or that local councillors have a contribution to make to the working of the new authorities, let me repeat that the Secretary of State and Sir Hector Monro have said that there will be a significant number of elected councillors on the new authorities. We stand by that fully.
I have only to record one note of regret—that CoSLA has not yet seen its way to letting us have its nominations for the appointments. I very much hope that it will reconsider its position because it seems to be asserted—and I do not deny the assertion—that there are those who have a knowledge of the matter, and if CoSLA wishes to identify who will best be able to play their part, I hope that it will now offer us the advice it has in the form of nominations.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene. Is the Minister aware that it is unfair to criticise CoSLA in that way. Does the Minister honestly expect CoSLA, which represents democratically elected local authorities, to furnish him with names and, ipso facto, agree that the balance of the boards will be appointed by the Secretary of State to replace the very democratically elected councillors whom CoSLA represents? It is outrageous to expect CoSLA to do such a thing.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord wants to take that rather narrow and restricted view—from which, I am bound to say, I understood that in other areas CoSLA was now rather happily beginning to move away—that is for him to decide. All I am emphasising is that the opportunity to make those nominations is there and it has not been taken up.
There really has been, I regret to say, a great deal of nonsense talked about what might happen over water in Scotland. I am aware of the reports that Strathclyde has put together in the past few days in which it seems to challenge whether there is much advantage in the BOO schemes. It would seem that the internal circuitry of the Labour Party has become slightly defective on this

289
matter. As I understand it, the thinking of Mr. John Prescott, might not fall into "post-neoclassical endogenous growth theories" and the like, but I certainly understood that he was, for example, suggesting in such infrastructural areas as roads, railways and so on, that there was a very real desirability in private funding being introduced along the sort of lines that BOO would allow for.
There has been—I am surprised that there has been no mention of it—a very interesting paper from Dr. Sawkins of Aberdeen University, put out by the well known Fraser of Allander Institute—as it is said in Private Eye, "no connection"—in which he states that much of what has been said about the difficulties in Scotland is nonsensical. It is indeed the very real demands that the European Union will make in terms of improved drinking water quality and waste water treatment that will mean that charges in Scotland will rise almost inevitably. That would be true whether the industry were to be wholly privatised, whether it were to be taken forward in the form that we suggest, or indeed if the arrangements were to remain as they are at present. There will undoubtedly have to be increases to meet those higher standards, which I would have thought were universally regarded as being desirable.
But, if charges are to go up, it would seem to me to indicate a yet greater imperative to seek to ensure that the necessary capital improvements that must be made should be achieved in the cheapest possible way. It is our conclusion that the proposal we have introduced in this Bill is the best way to achieve that. It is not privatisation, but it meets the changes in local government which this Bill would introduce. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord puts things so affably that one almost begins to believe he believes them himself.
As the noble and learned Lord will surely know by this time, one of the problems that we have in Scotland is that Scottish people are politically highly sophisticated. They know that, when this Government use the phrase "not privatisation", they are going to the halfway mark, and that they will start off with a quango in which the elected councillors, the ones they know, to whom they can go to complain and to whom they can put a case in relation to matters about which they are unhappy, will almost certainly be outnumbered or overwhelmed by the quango representatives from the Scottish Office.
I find difficult to accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, that councils cannot do as good a job as businessmen. That may be true in certain areas. One cannot expect a councillor to be able to step into and take over the noble and learned Lord's business unless he happens also to be a Borderer. However, there are many areas in which a big corporation such as the old Glasgow Corporation could do so. I knew many of the people there very well, though others were before my time. The name of the
290
great PJ. Dolan comes to mind. He used to say: "Capitalist business has to run itself because you blokes are not capable of running it".
There is very strong feeling about this in Scotland. I am sorry that I did not deal more with Loch Katrine in the earlier debate. There was a reason for that. As the Minister was probably aware, we were approaching the witching hour and I thought it better to carry on to a certain time in the evening. For its period—for the 1850s—Loch Katrine was a £5 billion job. It was an incredible piece of work. Then the very big scheme carried out about 20 years ago for Lanarkshire County Council was another very big, adventurous and far-reaching piece of planning. I resent the idea that that cannot be done. One hires experts to do it. No one expects the people in the local authorities in Scotland themselves to be capable of taking on the big construction jobs. But they hire people to do them. That is the only way in which they can be done. Then those people move on to other jobs and go round the world. They are international figures.
I should like to make my last point on finance. The Minister mentioned John Prescott. There is nothing new in what John Prescott said. One can go back to the arguments made earlier. In another place I served on Select Committees on nationalised industries and on transport. We argued with the Government that we had to obtain outside finance for the Channel Tunnel or change the Treasury rules.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. We have heard the argument before but it will not wash with the people of Scotland. We shall see what their reaction is. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Clause 61 [New water and sewerage authorities]:
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 54, line 32, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 79 and the associated amendments, I rise with a feeling of hope in my breast. First of all, I thank the Government Front Bench for the very sensible concession produced in Amendment No. 108. It has been recognised that in the islands it is perhaps not necessary to have an elaborate and expensive scheme of information. In the islands the people know the roads and places without that kind of thing. I thank the Government for it.
I am on exactly the same tack with this amendment. There are the Western Isles, the Orkney Isles and the Shetland Isles. Those three island authorities are unitary authorities. At present they control their own water and sewerage. So far as I know, the islanders in the various islands are satisfied with the service.
There was a visit yesterday from councillors and officials from all those bodies. They were here for a couple of hours ready to answer any questions that Members of your Lordships' House might wish to ask. They were extremely sensible. I received confirmation of many ideas that I had about the islands and their

291
working, and much new information. If we take the Western Isles until 1975, when the new Act came into being and they became unitary authorities, the fact is that their water and sewerage was controlled in Lewis by Ross and Cromarty and in Harris by Inverness. It was an extremely unsatisfactory arrangement. They did not like it. They have instituted a great deal of new expenditure since then in the normal course, but also to make up for the neglect of their affairs by the two outside bodies. It is natural that Ross and Cromarty and Inverness were concerned much more with their main centres of population than with any island group.
The same is true of Orkney in that it was also said that some of the schemes produced at that time in that area were mistaken due to a lack of local knowledge and contracts being arranged far away. Indeed, under the new scheme it will certainly be far away in that the area runs from Perth up to the Shetlands. Those people feel that they would rather run their own affairs, even though it may cost more money. They do not believe that it will cost more, and I agree. I cannot see what advantages of scale there may be when one is dealing with islands which are well away from the centres of population. Even though the piping may be bought a little cheaper, by the time it is pushed out I can bet that the contractor who is doing the job could buy it as cheaply as though it were held centrally. There are many other illustrations. For example, pumps are very important on the islands and obtaining the right size for the job is a matter of local knowledge. The local knowledge exists in that the local people have been doing the work for a long time.
When it comes to the actual running costs and maintenance there is no question but that the local council or, as we are suggesting, a new authority— though why we need a new authority I do not know— could do it infinitely more cheaply than a body far away where the officials, though they may be highly qualified, are interested mainly in big schemes and in moving on to further promotion.
Obtaining staff on the islands may be a problem. That is true. But the people say that certainly it would be a far greater problem if they are employed by a body which can move them at any time. In Orkney there is a competent engineer who dropped his income to go there because he wanted to live in the islands. That argument about staff, therefore, does not hold good. People want to be in the islands and if they are there they know exactly what they are talking about.
One could build great fantasies about tunnels between Shetland and Orkney to carry the sewage and the sort of schemes that may be produced by boards which are far away. But the fact is that the unitary authorities in the islands are coping extremely competently. They want to cope by themselves and the general opinion is that even if it costs more—though there is no reason that it should as far as I can see—they want to remain in control of their own affairs.
The argument may be put forward that if there is to be an authority covering those three areas in Scotland, nothing can be left out. The Tories may put forward the argument that if they want to privatise the system they
292
cannot leave people outside of it in case they show how much better and cheaper it can be run. One thing is certain; no commercial body will want to take on the islands. Such bodies are happy with the big areas but the islands would be nothing but a headache.
There are on the islands three communities, all of whom are competently running the water and sewerage facilities. They are prepared to spend money needed to bring those up-to-date. It would be ludicrous to try to subsume them within a single body. I hope and trust that the native common sense, which I am sure members of the Government Front Bench possess, will assert itself and that they will do what they did in the case of the roads information body; that is, accept the fact that if they leave the situation in the islands alone they will leave a good situation. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I feel strongly about the importance of water and sewerage facilities on the islands and the problems attached thereto. I should not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and say that three separate authorities should be set up in three island authorities. However, I believe that as a result of this legislation there is a case for ensuring that decentralisation to the islands should take place.
I am well aware of the way in which the hydro board and the privatised Scottish Hydro have dealt with the islands and the success achieved. However, when advising the Secretary of State on the composition of the North board, I urge my noble and learned friend to give due consideration to the problems of the islands and the real problems I came up against. The problems of providing water and sewerage facilities are different in the islands, in particular the expensive problem of delivering water to the people of Orkney. That arose in respect of previous legislation. While I do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, I hope that the Government take on board the different situation in the islands.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I too joined my noble neighbour Lord Mackie yesterday and studied many of the points that were raised by the officials. All the points that he raised about pumps and so forth interest me greatly.
I listened with great interest to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Sanderson, who has great local knowledge. I have never been to Caithness. I am afraid that the islands are a long way away. I wonder whether there is some merit in my noble friend's remarks. Enormous distances pertain to Orkney and Shetland, which I recently read are as far away from Aberdeen as is Carlisle. I suspect that there may be a narrowing of the potential economic benefits which could be perceived from the measures in the Bill. I look forward to hearing what my noble and learned friend has to say.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I fully appreciate the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and the anxieties expressed by my noble friends Lord Sanderson and Lord Lyell. I understand that the islands have three main concerns:

