Sitting of 20 October 1994

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

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the further reform of the common agricultural policy.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): The Government have led the way in seeking reform of the common agricultural policy. I shall be continuing to press for further reform at the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg next week.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. What end result would he like to see from further reform of the common agricultural policy? Is there now a case for repatriation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I should like to see a common agricultural policy which moved nearer to world market prices; which was simpler to administer; and which, as a matter of priority, got rid of such idiocies as the wine regime, under which we pay for the conversion of low-grade Italian wine into industrial fuel which is then sent at a subsidised rate to Brazil to be put into motor cars. That is crazy.
    On my hon. Friend's final point, repatriation is not necessarily the way forward. If we are to have a common market in agricultural products, we need a level playing field in terms of support systems. That is the purpose of having the right common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Minister recall his predecessor's statement in May 1992 to the effect that the CAP reforms were good for Britain, good for farmers and good for the taxpayer? Is he aware that, between 1992 and next week's estimates, the CAP budget will have increased by £6.3 billion? How can that be good for the taxpayer, the consumer or the average family, who are paying £20 a week more than they should for their food? Does not that mean that the CAP continues to be bad for Britain, bad for the taxpayer and bad for the consumer?
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. The reforms relieved the British consumer of something like £1 billion of excess costs. I agree that we want prices to come down further, nearer to the real market prices. However, the reforms were a useful step forward and they have done better than many people predicted in getting rid of surpluses of, for example, cereals and beef. We now have much less beef in intervention than we used to.
    Mr. Pickles: In considering reform of the common agricultural policy, will my right hon. Friend consider
    408
    especially the effect of a proposed new directive on nitrates in broadleaf vegetables, which threatens many vegetables grown under glass in Britain? I thank him for taking the matter to the Council of Ministers. Will he assure the House that he will fight as hard as his predecessor for British horticulture?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have sent a powerful paper containing evidence from absolutely first-class epidemiologists such as Sir Richard Doll, which proves that there is absolutely no risk from nitrates in lettuce and that the directive is misconceived. I shall fight it. I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying that he will never be isolated in Europe. He says that he will always agree, which means that he will sign up to such directives. One has to he isolated sometimes if one is to fight.
    Dr. Strang: May I congratulate the Minister on his appointment? I am sure that his family history, knowledge of agriculture and ministerial experience will be a help to him. Does the new CAP policy group mean that the Minister has spent some of the past three months studying the CAP? Did he note that less than two years ago one of his predecessors presented the latest reform as something of a triumph for Britain? Is not the truth of the matter that during the past 15 years the Government have not mounted a serious attempt to alter a policy that is misusing thousands of millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and congratulate him on his election to the shadow Cabinet. The post-MacSharry reforms were indeed a great improvement on what was there before. Surpluses have been cut, and the level of overpricing has been brought back, but there is far more to do. The entry of central and eastern European countries—towards the end of the century, we hope—will provide not only an opportunity but the necessity for further major reform. We shall take that opportunity and I hope that we shall lead the way.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the common agricultural policy is the uneven nature of compliance and enforcement in the different states within the European Union? Will he consider suggesting to his colleagues in Europe that the officials responsible for inspection, enforcement and compliance might operate on an exchange basis between countries, so that ours could assist other European countries while we could enjoy the regime that those countries have had hitherto?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a serious point, but I am not entirely sure that I should like to swap our inspectors for those from some other countries, even if it brought some benefits to our people. There is a real issue, and I shall certainly argue with the Commission that we need proper enforcement throughout the EU. Indeed, the subject will arise at the next Council, in relation to animal welfare.
    Mr. Tyler: I, too, welcome the Minister; I also welcome his statement at the Conservative party conference that he is to set up a CAP policy group. Will he take advantage of the developing consensus in the

    409
    House on the need for reform, and on some of the directions that such reform might take? Will he comment on his predecessor's statement that
    "Set-aside is here and we must make the most of it"?
    Should we take that to mean that set-aside is here to stay on the current scale?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. Although there is great expertise within my Ministry, I believe that there is no harm in seeking to ensure that we use everybody who can contribute on that important subject, both in this country and more widely. As for set-aside, in the long term we do not like such production control, either through quotas or through set-aside. We would rather move the emphasis towards lower prices, and getting production into balance with consumption. But while we have set-aside, surely we should use it for beneficial purposes. That is why I shall argue, for example, that forestry should be possible on set-aside land.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a good record in emphasising the educational value of reducing tobacco consumption—that that is something to be commended—but that there is an inconsistency between that and the support for tobacco producers in the rest of the European Community?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that the tobacco regime is the part of the CAP that I, as a former Secretary of State for Health, like least. As well as its objectives being thoroughly unsatisfactory, it has been subject to considerable fraud. It seems entirely mad that we should spend money trying to persuade people not to smoke, while at the same time spending more money to subsidise the growing of tobacco.

    Land Drainage
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account he takes in the exercise of his responsibilities for land drainage of protecting the environment and the habitat of birds and other wild animals.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): The powers that MAFF exercises in the relationship between land drainage and environmental protection are fully detailed in the publication "Water Level Management Plans", a copy of which is in the Library.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety among conservation groups and interests that the announcement of a new environmental agency may mean that that agency would have fewer powers than those now residing with the National Rivers Authority? Will he give the House an undertaking that the new agency will have equally robust powers and a duty to promote conservation in water management, rather than merely having "regard to" it, as was spelt out in the publicity?
    Mr. Jack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not directly in my province to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency. That is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I am aware that concern has been expressed about the word "conservation" in the context of
    410
    that agency, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the information, such as water level management plans and the other guidance given to all authorities with an interest in land drainage, will not change. Their obligations and requirements—as regards the new Land Drainage Act 1994, for example—will remain unaltered under the new arrangements.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to congratulate our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, whose Bill last night will go a long way towards protecting the environment and habitat of birds and other wild animals, and will curtail the activities of people whose sole intent is to destroy that habitat and to destroy country life?
    Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the novelty of his question. I will certainly pass on his greetings to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It is always important in countryside and conservation matters to get an appropriate balance between the intrusion of human beings and wildlife.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines he has for strengthening the control over BSE.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): All our controls on BSE are based on independent scientific advice, which is on-going.
    Mr. Morgan: May I first congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion? As the Government have been wrong on so many things about BSE—wrong on the numbers forecast, wrong on the time profile forecast, wrong on transmission between generations and wrong on transmission between species—is not it now time for them to close the remaining loophole by which BSE-infected products can get into the food chain, namely spinal cord and brain products from calves less than six months old?
    Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is making allegations that are not supported either in this country or in Europe by any of the scientists who have investigated the matter. I suggest that if he has scientific evidence, on which our decision making is based, he puts it forward. Certainly the time scale in which the number of registered cases has fallen has been longer than originally anticipated. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that in the past year, we have seen a significant drop in reported cases—namely, 43 per cent.
    Mr. Gale: In welcoming my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box, may I say how very much we appreciate the candour and openness with which her Department has faced the highly emotive problem of BSE? She will be aware of the very real concern that has been expressed by the British Veterinary Association, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by others about the potential for the importation of hitherto eradicated animal diseases from eastern Europe through the European Union. Can she reassure the House and

    411
    those bodies that her Department will take every possible measure to ensure that those diseases are not reintroduced from eastern Europe through the Union by the back door?
    Mrs. Browning: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and I can reassure him. He will be aware of the decision and announcement by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who announced earlier this year that there would be a reinstatement of 100 per cent. inspection at all ports of entry.
    Ms Eagle: Would the Minister care to comment on some of the theories now coming forward to the effect that the BSE problem may actually be caused by the use of pesticides and other chemicals in agriculture rather than by some of the factors that have been identified to date?
    Mrs. Browning: I can certainly comment. All such allegations have been inspected by independent scientific advisers to the Department and none of them stands up to scientific investigation.