293
first, the risks that they will be saddled with solutions inappropriate to their problems; secondly, the loss of local feeling and knowledge that might result from control residing in a mainland centre; and, thirdly, the loss of senior posts and the diminution of career prospects for those who wish to continue to live and work on the islands. I hope to allay those fears.
I have no doubt that the new northern authority will be particularly sensitive to the needs of its island constituents. I believe that we have an example, as my noble friend Lord Sanderson said, of recent origin in the private sector where that sensitivity has been revealed. But should there be any indications of backsliding on its behalf, the customers council and its area committee will, I have no doubt, be quick to remind it of its obligations.
The composition of the northern authority and the customers council is not yet decided, but I can say this. Although there are no particular individuals in place, they will include members who are well able to understand the islands' anxieties and make sure that their interests do not go by default. The fears about remote administration and the loss of quality jobs in the islands are in a sense the same problem viewed from different angles, The northern area will be geographically large and good communications and maintaining contact with all parts of the area will be matters which the authority will need to address consciously and carefully. While it will be for the authority to decide, I shall be very surprised if that does not mean that it will need to retain a significant number of managerial and operative staff on the islands.
But there is another important factor in our decision that the islands would test be grouped within the greater northern authority. The costs per head of population of providing water and sewerage services in the islands are high and in the nature of things are always likely to remain so. Charges are significantly higher in the islands at present. For example, the cost of providing water and sewerage services to the average Scottish band D two-adult household is in the current year £132. In Orkney it is £171, in Shetland £187 and if one goes to the Western Isles the figure is rather staggering; namely, £306. If the islands were to be three separate water and sewerage authorities, the implications for charges would be severe, particularly as revealed in our previous discussions—that there are yet improvements that will be required to be made and paid for. That would be particularly so in the Western Isles where the price of being a separate authority is likely to be more than double what it could be within a northern authority. In Orkney the difference could be as much as 50 per cent.
I am not saying that this legislation contains a guarantee that the islands will benefit from a smoothing of prices across the whole of the northern area. But I remind noble Lords of what Sir Hector Monro said in Committee in another place on 29th March:
"I hope that it will be possible to move rapidly to uniform pricing within the 3 authorities, which would be a tremendous advantage to the islands".
294
That was reinforced by the Secretary of State at Report stage on 17th May when he said:
"We would fully expect the new authorities to move rapidly to uniform pricing".
It is clear that the creation of separate islands authorities would have a significant adverse impact on charges in these areas: that would be certain. The disadvantages of inclusion within the northern authority to which the islands have called attention are far from certain. I assert that I do not believe that they would arise.
I hope that those fears are ill-founded and that the noble Lord and those who have made representations to him will reflect very carefully on the figures which I have given. I have no doubt that individual consumers in the islands, and most particularly in the Western Isles, will be the first to applaud a smoothing of prices which allowed them to pay prices that accorded to the Scottish average rather than paying this very significant additional cost which they bear at the present time.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I am not convinced. The basis of the argument appears to be that these beneficent boards and marvellous people will immediately smooth out the prices and that costs will halve. The Bill does not say that they have to do that; in fact it gives them specific power to vary the charges. The Minister said that he hoped that they would move towards it.
The fact is, as I have already explained, that the high costs in the Western Isles were due to the neglect of the previous two authorities which regarded them as outposts. I have no doubt at all that a large board will still regard the isles as outposts. Those people who came to see us were prepared to pay more. The group included councillors who stood for election, as well as officials. I think that they have far more chance of pushing the Secretary of State to increase the grant which forms the main part of their income and to apply for European Union grants, because I have noticed a great sympathy in the Commission in Brussels for the outlying parts of Europe. It is with the greatest of ease that Ireland, for example, collects grant from Europe that we never see in Scotland.
I do not think that the argument holds water at all. I think that this is a splendid chance for the Government to leave those authorities alone. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that he does not think that it will be practical to set up three separate authorities, but all that you have to do is to change the name because the authorities there already do the job. It is not a question of setting anything up.
I implore the Government to think again. This is a perfect situation for them to do a great deal of good. I am perfectly certain that the islanders would do better at the end of the day under this amendment than if they received the charity of a large board. The Minister gave a most unsatisfactory answer, but in view of the fact that the hour is late and remnants of the massed bands from the Tory shires of England are still here, I shall not seek to divide the House. If only Scots Peers were present, I should certainly seek to divide the House but, as it is, I reserve the right to return to this most important point

295
about local democracy and the well-being of the islands on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved].
Lord Carmichael Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 81:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
("Charges: grants and reductions
. From 1 April 1996 the Secretary of State for Scotland shall—

(a) continue to make available to the water and sewerage authorities grant support to subsidise to the same extent as at present, domestic sewerage charges; and

(b) continue to permit a reduction of 25% for domestic water and sewerage charges in respect of single adult households.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is self-explanatory. It seeks to make available to the water and sewerage authorities grant support to subsidise domestic sewerage charges to the same extent as at present. The Minister will be aware that a single adult living alone in a house receives a reduction of 25 per cent. on certain charges such as water and sewerage. This short amendment is important to a large number of people and I am sure that the Minister will have a short and pleasant answer for me. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, if paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 81 had been inserted into Clause 75, I feel that it would have been covered by the customers council as well. Under those circumstances, it might have been a good amendment. As for paragraph (b), I wonder whether that point has not already been covered in Clause 80 which deals with reduced charges.
The Earl of Minto: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendment No. 103 which is grouped with Amendment No. 81. I am returning to a subject which was raised in Committee. I make no apology for doing so, and I shall do so very quickly. It refers to the question of charges. I am extremely anxious that there is not a situation where democratically elected local authorities are required by statute to provide information to non-elected bodies.
Equally, I think—I have discussed this with the noble and learned Lord the Minister—that if local authorities are giving to water boards information then there should be a charge on the water board for that. Any service which local authorities give, externally or indeed internally by departments, is charged for. I would think it odd if local authorities were expected to give free information to the water boards as and how the water boards demanded it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I believe I understand the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to protect the interests of charge payers, which I believe to be the intention behind Amendment No. 81. We are conscious of the increase in direct water and sewerage service bills that will result from domestic sewerage
296
being charged for separately instead of as part of the council tax. However, there will be a reduction in the local authorities' expenditure and in the amount of income they require. We intend therefore to see that the change in the financing of domestic sewerage will not of itself produce any increase in the aggregate of council tax and water service bills between 1995–96 and 1996–97. So far as I am aware, that message has not been spelt out hitherto. I hope that with that brief explanation and having offered up some new information, it will be sufficient for the noble Lord's purposes for the present time.
Amendment No. 103, proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, would provide for an order by the Secretary of State to require local authorities and assessors to provide reasonable information to the new water authorities and would also allow the local authorities and assessors to set and levy charges for providing the information. I can understand the fears he previously expressed that local authorities and assessors might be inundated by requests from the new water authorities for masses of detailed information which they would find both difficult and expensive to assemble.
However, while understanding those fears, I believe that they are misplaced. Clause 122 is strictly drawn. Two tests are to be applied. The information must be information which is held by local authorities in connection with the setting, levying or collection of charges, or by assessors in connection with their statutory functions. Secondly, it must be information which is likely to assist the new water authorities in making their own arrangements for charges. It is our view that there can be no question of it being "open season" for water authorities to bombard the local authorities or the assessors with requests for any information they may hold. Rather, it is a question of enabling the new local authorities, as successors of the old local authorities, to be put in possession of the information they need to carry out their statutory functions.
In our view it is right and proper that this information should be available to the new water authorities and, because it is information they need to have as successor bodies, it is right that they should have it free of charge. I believe that the clause already contains adequate safeguards to ensure that the arrangement which I have spelt out is not abused. In the light of those assurances I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the trouble that he has taken over the amendment. I should like to consider this matter further because, although the Minister was helpful in regard to the position until 1997, he did not go beyond that in relation to the reductions. He tried hard. I shall read carefully what he said to ensure that I fully understand his meaning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.30 p.m.
Schedule 7 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of a new water and sewerage authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 85 not moved.]
Schedule 8 [Water and sewerage areas]:
[Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 not moved.]
Clause 64 [General duties of Secretary of State and of new authorities]:
The Earl of Balfbur The Earl of Balfbur moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 56, line 28, after ("potential") insert ("or former").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment I am taking the position of a devil's advocate. I tabled the amendment partly to draw attention to subsequent amendments to Clauses 65, 66 and 6 7 standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. My interest in the matter relates to the practical aspect of the matter and the Bill's wording.
If a person is a customer, then his premises are connected by underground pipes to the county main or, as the case may be, to a public sewer. In respect of a potential customer, my understanding of the word "potential" is that it is something that exists as a possibility but not in reality. A potential customer is a person who is seeking to have his premises connected by pipe to the county main or public sewer. The word "former" must relate to premises which were connected in the past.
With the addition of the words "or former", how far back do we go? If the premises were the premises of a former customer, what happened to make the customer stop being an actual customer? Was the occupier of the premises a bad tenant who failed to pay his charges or did he put some noxious substance down the sewer and get himself cut off?
If, for argument's sake, the customer has been disconnected for 20 years it will be difficult for him to be reconnected to the mains because any stopcock or valve will have seized up by that time, or if the pipe goes back to the old sewers, which often took surface water, I can almost guarantee that after 20 years it will have silted up.
My last point relates to the words in the Government's Amendment No. 89, which seeks to insert the words:
"facilities for the disposal of sewage",
instead of "sewerage services". Perhaps I may read the words of Clause 64, which states:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State and of the new water and sewerage authorities… to have regard to the interests of… such of those persons as … are likely, by reason of some persistent medical condition or of family circumstances, to require to … make much greater use of sewerage services, than might ordinarily have been expected".
I believe that the words "sewerage services" cover the matter very nicely.
Perhaps I may read that last part again assuming that the amendment is accepted. It will read:
"such of those persons as … are likely, by reason of some persistent medical condition or of family circumstances, to require to… make much greater use of the facilities for the disposal of sewage".
How does an ordinary householder know whether those services are good, bad or indifferent? It is on those grounds that I ask the Government to consider whether it is suitable to include the word "former".
My amendment would bring in the Secretary of State. Again, I should think that that creates greater problems. For the moment, I must formally move my Amendment No. 88A. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 99A, which is concerned with the Customers Council. That body does not fulfil its function in view of the fact that there is no appeals mechanism, while such a mechanism does exist in England.
The Bill specifies that the Customers Council will handle complaints from customers. No provision is made for the resolution of any complaints with regard to which the Customers Council has been unable to reach agreement with the authority concerned.
In England and Wales, such unresolved complaints may be referred to the Director General of Water Services, who, under the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992, is required to make a decision which is enforceable as if it were a court order.
I need not continue to read the rest of the brief that I have. There appears to be no appeals procedure to which the Scottish consumer may resort and I shall listen with interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has to say.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, so shall I listen with interest to what I have to say on that amendment!
I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling a number of amendments, both at this stage of the Bill and previously. Perhaps I may omit Amendment No. 88A for the moment and deal with the other amendments which bring about a number of small, but nevertheless important, changes.
What my noble friend said in Committee led us to table Amendments Nos. 158, 160–168, 159A and 185, which will preserve the tenancy rights of certain tenants with present local authorities whose properties may transfer to the new water and sewerage authorities.
I should also mention Amendment No. 189, which inserts a new clause into the Bill. This will provide that present local authorities will be able to make use of the provisions of the Bill relating to the use of the private finance initiative. The remainder of the amendments in this grouping are of a minor technical drafting nature and I do not propose to speak to them in any detail.
I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was speaking to Amendment No. 99A. I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond to that because I understood it should properly have fallen into our agreed groupings with Amendment No. 77, so he catches me rather off-guard by re-introducing it at this stage.
Noble Lords: Amendment No. 78!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, Amendment No. 78. I beg your pardon. But, so far as Amendment

299
No. 78 is concerned, I would say to the noble Lord that, while it was helpful that he should have picked out—I am sorry I meant to say Amendment No. 88—
Noble Lords:88A!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should say Amendment No. 88A. While it was helpful for him to highlight these deficiencies in subsequent clauses, there is a difference between Clause 64 and the later clauses, and most particularly Clause 66, because Clause 64 deals with the general duties of the Secretary of State and the new authorities but the later clauses, and the references which are inserted to former customers, are appropriate because they will provide the opportunity for the customers council to act on behalf of such customers in appropriate circumstances. I do not think it is difficult to see how a consumer council might want to have, or ought to have, such a responsibility to act for former customers as well as present ones. However, it seems slightly odd to talk about former customers when you are setting out—as is the case, and as the sidenote to Clause 64 reveals—what are to be the general duties of the Secretary of State and the new authorities. I hope that is as clear as water.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I must admit I am not wholly satisfied with the Answer but my Amendment No. 88A is definitely defective and I wish to withdraw it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 56, line 33, leave out ("sewerage services") and insert ("facilities for the disposal of sewage").
On Question; amendment agreed to.
Clause 65 [Codes of practice for new water and sewerage authorities]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 57, line 38, after ("potential") insert ("or former").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 89, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 57, line 44, after ("potential") insert ("or former").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Constitution and proceedings etc. of the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 91A to 94 not moved.]
Clause 67 [Functions of the Customers Council]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos 95 to 99:
Page 58, line 7, after ("potential") insert ("or former").
Page 58, line 10, after ("potential") insert ("or former").
Page 58, line 16, after ("potential") insert ("or former").
Page 58, line 33, after ("potential") insert ("or former").
Page 58, line 38, after ("potential") insert ("or former").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 89, I spoke to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99A not moved.]
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I apologise to the House for mixing up 99s and 99As.
Clause 72 [Duty of new authorities as respects Natural Heritage Area or area of special interest]:
[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Collection of charges by local authority]:
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 100 [Authorisation of construction of certain private sewers etc.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 80, line 10, after ("Act") insert ("and shall instead vest in him").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 89, I spoke to Amendment No. 102. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 122 [Power to require local authorities and assessors to supply information to the new authorities]:
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 104:
Before Clause 126, insert the following new clause:
("Reporters Service
Reporters Service

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the functions of existing local authorities immediately before 1 April 1996 to provide suitable accommodation and facilities for children's hearings under section 34 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and to appoint a reporter under section 36 of that Act shall be carried out on and after that date by the councils established in terms of Part 1 of this Act.