    Environmentally Sensitive Areas
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the take-up of the environmentally sensitive area scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: There has been a good response and more than 4,500 agreements have been signed.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I welcome the success of the ESA scheme nationally—I understand that it now covers 10 per cent. of all land in England—but is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Essex coast ESA, which covers my constituency, farmers are unlikely to take up the scheme in large numbers to cover arable land as the payments available are so much lower than those for land put into set-aside?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. However, I must remind him that the objective of the Essex coast ESA is effectively to preserve the coastal marsh grazing areas from the River Stour to Canvey island. That is the principal objective and to the extent that such land is the principal objective, it is not in competition for payments from the arable area payment scheme. In terms of reversion from arable land to pasture, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have already achieved 23 per cent. of our target of 1,000 hectares for reversion.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister may be interested to hear that I visited such a scheme in my constituency—the Tir Cymen scheme—during the summer. It is very successful in upland areas in my constituency in sustaining the income of small farmers and in providing work in a rural area. Why is it that within agricultural support generally, only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the agriculture budget is involved in environmental schemes?
    Mr. Jack: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's commendation of the support that we are giving through environmentally sensitive areas to the role of preserving the important environmental features in the countryside. In talking about numbers, the hon. Gentleman perhaps omits to mention the fact that we hope that, by 1996, with the full range of environmental schemes—not only
    412
    environmentally sensitive areas but countryside access, organic farming, marsh moorland and the whole range of other schemes—we will be spending around £100 million. That, by any standard of imagination, is a very large sum indeed.

    Cereals
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the farming unions about individual base areas for cereal growers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jack: We have had no recent calls from farming unions for meetings on that subject.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I am perfectly prepared to understand and accept that there are legal and perhaps even administrative difficulties in using individual base areas as a way in which to control quotas. There is no such thing as a pain-free quota system. But if the Minister is excluding individual base areas as a way of giving individual farmers the ability to control the penalties that they incur, what plans does he have for dealing with this very real problem, which certainly continues to occur in the cereal-growing areas of Scotland?
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his honesty in acknowledging that there are significant problems in administration and farming practice relating to individual farmers having their own base areas. We are very aware of that.
    We publish a great deal of information about crop yields—about yield by cereal type. That is backed up by information from the Home-grown Cereals Authority. That is important because farmers study it and make up their own minds in the light of trends in cereal cropping as they affect their individual enterprises. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall certainly have a discussion with the chairman of the Home-grown Cereals Authority to see if we can further improve the promulgation of that information for the better guidance of farmers.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still a prevailing sense of injustice among cereal growers in Wales, especially in the less-favoured areas? Furthermore, the farming unions—in Wales and, I think, nationally—have expressed their concern to the Ministry, first, about the fact that there is not a joint England arid Wales base region and, secondly, about the fact that, for the past two years, and until the recent welcome announcement made by the Ministry, severe losses have been incurred by Welsh cereal growers because of the previous base-area designations.
    Mr. Jack: I am well aware of the situation that my hon. Friend describes to the House. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, he has made sterling efforts to try to address the problem. The latest situation—certainly in relation to new yield areas that have been introduced—means that those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all gain. There is a marginal loss of 10 kg per hectare for the English growers but, all told, it is a much better scheme for determining the level of arable area payments made to specialist cereal growers to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Forestry Commission Land
    Mr. Olner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of Forestry Commission land in England is accessible to the public.
    Mrs. Browning: There is general access to Forestry Commission land subject only to legal constraints or considerations of safety.
    Mr. Olner: Although I welcome that statement and although we are all grateful that the Government have been forced to do a U-turn on the privatisation of the Forestry Commission as a result of effective public pressure from all parts of the community, does the Minister agree that there is an awful lot of private forestry land that is inaccessible for public use, although all Forestry Commission land is open to public use? Will she therefore seek to prevent any further piecemeal sell-offs of Forestry Commission land and, indeed, ensure that public access is gained to the land which has been sold by the Forestry Commission?
    Mrs. Browning: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that access to land—legitimate access to land—is very important. I hope that he will welcome the fact that, in their reforms, the Government have proposed a £0.9 million budget to enable the Forestry Commission to buy land to which, at the moment, it is difficult to gain public access. That will enable the commission to provide greater access so that people may legitimately use the land.
    Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is legitimate concern about access to woodland in many respects and that most people—I accept that there are a few exceptions on the Opposition Benches—would like that access to be arranged with co-operation rather than confrontation? My constituency contains the royal forest of Dean and other areas of woodland which could, in the fullness of time, be sold off. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, where Forestry Commission land is sold, there are discussions with the purchasers to ensure that, with their co-operation, access to those woods continues?
    Mrs. Browning: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is part of the Government's proposal and we shall do all that we can to ensure that it is enforced. As a former chairman of the Rights of Way Review Committee, I can assure my hon. Friend that the way forward in relation to access to land is through co-operation and not just through opening the floodgates for people to roam wherever they wish.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister's answer mean that the Government admit that they made an historic blunder in privatising Forestry Commission land without providing for public access? In view of that concession, will the Government go further and restore access to many of the thousands of acres to which public access is no longer available?
    Mrs. Browning: I have already identified the respects in which the Government are not only supporting the proposal to increase public access but putting money behind it. We shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does she agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who recently said that there should be a right to
    414
    roam, or with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who suggested that there were obviously some parts of the countryside where one could not wander?
    Mrs. Browning: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I would not wish to exacerbate the already widening gap on the Opposition Benches, but I certainly think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) had it right.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Is not much of the land that has been sold by the Forestry Commission very accessible to local people in the sense that it comprises small woodlands which are near human habitation and useful for recreation? Is it not the case that most of those areas do not have access agreements? Access agreements can be drawn up with local authorities, but they need the money to do that. Authorities have many other things on which to spend their money. Will the Minister assure the House that the money will be available for those agreements?
    Mrs. Browning: Access agreements are important. Giving local authorities the funds to co-operate in that regard and giving them the time to make the arrangements are part of the Government's plan.