(2) For the purposes of the functions referred to in subsection (1) of this section, the Secretary of State shall, before the commencement of this Act, by order make amalgamation schemes amalgamating the local authority areas set out in the second column of the Table at the end of this subsection into the Joint Boards set out in the first column of that table.

Table

Joint Board

Local Government areas comprised

Grampian, Highlands and Islands

City of Aberdeen; Aberdeenshire; Highland; Moray; Orkney Islands; Shetland Islands; Western Isles

Tayside, Central and Fife

Angus; lackmannan; City of Dundee; Falkirk; Fife, Perthshire and Kinross; Stirling

Lothian and Borders The Borders,

Clackmannan, City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian

South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway

East Ayrshire; South Ayrshire; Dumfries and Galloway; North Lanarkshire; South Lanarkshire

301

Glasgow and Strathkelvin

East Dunbartonshire; City of Glasgow

North Strathclyde

Argyll and Bute; North Ayrshire; Dumbarton and Clydebank; Inverclyde; East Renfrewshire; Renfrewshire

(3) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 62A of the 1973 Act shall apply to a joint board established by an order under this section as they apply to a joint board established under that section with the substitution of a reference to subsection (2) of this section for the reference to subsection (1) of that section.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding sub-section, the membership of the joint boards established under this section shall consist wholly of councillors elected to the authorities established under Part 1 of this Act within the areas of the joint boards.").

10.45 p.m.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple amendment which nevertheless deals with an important issue of principle, namely, the children's panel reporter system.
The Government propose to centralise the children's panel reporter system, and the Scottish Office would employ the chief reporter for the children's panels. The purpose of the amendment is: first, to seek to ensure that the service remains with the local authorities, where it has been since the inception of the children's panel system; secondly, to highlight the lack of democratic accountability in the Government's own proposals; and, thirdly, to remove from the Secretary of State the power to appoint members of the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and to ensure that all the members appointed to the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration would be democratically elected councillors.
In the amendment we propose the establishment of six joint boards to administer the reporter system. When the Minister replies he is likely to say that the Scottish Office asked CoSLA for 10 nominations to be considered for appointment to the reporter administration and that to date CoSLA has not responded. One reason is that CoSLA has not been given an assurance by the Scottish Office that those who are nominated by CoSLA would be appointed. The Secretary of State will have to be more forthcoming and give greater assurances to CoSLA in that respect.
We believe that it is a mistake to centralise the service. It has always been a local service. Local reporters know their own areas and often know the children who offend from time to time much better than any central administration possibly could. We believe that this is a retrograde step and we ask the Government seriously to consider the proposition in Amendment No. 104. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, on previous occasions I have outlined the reasons for proposing the new arrangements for reporter administration in Scotland. In many respects I agree with what the noble Lord said. The system has worked well in Scotland. Indeed, it is a source of pride to many of us that the Social Work (Scotland) Act has taken matters forward in a way that has been the subject of admiration elsewhere in the world.
302
There are two reasons for the changes now proposed. Once again, with the change in local government it would seem appropriate to adjust the arrangements. It is the overwhelming view of those who work as reporters to the children's panel that the arrangements we propose are to be desired.
Another reason for the change is that there are important and difficult issues for reporters to address in their daily activities. We would certainly wish to maintain important local connections with children's panel in each and every local authority area. To have a reporter who can, within a system operating throughout Scotland, rely on having colleagues to whom he or she can turn for advice will, we believe, secure greater consistency in professional practice and provide a more effective service. It is worth reflecting that in one respect that is the position in half of Scotland at present, with a reporter for Strathclyde. I have heard no one suggest that because of that arrangement the situation has been unsatisfactory.
I believe that the system will work well. If we were to be taking away the arrangements for a local input into children's panels, I consider that the noble Lord would have considerable force in his arguments. But for reasons which will become clear in the next amendment, I wish to resist the notion that there might be joint arrangements for a joint children's panel for just that reason. He considers a local connection to be desirable. We should like to see the professional reporters system in Scotland but would like to keep the children's panels established on a local basis and answerable within the area in which the children live.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the Minister said. Having considered it, and in view of the opinion which the noble and learned Lord stated is held by the reporters to the children's panel, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I give notice that I shall not move Amendment No. 105.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 106:
After Clause 138, insert the following new clause:
("Adjustments relating to provision of accommodation
Adjustments relating to provision of accommodation

.—(1) This Section applies to any service provided by a local authority in exercise of its functions under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 or any of the enactments mentioned in section 5(1B) of that Act where—

(a) a local authority incurs expenditure which would, by virtue of section 86 of that Act, be recoverable from another local authority, or

(b) an existing local authority incurs expenditure during the period from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996 which, were it to be incurred after 1 April 1996, would be expenditure which would be recoverable under section 86 of the said Act.

(2) A local authority shall not cease to provide a service to which this section applies without the consent of the local authority against whom a charge is, or would be, recoverable.

(3) This section shall cease to have effect on 1 April 1998.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should have noted the point before. However, the italic print describing the amendment refers to,"Adjustments relating to provision of accommodation".
That is not strictly accurate. If I am right that "accommodation" means places where people stay overnight, the amendment is not solely related to them. I would describe the new clause rather as transitional protection for social work services. The purpose is to protect people who use specialised social work services, or services which cross the new boundaries, for a two-year transitional period only.
The new authority boundaries mean that many social work services are likely to be radically changed. This clause seeks to protect users by ensuring that the change happens over a manageable period. The clause would apply particularly in two situations: highly specialised services for people from a wide area such as a respite care home for children with profound disabilities or a specialised assessment service for blind people; and local services such as day centres which are used by people who happen to fall outside the new boundaries.
Many organisations representing service users fear that some of these vital services might be withdrawn by the new councils or restricted to people from their own area. Under the proposed amendment, a council which inherits a service which is used by people from another area could not withdraw that service in the first two years following reorganisation without the consent of the other council. The providing council would not suffer financially because it would be entitled to recover the cost of the service from the client's own council. Nor would the amendment prevent services from changing—for example, where the needs of clients change. The council paying for the service would have no reason to continue paying for a service which was no longer suitable and could consent to any appropriate change. Since the provision would last for only two years it would not be an unreasonable restriction on local authority decision making; but it could allow councils time to plan ahead if other authorities no longer wished to supply current services. It would also allow time for the proposed new child care planning procedures to take effect.
The Government have acknowledged that there will need to be arrangements between authorities to cover specialised and cross-boundary services. However, it is argued that these arrangements will happen by themselves and there is no need to build in protection for social work clients. Even if that were to prove true in most cases it is still reasonable to have powers in the Act as a last resort. These services are relied upon by some of the most vulnerable people in society, including profoundly disabled children and adults. Even a temporary hitch in providing care and support could be disastrous for service users and their families.
There are real reasons to doubt that things will go as smoothly as the Government hope. To show why that is so, let us consider the arguments which the Government made at earlier stages of the Bill. The first is the argument that there is already significant co-operation between social work departments. That is broadly true,
304
although there are examples of disputes between councils. However, the scale of co-operation which will be required following reorganisation is wholly different. For example, there are thousands of people living just outside the boundaries of the four main cities who use services within those cities. Currently, these people are all within the same local authority boundaries as their services. After 1996 they will be outside those boundaries. If arrangements are not made between authorities, the client may have to be sent many miles away or may not receive an appropriate service at all.
Secondly, we have heard it argued that authorities will have a financial incentive to co-operate. Councils which do not have services will find it economic to buy them from elsewhere and councils with spare places will want to fill them. Again, that is partly true, but it ignores the possibility that the providing council may save money by closing the service. A specialised service may only be viable with a guaranteed number of places and there will be no guarantee that other councils will buy the service.
Also, the new councils may have completely different philosophies of care and may be under different political control. That may make co-operation more difficult. It must be remembered that the time to make these arrangements before reorganisation is very short. Arrangements for adults should be based on community care plans, but those are already behind schedule. For children, we still do not have the detailed proposals about how the law covering child care services will be changed.
A third argument the Government have used is that the statutory duties on local authorities will remain the same. That is true but, except in a few situations, the duty is a general one which would not be legally enforceable by people who no longer receive an adequate service.
In short, the amendment provides a breathing space to allow councils to plan how services will develop in consultation with each other. More importantly, it would give a guarantee to the people who rely on social work services that they need not fear the immediate effects of reorganisation.
The noble and learned Lord may consider the amendment unnecessary and possibly unduly heavy-handed. I can only say that it is supported by a number of organisations: Barnardos, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Disability Scotland, the Scottish Council for Spastics, ChildLine Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, the National Deaf-Blind and Rubella Association, and CoSLA. All of them are worried and unhappy that some of their vulnerable proteges will find themselves in difficulties.I beg to move.
11. p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to speak in favour of this amendment. It would be most helpful to all those who are involved in specialist social work activities if there were a duty to carry over the existing arrangements into the first two years of the new social work authorities.