    Animal Transportation
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to improve the conditions of farm animals in transit; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I announced on 14 September a new measure to improve protection of the welfare of animals in transit, in particular those for export. This would give us the capacity, if evidence was available, to prosecute in Britain hauliers who had not looked after their animals properly on journeys, even though those journeys were abroad.
    Mr. Luff: I welcome that answer, but will my right hon. Friend continue to press for an effective Europe-wide animal transport licensing and enforcement system? Can he give us any assessment of when our European partners, particularly the French, are going to take the matter as seriously as he clearly does?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The measures that I have proposed go as far as we can on a national basis within the treaty of Rome. Incidentally, they will enable us to prosecute some of those frightful cases which were investigated—for example, by ITN—if evidence is brought in this country. However, the real task is to obtain Europe-wide licensing of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned. A group of countries—I am sorry to say a minority—in the Council is in favour and we are a firm part of that group. However, others, including France, have not taken that view. It would be most helpful if they would.
    Mr. Beggs: I welcome the steps that the Ministry has already taken to improve the welfare of animals in transit but does the Minister agree that it is preferable that animals be transported to the nearest meat plant for processing and slaughter, but that a blanket ban on the export of livestock could seriously damage our successful trade in exporting pedigree breeding stock?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. The greater part of our trade is already in carcase meat. I believe that the steps that are now being taken to ensure that the trade expands are the right steps. They bring jobs, apart from anything else, to the United Kingdom. However, it would be very unfair to British farmers—who already, in most cases, have the highest standards in Europe—if unilateral action against them led to damage to them from pressure groups legitimately targeting standards in other parts of Europe which are very much lower. That is quite apart from the long-standing trade in thoroughbred exports and racehorses, for example, with which nobody is proposing to interfere.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: Is not it a fact that if, for whatever reason, customers are deprived of supplies of live animals from United Kingdom sources, they are likely to turn to other countries whose animal welfare standards are infinitely worse, and that there will be much more suffering for live animals?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. It would be paradoxical if, in order to express anxiety about the subject here, steps were taken that led to a net loss in the standards of animal welfare because of the importation into our previous markets of animals from central Europe. I fear that the conditions in which such animals would have been reared and transported would be likely to be much lower.
    Mr. Morley: I add my congratulations to the Minister on his new post. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is widespread public concern about live animal exports for slaughter? Indeed, live animal exports are also exporting British jobs from the meat industry as well. Will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully at some of the more dodgy schemes to beat the ferry ban, such as flying live cows from a Humberside airport in old eastern bloc military transport planes? I hope that the Minister will make available to the House his vets' report on those trial flights.
    Given that lamb and calf prices since the ferry ban demonstrate that we can have a viable trade in carcases, will the Minister do what he can to support the export of meat from this country, based on quality and price rather than on the misery of live animals?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The greater part of our trade, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, is already in carcases. It is wise that that trade should expand. However, I have no power to ban live exports. I have power to ensure that any live exports take place under strict welfare conditions. As for the Hull flight to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I am very happy to send to him, or to place in the Library of the House, the account of the vets from my Department who travelled with it. It was, I am advised, satisfactory. I will not allow—not that I would be able to persuade them to do it—vets in my Department to cut any corners whatsoever in the maintenance of proper standards, but if they are proper standards, that is a legal trade.

    Beef
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the EU Agriculture Commissioner in respect of beef.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I have already had three meetings with Commissioner Steichen, the first one on 5 September at my request, at which those issues were raised.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the beef sector is very important to the farmers of Herefordshire and the marches? What progress has my right hon. Friend been able to make towards relaxation of the rules on trade which were imposed by the European Commission, particularly as they relate to the younger animal?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. With the shape of the BSE epidemic now moving in the way in which it is, it would be fair to take action in relation to young animals. I have raised that matter with the Commissioner and I have some hopes of progress. I will report to my hon. Friend and to the House more widely on how the negotiations go.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I add my welcome to the Minister. How appropriate it is to have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with his own herd of mad cows. Can he give an assurance that he has not been giving any of his home-made beef pies to Baroness Thatcher recently?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Whether or not I have a herd of mad cows, that is much happier than being a Leader of the Opposition with a herd of mad Back Benchers behind me.

    Dairy Farmers
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I regularly meet representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them, including the dairy sector.
    Sir David Knox: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the arrangements for Milk Marque will not have an adverse effect on dairy farmers' incomes, particularly in the early stages if payments have to be reduced?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The new arrangements put the industry in the proper position of negotiating price and supply between the producers and the manufacturers. That is much more satisfactory. If there were to be abuse by anybody within that market, it would be for the competition authorities to sort it out. I was pleased that the courts ruled that the system should be put in place and that there should be no further delay in the vesting day, because it would have thrown the industry into great confusion if there had been. I believe that the new system will bring benefits to the consumer and to producers, although undoubtedly it will take some time to settle down properly.
    Dr. Strang: Surely the Minister is aware of the statement by his predecessor that Dairy Crest would definitely be floated before deregulation on 1 November. As we assume that that will not take place, can he give

    417
    us some idea of when flotation will occur? Is it the case that the Director General of Fair Trading is likely to refer Milk Marque to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before Christmas? What will the Minister do to prevent the new free market arrangements from damaging profitability, investment and jobs in the dairy industry?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Any potential reference by the Director General of Fair Trading is entirely a matter for him. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for the flotation of Dairy Crest. However, he will have seen stories in the newspaper yesterday of various proposals. Many scare stories have been put about on this matter. The most obvious of them is that anything in these changes is likely to affect the price of a pint of milk on the doorstep. There is no reason for that at all. The price of liquid milk changes by less than half a penny. If we find companies—as some of them have said that they will do—putting up the price of a pint of milk on the doorstep by 3p or 4p, that is nothing to do with these changes.
    Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance, with regard to the disgraceful fiddling of milk quotas by the Italians, that under no circumstances whatever will we agree to the retrospective legislation proposed by the European Commission, the effect of which would be to relieve the Italians of the penalties that they have incurred? Furthermore, can he ensure that we will not withdraw the legal action in the Court of Justice, especially as the issue on which it largely turns is the insistence by the Italians that in return for all this, they will withdraw their opposition to the veto on the own-resources legislation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: What really matters is bringing home to the Italians in financial terms the fact that they abused their quota position for many years and they must be made to pay for it.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European counterparts about the potential implications for the common agricultural policy of the enlargement of the EU.
    Mr. Waldegrave: EFTAn enlargement is unlikely to have major implications for the common agricultural policy. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear to the House, however, fundamental changes to the CAP will be needed before the eastern European countries can join the European Union.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept the concerns of the NFU and many others that accession of eastern European and central European countries to the European Union will not enable the present common agricultural policy to survive? Does he believe that the policy review committee that he announced at the Tory party conference last week will be able to get a deal accepted by Europe which will give a fair deal to consumers and producers in the years ahead?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That must be the objective, and there are beginning to be some signs of thinking in the European Commission which runs in the way that the House would like. For example, shortly, a report known as the Munk report will be published. If the Financial
    418
    Times preview of that is correct, the report goes very much in the sort of direction that the hon. Gentleman and I would both like. However, we should not overestimate the difficulties on the way. We have a huge task in persuading the majority of other countries in the present Community of the need for radical reform. That is why it is unwise for Labour Members to talk so much in terms of consensus in the European Union; sometimes, we need to disagree and change attitudes. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may say "Hear, hear" but I wish that conversations were less noisy.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend, to whom I extend a welcome to his new responsibilities, give us an assurance that the extension of the European Community will have no impact on milk quotas? He is aware that this country is not self-sufficient in liquid milk. Will he therefore ensure that we do not surrender any of our quota and that we continue to press for the cross-border transfer of quotas which would assist this country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think EFTAn accession will have much effect on that, but my hon. Friend makes a sensible and important point. The way forward must be to seek quotas that are tradeable across national boundaries. There is a long way to go to persuade some of our colleagues in Europe of the necessity of that, because some of them do not have tradeable quotas within their own countries, but that is my objective. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter will probably want to support me on that.

    Set-aside Land
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has in respect of arrangements for set-aside land.
    Mr. Jack: New proposals to develop alternative non-food use crops which can be grown on set-aside land have been published, and we have launched the countryside access scheme.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister confirm that taxpayers subsidise farmers to grow less food, thus bringing up prices; subsidise farmers to grow food regardless of the yield; subsidise farmers with a guaranteed minimum price; subsidise farmers by their intervention stores; and then consumers—the taxpayers—have to pay increased prices in the shops? When will he stop the income support scheme for farmers, many of whom are millionaires? The set-aside scheme was designed to cut food production by 50 per cent., but it does not do that. When will the right hon. Gentleman act against the common agricultural policy, before it collapses under the weight of its own unfairness, futility and stupidity? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I asked for the co-operation of the House less than five minutes ago, but it would appear that I am not receiving it. I expect the support and co-operation of the House—not a lot of "Hear, hears" and continued conversations.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman has been exercising a certain right to roam away from the facts of what we have been up to. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have pressed forward in pursuit of realistic reforms of the

    419
    common agricultural policy. We have pressed forward reforms of the set-aside scheme too. I am singularly disappointed by the fact that the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the measures that we have taken to encourage set-aside for alternative, non-food uses. His failure to acknowledge, for instance, the short rotational coppice scheme is lamentable.
    Mr. John Greenway: I warmly welcome the promise given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to set up a CAP policy review group—an important initiative taken by the Government for the future of agriculture. Will my hon. Friend ensure that part of the remit of that group will be to nail the lie, by means of proper research, about the link between agricultural price support and food prices—the sort of nonsense that we have heard talked about by the Labour party today?
    Mr. Jack: I agree. The Opposition line is to end the common agricultural policy, pull the rug from under British farmers and not think about the consequences. They talk about a burden of £20 a week per family imposed by the CAP, but the figure is not valid because nobody knows what world prices would be in a world without the CAP. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall adopt a realistic view of reform.
    Mr. Tipping: When English farmers alone receive more than £140 million in set-aside payments, do not people have the right to expect better conservation measures, an improvement of the landscape and better access to the countryside in return for that money?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep when I was answering questions earlier. I said that, in the financial year 1995-96, we shall spend about £100 million on a range of environmental measures designed to achieve a better balance between farming and conservation.

    Dairy Farmers
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet small farmer; in Basildon to discuss problems of small dairy farms.
    Mr. Jack: I am happy to have such a meeting the next time that I am in Basildon.
    Mr. Amess: While I welcome the news that my hon. Friend will be visiting my constituency, will he kindly tell me how the new arrangements for marketing milk will benefit small dairy producers in Basildon?
    Mr. Jack: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the basis for his question, which is clearly fighting for the safeguarding of the doorstep pinta. I understand that, under the new arrangements, farmers who bottle their own milk will be relieved of having to pay 1.5p a pint in levy
    420
    to the milk marketing board, which will make those excellent doorstep deliveries so much more competitive under the new regime.
    Madam Speaker: Time's up. Questions to the Prime Minister. I call Michael Clapham.
    Mr. Skinner: Give him the money.
    Madam Speaker: Order.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Clapham: When did the Prime Minister first become aware of the allegations against the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)? What has he done about it, especially in relation to the Minister who has not resigned? Can he give the House an assurance that no other members of his Government are involved in corruption?
    The Prime Minister: With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I shall reply in detail to each of those points, for I think that the House would wish me to do so.
    The allegations were brought to me privately some three weeks ago. It was clear that the allegations reported to me originated, although they did not come to me directly, from Mr. Al Fayed. I made it absolutely clear at that time that I was not prepared to come to any arrangements with Mr. Al Fayed. I was not prepared—
    Mr. Skinner: How much did he offer?
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
    The Prime Minister: I immediately made it perfectly clear that those matters would be fully investigated and asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake an independent and full investigation. He has been doing so and he is continuing to do so.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) wrote to me following that investigation and discussions with the Cabinet Secretary to say that he had a business relationship with Mr. Al Fayed and that he was paid fees. He did not, however, declare the necessary detail in the Register of Members' Interests during the consultancy. He has tendered his resignation and I have accepted it.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) wrote to me explicitly refuting the allegations that he was paid any money to ask questions or to undertake any activity whatsoever on behalf of Mr. Al Fayed. My hon. Friend has announced that he will be instituting legal proceedings to seek damages for libel.

    421
    I have made it clear that I am determined to see the highest possible standards in public life and to see that they are maintained. It is right that such allegations should be investigated. They should be investigated—as they have been—by the Cabinet Secretary. Equally, if any further occasions arise, they will be investigated thoroughly and appropriate action taken.
    Mr. Wilshire: Following on from that, will my right hon. Friend now arrange for the Audit Commission to conduct investigations into allegations made in the newspapers of corruption by Labour-controlled Birmingham city council—the allegations being that it corruptly used millions of pounds to buy votes in marginal wards?
    The Prime Minister: There have been allegations of that sort against local authorities before and I believe that, as with hon. Members of this House, such allegations deserve to be properly investigated by the proper authorities.
    Mr. Blair: While we note the resignation of one Minister and we await the outcome of the inquiry into the other, does the Prime Minister understand that today's allegations can no longer be seen as isolated incidents, but that his Government are becoming tainted? If he is serious about standards in British public life, will he now respond specifically to three proposals, which I shall put to him? First, that no Minister who has privatised a company should subsequently end up on its board; secondly, that he publish a list of all members of quangos, their payments, perks and any position with any political party; and thirdly, that the cash for questions inquiry now be broadened, made deeper, held in public and made fully independent so that the confidence of the British people in their Government can begin to be restored.
    The Prime Minister: As I have said in the House on previous occasions and repeat now, I am determined to ensure high standards of probity right across government, and I will not tolerate anything less than the highest standards of behaviour. Special standards are required of those in public life and special sacrifices must be made by people when those standards in public life are not kept.
    I am not prepared to take action against people on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations and against the background of concrete assurances from the person concerned that the charges laid against him are without foundation. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would share my view about those points.
    On the right hon. Gentleman's substantive questions, I shall deal first with quangos. Last May I established an independent working body across government to look at the system of appointments of such bodies, and I expect to receive the report of that body very shortly. In addition, the Treasury and the Office of Public Service and Science are preparing revised guidance on making appointments to issue to Departments. Last summer, I also asked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to look right across the board at appointments to all public bodies and to make recommendations to me if he thought it necessary to change the system in any way. The purpose of that is to ensure that the system itself is seen, and is recognised, to be beyond criticism. When that work has been concluded, we shall announce our conclusions to the House. The right hon. Gentleman and I share the same objectives upon that point also.
    422
    As for the cash for questions issue, all traditions suggest that that should be dealt with by the Committee of Privileges, and there is no precedent for the Committee of Privileges not sitting in private. The reason for that is self-evidently understood by every Member of the House so that the matter may be fully dealt with. When the Committee has completed its report, the recommendations of that Committee of the House of Commons will be published and will then be debated here on the Floor of the House of Commons, where they should be.
    On the first of the right hon. Gentleman's three questions, I am aware of no occasion where the question of the abuse of previous ministerial interests arises. If he wishes to give me details, I shall naturally look at what he has to say.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in pursuit of his clear commitment to deal with the issue, there is an extremely important role for the House of Commons Privileges Committee as set up by a motion agreed in the House? Will he confirm that it is not a matter of innuendo or allegation but one of thorough investigation, which the Privileges Committee can do, and that not only the Committee's report but the evidence, in full, which the Privileges Committee obtains, will be published? Is not that an objective to be proceeded with, rather than distorted by walk-outs by Opposition right hon. and hon. Members?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about that. For a long time we have had our own method of dealing with such issues—the Privileges Committee. When it has taken evidence and reported, it is right for the House then to take decisions. I regret very much indeed that Opposition Members have decided not to continue with their work on that Committee, because I believe that if such Committees do not operate properly, with cross-party support, that will do great damage to the House of Commons as an institution.
    My hon. Friend is entirely right in all else that he says. I reiterate the absolute necessity for high standards in public life. Let me make it clear once again that where any evidence of wrongdoing is brought to me, it will be investigated, and it will be punished if that is found to be justifiable. I must make a further point upon which I believe the House would wish to reflect: any investigation must be seen to be fair. It is a fundamental part of the way in which we conduct things in the House and in the country that people are innocent until they are shown to have been guilty. I regret that, occasionally, some in the House tend to forget that fundamental part of our constitution.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise just how disappointed many people will be by the inadequate answers that he gave to the three specific questions put to him by the leader of the Labour party? Does not he realise that neither the House nor the people will be satisfied with the results of inquiries held in secret? Does not he understand that the interests of the country, his Government and the House would now be served by an independent and impartial re-examination of the standards that are required of those who hold public office in a modern democracy like ours?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to fail to understand how the Committees of the House operate. I would have thought