305
The benefit to the new local authorities would be that they could proceed with implementing their plans for mainstream social work services without having to make immediate decisions about the provision of highly specialised services which are geographically located elsewhere. Special service providers could plan ahead beyond 1996 to 1998. Above all, those to whom the specialist services are currently a godsend would have the confidence that they would not be left high and dry and that their situation would be considered in slow time after the new social work authorities were up and running.
By way of illustration, I have an example of a voluntary sector specialist group home with residents from four different local authorities—indeed, after the implementation of this Bill it will be five. A second illustration is of a social work client who has a residential placement in a wholly appropriate setting; in fact, in an English city, although coming from Scotland, at a cost of £60,000 per year.
Specialist social work services cover a very broad spectrum and are often delivered at only one location in Scotland, if indeed they are available there. It is very important that the often highly vulnerable clients are not left to fight their own case and that the new local authorities have time to consider how they will meet their needs in the future. I believe that this amendment would ensure that aim.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lady for moving her amendment and explaining just what lies behind it. It is useful to hear from her the range of concerns that have been expressed by voluntary organisations, in particular in Scotland, over this matter. I hope that I can reassure her, first of all, that we want to see the full range of services that are provided in Scotland continue through reorganisation with the minimum of disruption. I hope that I can further reassure her that this amendment, as she in part anticipated, is unnecessary. I might also say to her that, having heard her remarks and those of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, I have something of a suspicion that the amendment might in any event be misdirected.
For many years now local authorities have co-operatea with one another over the purchase and supply of services for people living outwith their areas. The 1968 Act enables an authority providing a service to a person outwith its area to recover the cost of that provision from the authority in whose area the person lives. These powers are clearly particularly useful where one authority has specialised facilities or services for which there is a wide, rather than a localised, demand.
I would be anxious to avoid the introduction of any unnecessary bureaucratic arrangement, or alternatively to give to a particular local authority what would, in effect, amount to a power of veto. If, for example, one local authority had no further children with a particular disability within the accommodation it provided— though the noble Lady meant more than just accommodation, she meant services—and it had just one child left within it from another authority outwith its own area, it would be a slightly startling proposition that it could require whatever was the cost of maintaining
306
that facility for one child and another authority could require it to be kept open. It is that kind of concern that I have.
I indicated that I thought that the amendment might be misdirected. The noble Earl gave an example of children going into the kind of facility which might be provided by such organisations as SENSE, drawing from all over Scotland children who have very serious deaf and blindness disabilities. I wonder whether this amendment would catch that at all. Undoubtedly that is a hugely desirable service provided by some of the finest of our voluntary and charitable organisations.
As I understand the matter, this amendment is directed—as it could only be—against the circumstances in which the particular service or accommodation is provided by one local authority for another. In those circumstances it would seem to me that it does not meet the concerns which seemed at least in part to lie behind the noble Lady's amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lady for tabling the amendment. Certainly I hope to take the opportunity between now and Third Reading to invite some contact with the voluntary organisations which seem to have prompted the amendment and to have some discussions with them to see whether we can reassure them that we are absolutely serious and certain in our intention that there should be no disruption to the services provided.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, certainly I did not expect to have my amendment accepted. The noble and learned Lord's reassurance is the most that I could ever have hoped for.
The hour is very late. I do not know what the state of the government troops is but the state of my own troops is that they are pretty thin on the ground thanks to the demonstration outside. The last thing that I would wish to do is to press the amendment at this time of night. With grateful thanks to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 144 [Provision of school transport and other facilities]:
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 107A not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Cannyllie Lord Fraser of Cannyllie moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 147, insert the following new clause:
("Road works register

. In section 112 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (road works register)—

(a) in subsection (4), for the words from "of road" to "section" there shall be substituted the words "under this section of such road works authorities as he may specify";

(b) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(4A) Before making any arrangements under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) any road works authority having duties under this section which he intends not to specify for the purposes of the arrangements; and

307

(b) any undertaker (other than a person having permission under section 109 to execute road works) having apparatus in a road for which such road works authority is responsible."; and

(c) in subsection (5), after the word—

(i) "require" there shall be inserted the word "the"; and

(ii) "authorities" there shall be inserted the words "so specified".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 56, I also spoke to this amendment, Amendment No. 108. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 162 [Calculation of limits on spending]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 108, line 9, leave out ("£3·80") and insert ("£11·80").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 83 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 is a general enabling section allowing authorities to incur expenditure which in their opinion is in the interests of their area or its inhabitants. As originally drafted, in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 the ceiling on that expenditure was a product of 2p in the pound rate for their area. That was limited in 1987 to a fixed amount of the product of 2p in the pound rate for the financial year 1988–89, although the Secretary of State has a power to vary the rate.
Clause 162 proposes to replace the existing ceiling in Section 83 spending with a provision limiting the amount to that produced by multiplying £3.80, or such other sum as may be specified by the Secretary of State, by the relevant population of the authority's area, the relevant population being defined by the Secretary of State. Ministers have suggested that the decrease is counterbalanced by the new economic development statutory powers included in the Bill, which would mean that no longer would local authorities rely on Section 83 for certain purposes and the decrease in discretionary spending ability is, therefore, not significant. That proposition ignores the fact that the present Section 83 spending is available to both regional and district tiers of local government, while under the proposed new local authority structure only one amount of money would be available to an area.
Currently the total amount of discretionary expenditure available to Scottish local authorities is £57.9 million—approximately £11·80 per head of population. The proposal in the Bill to limit discretionary expenditure by single-tier authorities would produce a total amount for the new authorities of £19.4 million. That represents a reduction of 66 per cent. in the current limit. It is understood and accepted that much of Section 83 expenditure is on economic development and that the provisions of Clause 169 of the Bill will remove the need for local authorities to rely solely on Section 83 for that purpose.
It is also accepted that the recording of such an expenditure by local authorities has shown that the discretionary limit has not been reached. However, neither of those factors explains adequately why the
308
Government are seeking a 66 per cent. reduction in the discretionary grant. Previous experience has shown that local authorities can be relied upon to exercise the discretionary powers wisely and sensibly. In addition, bearing in mind that the Government have the overall ability to cap expenditure levels at individual authority level, it is difficult to understand why Clause 162 of the Bill should seek to impose further restrictions on local authority discretion.
It does not matter that local authorities are not spending their total discretionary limit: the principle is still the same—namely, that local authorities should be allowed as much discretion as possible to deliver services and to act in the best interests of the community. To that end the amendment seeks to maintain the local authority discretionary spending level at £57.9 million, which equates to £11·80 per head of population. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned in his speech many of the factors which lie behind the position in the Bill. Whether or not one has regional councils and district councils at the present time, whereas one is going to have only unitary authorities in the future, according to the last available figures for 1991–92 the discretionary expenditure amounted only to £13 million. That is the fact of the matter.
The proposal in the Bill would allow a provision of about £19.5 million per annum, whereas the amendment would raise that to about £60.5 million—the detail perhaps does not matter. The proposal in the Bill is more than adequate to cover the kind of expenditure that has hitherto been incurred as discretionary expenditure by local authorities. What has been done is not only to take account of that factor, but also to use the figure of £3.80 per capita in order to bring the figure for Scotland into line with the figure for England and Wales, so that the same figure applies throughout the whole of the United Kingdom—a figure which does not require any actual reduction in expenditure by local authorities.
As the noble Lord indicated, the position is even more favourable to local authorities because, having regard to the terms of Clause 169 of the Bill, added to the powers of the local authority under the 1973 Act is a specific power to include the function of economic development. It follows that all expenditure on that matter will be taken into account in the ordinary calculations of revenue support grant. Therefore, there will be no need to take that expenditure into account in relation to discretionary expenditure. Hitherto, much of the discretionary expenditure of local authorities has been on the kind of economic development which will in future be covered under new Section 171A of the 1973 Act.
The discretionary expenditure limits will be adequate, even to judge by the old expenditure. They will be more than adequate, given that much of that expenditure will no longer fall within the discretionary expenditure limits. For that reason we are satisfied that the figure in

309
the Bill is more than enough to cover what is required and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a full explanation. I had mentioned many of the issues but he went further, enabling me to understand the slightly arcane arguments relating to local authority finance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 167 [Statements of support services costs]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 110 and 111:
Page 111, line 27, leave out from ("to") to first ("a") in line 29 and insert ("publish").
Page 111, line 42, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) A statement shall—

(a) be in such form;

(b) be published on or by reference to such date;

(c) contain such information;

(d) be made available for inspection by the public in such manner; and

(e) be supplied to the public on such terms as to payment, as may be prescribed, and different provision may be made in relation to the matters mentioned above in relation to different authorities.

(4A) Such of the information contained in the statement as may be prescribed shall be included within the annual abstract of accounts (or any equivalent to such an abstract) produced by an authority.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my speaking note begins by stating that the amendments are relatively straightforward. I believe that that is correct. The statement of support services costs is part of the Government's policy of the extension of local authority compulsory competitive tendering. The purpose of the statement of the support services costs is to ensure that the true costs of support services—for example, matters relating to finance and personnel services—can be established and allocated to the appropriate front line services such as education and refuse collection.
As currently drafted, Clause 167 would require local authorities to publish the statement of support services costs within their annual abstract of accounts. In England and Wales it is intended that that statement can and will be a freestanding document. I understand that that approach has been welcomed by local authorities.
The Government have not yet finalised the regulation for these statements and they will be finalised only after consultation. Nonetheless, we would not wish to rule out the possibility of adopting a similar approach to that south of the Border and to allowing freestanding publication of this document, which could then be open to inspection by members of the public.
The amendments would permit their publication as a freestanding document rather than simply within the annual abstract of accounts. It is a relatively minor matter and I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 169 [Functions to include promotion of economic development]:
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 114, line 20, leave out from ("enactment") to end of the line.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment which removes an unwanted constraint in subsection (2) of the new Section 171B. It relates to a regulation-making power, and if the text remains as it stands it will be limited to the provision of financial support. It is intended to make it more widespread and general than that and therefore those words have been deleted at the end of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 113A:
After Clause 174, insert the following new clause:
("Scientific services
. The Secretary of State shall by order establish a joint board in accordance with the provisions of section 20 for the purpose of providing the services of the Public Analyst, Agricultural Analyst and other Scientific Services to the Scottish Local Authorities.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, at this late hour as midnight approaches and churches yawn and graves give up their dead, it would be wrong for me to indulge in any prolixity by recapitulating a great deal of what I said at an earlier stage in Committee. I withdrew my amendment at that stage against an undertaking from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Caxmyllie, to receive representations from the Royal Society of Chemistry and the Association of Public Analysts and myself, which undertaking he honourably discharged. We all had a good party in Edinburgh.
He listened to our representations which I recapitulated and summarised in the following terms I said that we were concerned with the provision of ammunition and rations for four laboratories employing 10 public analysts and their assistants. I am told that there is an 11th public analyst on the way up the promotional table. I reminded the Minister that a laboratory is not just a collection of benches with, hopefully, some expensive test tubes lying around the room. It is a housing for very expensive scientific instruments.
Your Lordships must think of £10,000 as not being at all expensive for one of these sophisticated instruments; some might cost even up to £100,000. The public analyst must have the latest and best because his verdict is always unchallengeable in the courts for statutory reasons.
With four laboratories and 10 public analysts decisions have to be taken where the latest piece of scientific apparatus is to be installed. If it is to be put at the disposal of more than one local authority with one laboratory acting as an information source for another, then standards of fees have to be arranged as between one local authority and another. All this must entail a decision-making apparatus.
There are provisions in the Bill, notably Clauses 8, 15,19 and 20, which enable the Minister to make arrangements for the transfer of property and responsibilities, and so on, from the old set-up to the new one. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell me whether these are sufficient to deal with the problems which I have outlined. If he gives me an unambiguous assurance, particularly under Clause 20, that he can set up the kind of joint body—I proposed it in detail in Committee as regards the structure, and now at Report stage merely in outline—which he ought to set up and that he has sufficient power already to do what I have in mind, then I shall express myself content and take the matter no further.
I shall not divide the House on this occasion in any case because it is too late and I know that the Government would win a Division at this hour of night. I shall not raise the matter again at Third Reading of the Bill because I believe that would be inappropriate on a technical matter of this kind. However, I reserve the right to introduce a Private Member's Bill in a year's time if the Minister has got into trouble and has not used the powers that I hope he will assure me he already possesses.
There is one consideration that I should like to ventilate. The hope has been expressed that on a laissez-faire or laissez-aller basis, people will reorganise themselves if no ministerial action is taken. I think that it is a mistake to confuse the two situations: one is where there is a grass roots field—perhaps I am mixing my metaphors—but a beginning where you allow people freely to manoeuvre so that they gradually form a network. An organisation can often form under them from that. That is one situation in which, from a process of natural selection, you can end up with a viable structure. But to take to pieces a viable structure, the product of many years of evolution, without providing a viable substitute is a different matter altogether.
We should not flirt with the idea that, if we leave nothing in the way of an infrastructure to tie it all together, everything will come right. I do not think that it will and I am not alone in my opinion. The Association of Public Analysts knows it; the Association of Public Analysts of Scotland knows it; the Royal Society of Chemistry knows it; the chief executive of the local government Staff Advisory Committee knows it; the Society of Directors of Trading Standards in Scotland knows it; the environmental health officers know it, and, shouldering my pop gun, I know it too. Disregarding my pop gun for the moment, I have my heavy artillery in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Porter, a former president of the Royal Society and a distinguished chemist, who regrets that he cannot be here to speak this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is another of my heavy artillery, as is the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, who has also supported the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I rise to support again the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. I do not know what I can do to add to his eloquence, but, if I can do something, I will because I have an awful feeling
312
that the Government are not listening on this subject. I said when I intervened at an earlier stage that the danger was that there would be a vacuum. From what I have heard since then, I do not believe that the Government are listening very closely. They actually believe that, somehow, if things are left alone, they will sort themselves out They will not This is not a trivial matter. It affects the health, safety and wellbeing of the people of the whole of Scotland. The question of whether regional government in Scotland should have been destroyed is another matter, but the fact is that the public analysts, who are based on that regional government, should not be destroyed. The chances of local government as it is now to be constituted reconstructing that service are, in my view, absolutely zero.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to intervene and that they will not leave it to market forces or to local government forces to try to reconstruct a sensible system of public analysts in Scotland for the future. The noble Earl is a man of great integrity and knowledge on this subject and I hope that the Government will take his plea seriously. I lend what little weight I have to the amendment.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, it is perhaps a matter of regret that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was not here when we discussed Clause 20, because at that time my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser drew attention to Section 62B of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, which to a very great extent meets the wording of Amendment No. 113A.
As regards the joint board side of it, I think that point has been met, but the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has raised a much more important point: that is, the very expensive and extremely sophisticated equipment that the public analyst may need. I must say that I have not seen anything within this legislation that provides a joint board with certainty in the way of finance to be able to purchase the very equipment that the noble Earl has mentioned. What I had not realised is that it is most necessary because that very sophisticated equipment may provide evidence that is produced in the highest courts in the land. Therefore, I hope my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser can assure me that finance will be available for the public analyst to be able to purchase the sort of equipment that is needed.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Earl for expressing so lucidly the concerns of the public analyst in Scotland. As he indicated, I recently met him and representatives of the analyst and they explained very clearly to me what their concerns were. I hope I can confirm to him and to your Lordships that we are well aware of the very important work undertaken by public analysts in Scotland. The existing arrangements whereby four laboratories service all 65 local authorities seem to be an excellent example of the type of joint working which we hope to see in the new structure.