    423
    that he, as a Privy Councillor, would have understood that rather better. We have had a long tradition of cross-party Committees, like the Privileges Committee, dealing with such matters. The decision of some hon. Members not to serve on that Committee is unprecedented. They should serve on it. That Committee will take evidence. It will publish its report—there will be nothing secret about it—and it will be debated here, in the House. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier about that. I hope that he now has heard and that he now understands. I hope that he will now continue the traditions that the House has long followed.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be widespread support throughout the country for a mandatory identity card scheme?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he proposes to consult about the possibility of an identity card scheme, either a voluntary or mandatory one. We shall wish to listen carefully to what people say in response to that consultation. There is a substantial case to be made for one, although practical difficulties must be overcome. If we have one on a smart card basis, it will allow Opposition Members to record their conservative principles on it.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAllion: Let me return the Prime Minister to the question of sleaze at the heart of government. Has he seen the astonishing report in today's press that his predecessor, Lady Thatcher, ordered GCHQ to pay foreign intelligence to spy on two members of her own Cabinet whom she suspected of disloyalty to her? [Interruption.] If only for the sake of her fellow travellers
    424
    who are still members of the right hon. Gentleman's own Cabinet, will he give the House the assurance that he, at least, has discontinued that dishonourable practice? More importantly, will he give the House the assurance that he will order a full and independent investigation of that latest allegation so that those responsible for that perversion of the democratic ideal are brought to book before the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The fact that, in the middle of his question, the hon. Gentleman could not even keep a straight face shows just how seriously everybody in the House regards the absolute absurdity of that allegation. Does not it show that the present frenzy of ludicrous rumours sweeping around deserve to be investigated and then cast aside because they are total nonsense? I am glad that the hon. Gentleman illustrated the sheer absurdity of many of the things that are currently being said and apparently being taken seriously by Opposition Members. I shall give him one answer to his question on that particular allegation: it is claptrap.
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend knows, I have always gone softly, softly in Prime Minister's questions, unlike the lot opposite.
    Is my right hon. Friend sponsored by the TGWU? If not, perhaps he would like to tell me who is? Will he also confirm that clause 4 is not on our agenda and that, therefore, Babycham will not be nationalised and we shall not have to watch Bambi on the television every night?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is, no I am not, but if anybody wishes to make any allegations, I am happy for the Committee of Privileges to investigate them. I trust that everyone will attend the Committee.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the forthcoming business of the House.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 OCTOBER—Debate on the second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee relating to spending plans of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, followed by a debate on the first report of the Science and Technology Committee relating to the science base and innovative and competitive technology on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Privatisation, Accountability and Bureaucracy in the National Health Service" on an Opposition motion.
WEDNESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Legal Aid (Scope) Regulations.
Motion on the Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) Regulations.

Motion on the Parental Orders (Human Fertilisation and Embryology) (Scotland) Regulations.
THURSDAY 27 OCTOBER—Debate on developments in Northern Ireland on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 28 OCTOBER—Debate on inward investment on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 31 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (20th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on a subject to be announced.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 26 October to consider European Community document No. 5934/94 relating to foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses.
[Wednesday 26 October:
European Standing Committee A—European Community document: 5934/94, Foodstuff: Particular Nutritional Uses. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 48-xix (1993-94) and HC 48-xxiii (1993-94).]
MONDAY 24 OCTOBER—Debate on Foreign Affairs Committee report and debate on Science and Technology Committee report. The relevant reports are as follows:–1)
Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on "Public Expenditure: Spending Plans of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration 1994-95 to 1996-97". House of Commons Paper No. 372, Session 1993-94. CM2685 entitled "Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1993-94, Expenditure Plans of the Foreign and
426
Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration, Observations by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs" is also relevant. 2)
First Report from the Science and Technology Committee on "The Routes Through which the Science Base is translated into Innovative and Competitive Technology", House of Commons Paper No. 74-I, Session 1993-94. CM2659 entitled "The Routes Through which the Science Base is translated into Innovative and Competitive Technology" Government response to the First Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, 1993-94, Session is also relevant.
WEDNESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. The relevant reports are as follows:

Reports Session 1992–1993

No.

Report Title

HC No.

Date of pub.

55

MOD: The Costs and Receipts Arising for the Gulf Conflict

729

6 October

56

Forestry Commission: Timber Harvesting and Marketing

579

7 October

57

West Midlands Regional Health Authority: Regionally Managed Services Organisation

485

25 November

58

Department of Social Security and Benefits Agency: Combating Organised Fraud

672

24 November

59

MOD: Use of Simulators in Training

680

1 December

60

Inland Revenue Inheritance Tax

688

15 December

61

Health Services for Physically Disabled People Aged 16 to 64

538

16 December

62

The Administration of Student Loans

613

8 December

63

Wessex Regional Health Authority: Regional Information Systems Plan

658

9 December

Mr. Brown: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. He will have heard the exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time. May I put it to him now that, regardless of whether Ministers resign, the allegations contained in The Guardian today are serious enough to warrant an investigation by the Committee on Privileges. While I am on the topic of the Committee on Privileges, may we expect a statement next week from the Leader of the House regarding progress on the "cash for questions" inquiry and related matters at which the Committee is looking? In particular, will the Leader of the House explain why the Committee must hear in private what we can all read for ourselves in The Sunday Times?
On a slightly more cross-party note, given the amicable discussions that have taken place between us during the summer recess, could the Leader of the House find time for the House to debate the Jopling report before the end of the Session?
Mr. Newton: Picking up the more emollient part of the hon. Gentleman's question—I am pleased to see him in his place on the Opposition Front Bench after the contribution that he has made to our discussions during the summer months—I cannot give an absolute undertaking because he and I have not had a chance to talk further since the events of yesterday. Obviously, there are some uncertainties about the precise pace at which we shall be able to proceed and precisely how long the present Session will go on. I am not in a position to resolve that uncertainty, either.
From the spirit of our discussions, the hon. Gentleman knows that we are both proceeding as constructively and speedily as we can. I think that he will accept that I have manifestly made it clear that I want to move as fast as possible. I think that that is all I can say on that matter.
On the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is the very strong convention of the House—although I appreciate that it does not appear to be universally followed, to put it mildly—that the proceedings of Select Committees are not usually discussed by members of them, let alone by Chairmen, outside the confines of a Committee until that Committee has reported.
In my capacity as Chairman of the Privileges Committee, I think it right to stick to that long-established convention. The appropriate time for debate will be when the Committee has brought a report to the House.
On the other matters raised today, the appropriate time for debate will be when a proper inquiry, of whatever kind, reaches a conclusion.
Sir Peter Emery: I want to add to what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) said about the Jopling report. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is still considerable pressure from the

429
Back Benches to move forward on that report? That being so, even if there cannot be a debate, will my right hon. Friend consider whether it is possible, before the end of the Session, for a joint statement from both sides to be made on how we can proceed? I think that hon. Members deserve to know.
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot make an absolute promise to be able to respond in the way that I should like to respond, for the reasons that I explained to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). I have not had the opportunity to talk to him and to repeat my point since developments in the Labour party yesterday, which leave some element of uncertainty. We both want to make progress as fast as possible. If we cannot have a debate, I shall consider my right hon. Friend's suggestion; he has certainly not been short in exerting pressure on this matter.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I recognise that these matters are not entirely under the right hon. Gentleman's control, but I want to press him for a date for the end of the Session. Is it right to assume that the working assumption is still 3 November?
Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman had urgent words with the Foreign Secretary because of the urgent need to have a debate on the position in Hong Kong?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring the hon. Gentleman's latter point to my right hon. Friend's attention. On his first point, as on a number of occasions in this House there is some tension between the implicit wish to have an early date for prorogation and the pressure to put in more and more business before prorogation. I shall bear both in mind, but I cannot put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery at the moment.
Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that where the conduct of Members of the House is concerned, subsequent investigation has not always been characterised by calm detachment—something which can be discerned from the Marconi affair onwards? If the work of the Privileges Committee is to be vitiated by trench warfare of the most partisan character, will he keep his mind open to the suggestion made to him about possibly appointing a committee from outside the House to look at how we conduct ourselves?
Mr. Newton: The latter point goes well beyond my immediate responsibility as Leader of the House and Chairman of the Privileges Committee. To echo something said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I continue to hope that those hon. Members who have indicated that they do not intend to attend the Committee for the time being will consider the position that will arise in the House, in almost any of our proceedings, if people who do not get their way in a decision properly taken under the procedures of the House then decide not to take part in those procedures.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House recall that, at the end of July, many of us told him that the Privileges Committee was a rigged Committee that would collapse under the weight of its own—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to ask a business question. As the Leader of the House correctly stated, the proceedings of the
430
Committee at this stage are for the Committee itself, not for this Chamber. These are business questions and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of asking a question relating to next week's business.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have a debate on these matters generally next week so that we can consider the membership of the Committee, which we know was rigged by the Government with a majority of people with substantial commercial interests? Does not the Leader of the House realise that Parliament is discredited while he insists on following that course? Why does he not return to the House with a new Committee or follow the recommendations made by the Liberals, who advocated an independent arrangement?
Mr. Newton: Of course I recall what the hon. Gentleman said in the debate that we had when the Committee was established and its membership settled. I also recall what I said in responding, both as Leader of the House and as the likely Chairman of the Committee. I shall not rehearse all those comments. The view expressed by the hon. Gentleman, however strongly felt, was not accepted.
The Committee was duly appointed by the House on a resolution on the basis of all the normal rules about the balance of membership according to the forces of the various parties in the House. The Members whose names were contained in the resolution accepted their appointments to the Committee without making conditions about what sort of decisions the Committee would make on how its work should be conducted.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will there be an opportunity next week or possibly today to pay tribute to the remarkable efficiency and dedication of the police in defending our freedoms last night? I have an office overlooking St. Stephen's entrance and was most impressed at the unbelievable patience shown by the police when facing quite disgraceful provocation.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Newton: It is clear from the response to my hon. Friend that his sentiments are echoed in all parts of the House. Certainly, from what I observed, the police did an extremely good and effective job in controlling what could have become an even nastier situation.
Mr. Alfred Morris: In courtesy to the House, will the right hon. Gentleman urgently correct, either now or early next week, what he said about his adherence to precedent in regarding what happens in the Select Committee on Privileges as confidential? How does he reconcile that with his decision, against all precedent, on Tuesday night to issue a press statement and hold a press briefing about the Committee's meeting on that day?
Mr. Newton: I indicated to the many journalists outside the room simply that the Committee had taken a decision to sit in private. I made no further comment about who had said what, what the voting was or anything else. It was clear that it was going to be necessary to