313
While, as I shall indicate later, we are not fully washing our hands of it, as it were, I do not see any reason why this arrangement, if it covers 65 local authorities in Scotland at present, needs to change. I would certainly urge the new councils to consider carefully the benefits of retaining the existing system. We would certainly view with caution any move by new councils towards setting up their own individual laboratories.
This seems to us;—and we are at one with the public analyst—to be a service which is ideally suited to the economies of scale provided by having a few large laboratories. As regards the analyst's staff, this is largely a matter for the existing and new councils themselves. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate explained during a recent debate on staff transfer, the Government are not in the business of guaranteeing that all staff will transfer to the new councils. That is a matter for local government. However, should there be any difficulties, the Secretary of State can use the powers available to him in Clause 8 to intervene.
I suggest, as I suggested previously to the public analyst, that the best way forward is for them to ensure that they keep in touch with the staff commission. Thus, if any problems do arise the commission can advise the Secretary of State as may be necessary. I appreciate the particular complications that arise from the specialist nature of the laboratories and the equipment they contain. As with staff, we hope that the destination of the four laboratories can be agreed among the authorities concerned. Should there be any difficulties, however, the Secretary of State would be able to transfer the laboratories to particular authorities, using the powers available to him in Clause 15.
Again, as I previously indicated to the public analyst, it is not yet clear whether a property commission will be created. A decision will be taken on this in the coming months. In the meantime, I assure the noble Earl that I have taken careful note of his comments on the laboratories and their equipment.
In conclusion, we do not believe that there is a need to set up a public analyst joint board at this stage. Reorganisation will clearly involve some upheaval for all local authority personnel, but there is no reason at present to believe that the situation will not settle down. I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff on that point. However, in the absence of suitable arrangements being arrived at by the successor authorities, I can assure the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will not hesitate to utilise the powers available to him under Clause 20 were he of the opinion that that was the only way to preserve the public analyst service. I understand that it was a public statement to that effect that the public analysts in Scotland wished to secure. I hope that with that unequivocal statement on behalf of the Secretary of State the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, with that unequivocal statement, I must express myself content. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 113B:
Page 160, leave out lines 4 to 6.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I trust that at this hour the House will take my word that the amendments from Amendment No. 113B through to Amendment No. 194, with various gaps, are all of a technical, drafting nature. I can provide details on any one of them, but I shall content myself for present purposes with offering the House the assurance that none of them involves substantive changes to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 160, line 22, after second ("of) insert ("and the words "and provided also, that no land shall be so designated nearer than one hundred yards to any dwelling house without the consent in writing of the owner of such dwelling house,"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is no need for me to detain the House long on this matter, at this late hour, important though it is. It deals with an issue contained in the Burial Grounds (Scotland) Act 1855. I am sure that your Lordships will be delighted to know that I took no part in that legislation of 1855. Contained within it is a provision that no burial ground should be created or extended in an area within 100 yards of dwellings. That was all right in 1855 before the introduction of the Town and Country Planning Acts. There is now no need for such a provision. The amendment is designed to remove the requirement, because all those issues are now taken care of by the Town and Country Planning Acts which provide that people who live in houses have to receive notification and have the right of appeal. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as the night wears on, the noble Lord becomes ever more persuasive. I wholeheartedly commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 114Ato 130:
Page 162, leave out lines 12 to 16.
Page 162, leave out lines 28 to 32.
Page 162, line 45, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation)") in line 5 on page 163 and insert:
(" . In section 31(1) of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act 1937").
Page 165, line 1, leave out from ("(5A)") to ("not") in line 2.
Page 172, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert:
(" . In section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (power of local authorities to provide sites for caravans)—

(a) in subsection (8), for the words from "an islands" to the end substitute "a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994."; and

315

(b) subsection (8A) shall cease to have effect.").

Page 177, line 39, at end insert:
("(9A) In section 26A(2) (power to give directions to police authority after adverse report), for the words "joint police committee" substitute "joint police board".
(9B) In section 26B (police efficiency: allocation of funds), for the words "joint police committee" substitute "joint police board".
(9C) In section 26C (duty of compliance), for the words "joint police committee" substitute "joint police board".").
Page 177, line 45, at end insert:
("(10A) In section 32A(1) (grants for expenditure on safeguarding national security), for the words "joint police committee" substitute "joint police board".").
Page 177, line 46, leave out from ("section") to end of line 48 and insert ("36(5) (common services), for the words "joint police committee" and "committee" substitute "joint police board" and "board" respectively.").
Page 178, line 12, at end insert:
("() In section 46(2) (repair and maintenance of public rights of way), after "being a" insert "public".").
Page 182, line 31, after ("3A") insert:
("or under subsection (2) of section 16A of this Act").
Page 182, line 36, at end insert: ("(13A) After section 16 insert—
"Vesting of certain private sewers.
16A.—(1) Subject to any agreement entered into under subsection (2) below, there shall vest in a person authorised, under subsection (1) of section 3A of this Act, by a sewerage authority to construct a sewer not connecting with their sewers or sewage treatment works the sewer constructed; and any sewer vested in a person by this subsection or by a determination under subsection (2) of that section shall be his property and he solely responsible for its management, maintenance and renewal.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) above, the sewerage authority may, on such terms and conditions as they think fit, at any time enter into an agreement under which the sewer, or any part of it, shall vest in them.").
Page 186, line 34, leave out from ("substitute") to end of line 36 and insert (""the chief social work officer".").
Page 186, line 45, leave out ("the").
Page 186, line 45, leave out from ("substitute") to end of line 47 and insert (""chief social work officer".").
Page 187, line 2, leave out ("the").
Page 187, line 2, leave out from ("substitute") to end of line 4 and insert (""chief social work officer".").
Page 187, line 6, leave out ("the").
Page 187, line 6, leave out from ("substitute") to end of line 8 and insert (""chief social work officer".").
Page 189, line 24, leave out ("(6) (b)") and insert ("(6) (d)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 131 to 133 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 134 to 146:
Page 192, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) In section 24(5) (provision which may be included in orders under Part II)—

(a) in each of paragraphs (c) and (d), for "areas", wherever it occurs, substitute "wards"; and

(b) in-paragraph (f)—

(i) the words "regional, islands or district" shall cease to have effect; and

(ii) for "area" substitute "ward".").

Page 192, line 32, after ("(1)") insert ("—

(i) in the definition of "electoral arrangements", for "areas" and, where it fourthly occurs, "area" substitute "wards" and "ward" respectively; and

(ii)").

Page 193, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) In section 50K(2) (b) (interpretation), for "the enactment" substitute "either of the enactments".").
Page 193, line 33, at end insert ("—
(a)").
Page 193, line 34, leave out (", (e)").
Page 193, line 34, at end insert ("; and
(b) in paragraph (e), for "directors of social work" substitute "chief social work officers".").
Page 194, line 30, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(1A)").
Page 194, line 31, leave out ("(1A)") and insert ("(1B)").
Page 194, line 33, after ("authority") insert ("or body").
Page 194, line 39, leave out ("(1A)") and insert ("(1B)").
Page 194, line 41, leave out ("(1A)") and insert ("(1B)").
Page 195, line 35, after ("134") insert ("(1)").
Page 196, leave out line 39.
Page 196, line 46, at end insert:
("( ) For section 150 (public transport) substitute—
"Schedule 18 to continue to have effect.
150. Schedule 18 to this Act (amendment of certain enactments relating to transport) shall continue to have effect.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 147 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 148 to 171:
Page 199, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) Section 226 (transitional provision for joint boards existing before 16th May 1975) shall cease to have effect.
( ) Section 230 (transitional establishment of committees of local authorities) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 199, line 21, leave out ("definition of) and insert ("definitions of "area", "college council", "school council" and").
Page 199, line 21, leave out ("and") and insert:
("( ) for the definition of "electoral area" substitute (""electoral ward" shall be construed in accordance with section 5 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;").
Page 199, line 24, at end insert ("; and
( ) in the definition of "rating authority", for the words from "has" to "Act" substitute "shall be construed in accordance with section 30 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994."").
Page 200, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) Schedule 13 (amendments of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971) shall cease to have effect.
( ) Schedule 14 (amendments of enactments relating to roads) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 200, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) Schedule 22 (planning functions) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 202, line 43, leave out from ("186(1)") to end of line 4 on page 203 and insert ("(b) and (c) and 387(1) (b) and (c) (persons who may give information on oath as respects failure to comply with probation order), for "director of social work", wherever it occurs, substitute "chief social work officer".").
Page 203, line 12, at end insert:
("( ) In Schedule 5 (discharge and amendment of probation orders), in paragraph 2(4) (b)—

(a) for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer"; and

(b) for "director", where it secondly and thirdly occurs, substitute "chief social work officer".").