431
communicate the simple fact, and I make no apology for that judgment. I have not thought it right beyond that to discuss either the arguments or the proceedings.
Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the case for socialism as set out in early-day motion 1582?
[That this House believes that the best policies for Britain both now, and in the twenty-first century, would be based upon the principles laid down in Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution and recently re-affirmed by the Labour Conference, namely 'To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service. Generally to promote the political, social and economic emancipation of the people, and more particularly of those who depend directly upon their own exertions by hand or by brain for the means of life. To co-operate with the Labour and Socialist organisations in the Commonwealth overseas with a view to promoting the purposes of the Party, and to take common action for the promotion of a higher standard of social and economic life for the working population of the respective countries. To co-operate with the Labour and Socialist organisations in other countries and to support the United Nations Organisation … for the promotion of peace, the adjustment and settlement of international disputes by conciliation or judicial arbitration, the establishment and defence of human rights, and the improvement of the social and economic standards and conditions of work of the people of the world.'.]
A debate would enable the country and the constituents of Sheffield, Hallam to see that the old socialist leopard still lives and that its spots are beginning to show beneath the rushed, bodged, newly launched paint job.
Mr. Newton: It certainly seems to be an attempt, through the procedures of the House, to re-insert clause 4 of the Labour party's constitution even before the party has taken it out of the constitution at Brighton or Blackpool.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision not to have a debate about receiving money from companies next week, as it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a narrow dividing line between taking money for questions and becoming directors of firms? It is high time that we made a decision in the House that Members of Parliament should have one job and one job only, with no conflict of interest.
More than 200 Tory Members and a handful of Opposition Members make money on the side and cannot manage on £32,000 a year, while people outside have a job to live. It is time that Members of Parliament stopped the practice of moonlighting—only then will the Augean stables be cleaned up.
Mr. Newton: As some of my hon. Friends observed from a sedentary position during the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I presumed that the hon. Gentleman would also apply everything that he said to union sponsorships. As
432
long as I am Chairman of the Committee on Privileges, I do not intend to engage in such a debate on the Floor of the House. There will be a debate after a report has been produced and, in case there is any doubt, I should perhaps add that the report will be accompanied by publication of the evidence taken by the Committee.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Before we take any more lectures from hon. Gentlemen who play no part in any of the Committee structures where the House does most of its work, perhaps we should take seriously the question of full-time Members of Parliament. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on this important issue because if we are not careful we shall find ourselves moving inexorably towards a category of full-time membership of the House, which would greatly change its nature—something which should not happen without a clear and conscious decision being made?
Mr. Newton: I certainly have no plans to propose such a change without a debate or, indeed, at all. I have noted my hon. Friend's words and the very thoughtful reflections that he has also offered to me in writing.
Ms Jean Corston: The Leader of the House will be aware that this is National Asthma Week. There has been a 178 per cent. increase in childhood asthma in the south-west since 1979. From a survey of schools this summer in my constituency, I discovered that one in three children at the Rosemary nursery school, which is in an area of high traffic congestion, has asthma. At a recent summer camp organised by another school, 21 of the 43 children there had asthma or respiratory problems that needed medication. When can we have a debate to discuss the health, environmental and pollution aspects of what is a major epidemic among our children?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady might perhaps have suggested that some of the points that she has raised might have been more appropriate for a health debate than the title of the debate tabled for the Opposition day next Tuesday. Leaving that aside, however, having had some experience of asthma in my family, I certainly recognise the importance of the problem, its intractability and the concerns expressed about it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will consider carefully what the hon. Lady said.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for an urgent debate on civil air transport in view of the grotesque subsidies to European state carriers such as Air France and Iberia which are blithely waved through by the European Commission, and for a debate on the urgent need for privatisation of the National Air Traffic Services?
Mr. Newton: On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he will be aware of the vigorous stance taken by the Government, but I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate next week. As for National Air Traffic Services, he will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement when he has considered the outcome of the consultation.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House press the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement next week on the transfer of the blood transfusion facility from Liverpool which is being met with almost universal opposition from people

433
in the area? Is not it about time that the Secretary of State for Health was accountable to the House for her actions or non-actions?
Mr. Newton: I will draw the hon. Gentleman's latter remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, but, in the face of his apparent suggestion that she is unaccountable to the House, I must say that it appears that she will be here nearly all day next Tuesday because health questions will be followed by the health debate to which I have already referred.
Sir Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend will be aware that in 1996 Heads of Government will hold an inter-governmental conference on the future of the European Union and the effects of Maastricht. Is he also aware that it will affect institutions such as the Western European Union, the Council of Europe, the North Atlantic Assembly and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and that there is real interest in their future among hon. Members of all parties? I know that my right hon. Friend cannot do so immediately, but I urge him to hold a debate on the subject in due course, as our continental partners will in their various Parliaments.
Mr. Newton: I should not want to undertake to provide time for a debate on European issues before we prorogue, but it is likely that an opportunity will arise not too long after that. I shall bear the idea in mind and, while noting my hon. Friend's request, I pay tribute to him for the work that he has done over many years for some of those institutions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Perhaps the Leader of the House has noticed that today, not for the first time, fisheries questions were totally crowded out of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Question Time. That happens because of the relatively small number of Members with fisheries interests. In view of the importance of the industry in my constituency, and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends and many other hon. Members, will the Leader of the House consider allocating perhaps 15 minutes of questions to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to fisheries matters?
Mr. Newton: I am, of course, aware of one or two examples of that practice. For reasons that the House understands, it happens with the Overseas Development Administration. However—this is an entirely serious answer to the hon. Gentleman—I think that in general, trying to divide up the work of Departments into segments and allocating bits of time to bits of their responsibilities would be a path leading to endless argument, controversy and, in the end, dissatisfaction.
Mr. Richard Tracey: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give consideration to an urgent debate on the maintenance of public order outside this place? As a London Member of Parliament, I draw his attention to the fact that, while several thousand Metropolitan policemen are employed to maintain what is certainly the important business of the House, my constituents, and people in many other London boroughs, are completely divested of the protection of the Metropolitan police, with the result that they fall prey to burglars, car thieves and muggers,
434
and experience various other forms of public disorder. That cannot be right and it cannot be allowed to continue. Balance is essential in such matters.
Mr. Newton: Clearly it would be vain to expect my hon. Friend's words about the practical effects of demonstrations such as that which took place last night—manifestly those words have some force—to be heeded by those who brought about the demonstration. However, my hon. Friend's remarks should certainly be borne in mind by others in our society.
Dr. Lynne Jones: In view of the Prime Minister's stated commitment to the national health service, does the Lord President agree that it is disgraceful that, having run down its own hospital services, making hundreds of staff redundant and closing wards, the South Birmingham health authority is spending public money flying heart patients to have their operations at an ailing private hospital in Glasgow? Will he ensure that when the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box next Tuesday, she makes a statement on that matter and on the Government's responsibility for the lack of sensible planning for health care needs in south Birmingham?
Mr. Newton: I take it that the main point of the question was contained in the last sentence—and of course I will bring what the hon. Lady said to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. As for the rest of her question, I should be reluctant to comment without knowing more about the circumstances. I imagine that the health authority was simply seeking to ensure that resources were used to the best possible effect in providing a speedy service for its patients.
Sir David Madel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the summer recess the Child Support Agency has continued to make serious mistakes, causing real anguish to my constituents and no doubt to those of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members? If there cannot be a statement next week about the necessary reform of the Child Support Agency, can my right hon. Friend see to it that the following sentence is put into the Queen's Speech: "Urgent early measures to reform the Child Support Agency will quickly be laid before you"?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, who also spoke to me about this matter last night, will know that I cannot anticipate the Queen's Speech. On the other hand, I did, sort of, anticipate his question. I can assure him that action is being taken to address some of the administrative problems, although that may take time. Such action is certainly going on vigorously. My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Social Security is expected to produce a further report shortly, which I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will look at extremely carefully.
Mr. Max Madden: First, will the Leader of the House do his best to ensure that a statement is made, I hope next week, by the Prime Minister about the inquiry that is presently being conducted by the Cabinet Secretary? Secondly, will the Leader of the House