Page 209, line 47, leave out from beginning to ("(interpretation") in line 48 and insert:
(" .-—(1) The Community Service by Offenders (Scotland) Act 1978 snail be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 2(3) (b) (person to whom copy of community service order to be sent), for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer".
(3) In section 12(1)").
Page 223, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert:
("() For section 9 (re-allocation of responsibility for certain local authority functions relating to the countryside) substitute—
"Part II of Schedule 1 to continue to have effect.
9. Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act (amendment of certain enactments relating to the countryside) shall continue to have effect.".").
Page 225, line 18, at end insert:
("() Part I of Schedule 1 (which re-allocates certain functions relating to the countryside) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 233, line 36 leave out ("5(2) (a)") and insert ("5(2)").
Page 233, line 37 leave out from ("etc.)") to end of line 41 and insert ("—

(a) in paragraph (a) for—

(i) "regional, islands or district council", in both places where it occurs; and

(ii) "an islands or district council", substitute "local authority"; and

(b) after paragraph (a) insert—

"(aa) a water authority or sewerage authority;"."). Page 234, line 6, after ("council") insert (";
(aa) a water authority or sewerage authority;"). Page 234, line 7 after ("(interpretation)") insert ("—
(a)").
Page 234, line 9 at end insert (";
(b) after the definition of "rent assessment committee" insert—
""sewerage authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;"; and
(c) after the definition of "tenant" insert—
""water authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.".").
Page 238, line 5, after ("authority") insert:
"(;or
(iia) a water authority or sewerage authority").
Page 238, line 5, leave out ("and").
Page 238, line 12, at end insert ("; and
(c) in subsection (11) (1), after "a water authority" insert "or sewerage authority".").
Page 238, line 34, after ("council;";") insert (" ( ) after the definition of "a service charge" insert:
'"'sewerage authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;'"').
Page 240, line 9, after second ("council") insert:
(";or
(ia) a water authority or sewerage authority;").
Page 240, line 15, after second ("council") insert:
("; or
(aa) it belongs to a water authority or sewerage authority;".
( ) In section 55(1) (interpretation of Part II of the Act)—

(a) after the definition of "prescribed" insert— ""sewerage authority" shall be construed in accordance with section 61 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;";

(b) the word "and", where it occurs immediately after the definition of "tenancy", shall cease to have, effect; and

(3) after the definition of "tenant" insert—

"; and
"water authority" shall be construed in accordance with the said section 61").
Page 240, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) In Schedule 4 (tenancies which cannot be assured tenancies), in paragraph 11—

(a) for sub-paragraph (a) substitute—

"(a) a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, or a joint board or joint committee of two or more such councils, or the common good of such a council or any trust under the control of such a council;

(aa) a water authority or sewerage authority;"; and

(b) for the word "and", where it occurs immediately after sub-paragraph (e), substitute "or".").

Page 242, line 11, leave out from ("(c),") to end of line 12 and insert ("for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer".").
Page 245, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert:
(" .—(1) The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 62(6) (local authorities for purposes of supervised attendance orders), for "regional or islands council" substitute "council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994".
(3) In Schedule 6 (supervised attendance orders), in paragraph 2(3) (b), for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer".").
Page 252, leave out lines 44 to 48 and insert:
("( ) in paragraph (b), for "director of social work" substitute "chief social work officer"; and
( ) in paragraph (c), for "director" substitute "chief social work officer".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 14 [Repeals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 256, line 4, at end insert:
("1960 c. 62. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Section 24(8A).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 113B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 182:
Page 257, column 3, line 18, leave out ("Sections 2 and 3") and insert ("Section 2").
Page 258, column 3, line 49, at end insert:
("In section 24(5) (f), the words "regional, islands or district".").
Page 259, column 3, line 13, leave out (", (e)").
Page 260, column 3, line 4, after ("134") insert ("(1)").
Page 261, column 3, line 15, leave out ("225") and insert: ('726. Section 230.").
Page 261, column 3, line 17, after ("of) insert ('"'area", "college council", "school council",").
Page 261, column 3, line 32, leave out ("Schedule") and insert:
("Schedules 13 and").
Page 261, column 3, line 39, at end insert:
("Schedule 22.").
Page 261, column 3, leave out lines 47 and 48.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 113B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 184 to 188:
Page 269, column 3, line 46, at end insert:
("In Schedule 1, Part I.").
Page 271, column 3, line 48, at the beginning insert:
("In section 55(1), the word "and" where it occurs immediately after the definition of "tenancy".").
Page 272, column 3, line 22, leave out from ("1980""') to end of line 27.
Page 273, leave out lines 9 to 12. Page 276, leave out lines 9 to 11.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 189:
After Clause 179, insert the following new clause:
Further transitional provisions

(".—(1) Until 1st April 1996—

(a) section 70 of the 1973 Act (acquisition of land by agreement) shall have effect as if, in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) there were inserted ", or

(c) there being provided by some person other than themselves a system, to which the public shall have access, of drains, sewers or sewage treatment works,";

(b) section 71 of the 1973 Act (acquisition of land compulsorily) shall have effect as if, in subsection (1), after "enactment" there were inserted "or of there being provided, by some person other than
320
themselves, a system, to which the public shall have access, of drains, sewers or sewage treatment works"; and

(c) section 15 of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 (power to acquire land) shall have effect as if, at the end of each of subsections (1) and (3), there were added "or for the purpose of there being provided, by some person other than themselves, a supply of water to the public".

(2) If the Secretary of State provides, by order under section 181(2) of this Act, that any provision of Part II of (or of Schedule 13 to) this Act which—

(a) amends section 1, 16, 21(1), 22, 23 or 48 of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 or section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974; or

(b) adds to the said Act of 1968 a new section 3A or 16A or to section 20 of that Act a new subsection (5),

shall come into force before 1st April 1996, he may provide in the order that the section amended, or as the case may be the section or subsection added, shall until that date apply as if modified in such manner as he shall specify in the order; the modifications being such as appear to him to be requisite having regard to the fact that some other provision of that Part (or that Schedule) is not for the time being in effect.").

On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 180 [Interpretation and amendment of statutory references]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 190 to 192:
Page 125, line 34, after ("to") insert ("—
(a)").
Page 125, line 34, leave out ("or the director of social work").
Page 125, line 36, at end insert:
("(b) the director of social work shall be construed as a reference to the chief social work officer.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 181 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 193 and 194:
Page 126, line 3, leave out ("for different provisions and").
Page 126, line 4, at end insert:
("(2A) An order under subsection (2) above may contain such transitional provisions and savings as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions brought into force.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before midnight.

  LEGAL EDUCATION AND CONDUCT: ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
  LEGAL EDUCATION AND CONDUCT: ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
  DISCRIMINATION CONVENTION RATIFICATION
  DISCRIMINATION CONVENTION RATIFICATION
  AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES: PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC
  AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES: PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC
  REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE COSTS TO BUSINESS
  REGULATIONS COMPLIANCE COSTS TO BUSINESS
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991
  DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991