435
ensure that whatever statement is made, it explains fully what arrangement was proposed, either directly or indirectly, by Mr. A1 Fayed to the Prime Minister?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that it would be right for me to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. I am sure that as soon as he has the report, he will act in whatever way he thinks appropriate in the light of his other assurances about his determination to ensure proper standards of conduct.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in which we can discuss how a Member of Parliament can have £88,000 raised on his behalf and then not declare it in the Register of Members' Interests? Is not it scandalous that the Leader of the Opposition has not made a declaration in the Register of Members' Interests?
Madam Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a personal attack of that nature, he knows full well that it should be done by means of a substantive motion. I think that he ought to be very careful in his use of words. If he has anything to say of that nature, he must put it on the Order Paper in a substantive motion so that we may all see it.
Mr. Shaw: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, if I did not get the rules right. I thought that by calling for a debate on the issue, we might have the opportunity to air fully the issue of why it has not been declared that £88,000—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not understand that complaints of that nature must be made to the Committee on Members' Interests. It is not for the Leader of the House to answer questions of that nature. A series of Committees has been set up to deal with all those matters and that is where the request must go. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will refer his request to the Committee.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of the Prime Minister's lofty statement about standards in public life and his attempted whitewash with secret inquiries, why cannot we have a debate next week on a basic, central question? If it takes £2,000 to get a Tory Member to ask a parliamentary question, how much does it take to get a straight answer from a Tory Government about what exactly they are going to do about it?
Mr. Newton: May I, as quietly and calmly as I can, totally reject the use of the word "whitewash" in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I thought and, I suspect, many thought—not only Conservative Members—that the Prime Minister was very straightforward in his answers this afternoon.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for a specific debate on family health matters so that we can discuss the wisdom of the new Liberal Democrat policy of putting 11-year-old girls on the pill without parental consent? That must undermine the family and parental influence, and it is making a laughing stock of the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Newton: I have some sympathy with that. I say, with as kindly a smile as I can manage, to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)
436
who is, I suspect, more sensible than some of the resolutions passed at his conference, that if I had to find time to debate every dotty resolution passed at Liberal Democrat conferences, we should be here from now until Christmas.
Mr. Richard Burden: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), may I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the hospital in question, to which the West Midlands regional health authority is to shift patients, is a private hospital called Health Care International? It has already swallowed up substantial amounts of public money—
Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman asking a question about business? I think that we have had enough statements. We must have brisk questions and answers.
Mr. Burden: May I ask the Leader of the House to ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health during next week's health debate to come to the House to make it clear that this is not a situation, which it appears to be, of the private sector gobbling up public resources and forcing my constituents and others to travel 300 miles for essential treatment?
Mr. Newton: I have made some comment on that, to which I am not going to add. It seems that the appropriate course would be for the hon. Gentleman to come to the House at the appropriate time and seek to put his question to my right hon. Friend or, for that matter, to the Secretary of State for Scotland if that is more appropriate.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: Now that a public consultation has been announced into national ID cards, does my right hon. right Friend think that there should be an early opportunity for the House to debate the issues involved?
Mr. Newton: I note the request, but I am afraid that I cannot promise an early opportunity. It may be that it would be more appropriate when a Green Paper has been produced, but I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 1595, which relates to the conduct of Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare.
[That this House believes that the public is entitled to a full explanation by Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare as to the circumstances surrounding the purchase by him of shares in Anglia Television; believes that Lord Archer should give such an explanation without further delay, further believes that his conduct and the handling of the investigation by the DTI has further undermined the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's insider dealing legislation; calls on the Government to introduce new legislation free from the taint of political interference; calls on the President of the Board of Trade to publish that part of the DTI report containing information provided in connection with this matter; and regrets that the facts and circumstances of this affair were not put before a jury.]

437
Is not there a pressing case for an early debate on the law on insider dealing, which is clearly unsatisfactory? If someone such as Lord Archer cannot be convicted, no one can.
Mr. Newton: This matter was covered in a lengthy answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday and I shall not try to add to that now.
Mr. Peter Butler: Will my right hon. Friend consider acceding to the repeated request for a debate on the matter currently before the Select Committee on Privileges, if only so that the Labour party can explain to the House its peculiar and singular view that an inquiry, the evidence of which will be published in full, the report of which will be published in full; both of which will be subsequently debated in public on the Floor of the House is none the less "secret"?
Mr. Newton: No, I cannot explain that and I have not yet heard an explanation of it.
Mr. Denis MacShane: The Leader of the House will be aware that I wrote to him and that we had a friendly conversation about extending the postage and telephone facilities of hon. Members to cover the European Union. The price of stamps is just the same
–5p—and the calls are no more expensive. Given the great interest of constituents in the European questions coming up in the next two years, for hon. Members to be fully informed, that right should be extended. I should like an assurance that the matter will be considered seriously before the end of the Session.
Madam Speaker: That is a very good question indeed, but it is not a business question. It is a question which the hon. Gentleman might put to the Leader of the House when he answers questions on those matters. The hon. Gentleman should reserve the question for that time.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate for next week on the way in which local authorities, which now have responsibility for traffic management and parking, are managing those responsibilities, so that I can highlight the enormous inefficiency of the Labour-controlled Ealing council and its aggravation of the people of Ealing by the inept way in which it is discharging those responsibilities?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early debate, but I suppose that I look forward to learning week by week of the iniquities of the Ealing borough council, which my hon. Friend exposes with such assiduousness.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will there be an opportunity next week to clarify whether, officially or unofficially, by minute or by telephone, there was any approach from the then Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Sir Clive Whitmore, to the then Prime Minister, expressing disquiet about the commercial activities of Mark Thatcher?
Mr. Newton: I think that I can only take note of that question and I shall obviously consider the point when I have an opportunity.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Could we perhaps have a debate next week on extravagance in local government expenditure, such as the expenditure of £169,000 on a new porch for the Gravesham civic centre,
438
commissioned by the Labour party at the expense of scrapping a substantial part of its contribution to the Meopham sports hall and scrapping a refurbishment of shopping parades, where real people go?
Mr. Newton: It appears that it is trying to compete with Ealing.
Mr. David Winnick: If there is to be a statement early next week, as I hope that there will be, on what is to happen on the Privileges Committee, will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that if we are to continue to regulate our own affairs—unlike the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who spoke earlier, I am very much in favour of our continuing to do so—it must be seen that we carry out our regulations and investigations in a public way? What may have happened in the past does not necessarily justify what should happen now and in the future. The public expect that a Parliament which is concerned, as we must be, with our own reputation in fighting corruption inside Westminster, should be willing to inquire into those matters in a public way and not simply wait for a report that is being drawn up and discussed in secret and then debate that on the Floor of the House. The reputation of the House is very much at stake.
Mr. Newton: That leads me to echo what I said earlier. It seems to me that a continuation of the practice of the House regulating its own affairs in the way that it has for many years, and which I think would be widely accepted, depends on people being willing to co-operate—without declining to co-operate if a decision goes in a way they do not like—with those procedures properly constituted by the House.
Mr. Michael Stephen: My right hon. Friend will be aware that last night there was a serious attack on our parliamentary democracy by a howling mob which prevented elected Members from reaching the House to attend to their constituents' business. Can my right hon. Friend make time for a debate so that it can be made clear that the right to protest does not include the right to coerce or intimidate or the right to bring the life of a great city to a standstill and prevent ambulances, fire engines and police cars from attending emergencies? During that debate, perhaps we could consider whether mass demonstrations should be banned completely in urban areas.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is sitting beside me and he will no doubt have heard that suggestion. With regard to a debate, we are about to begin a second day of debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. I cannot promise an immediate opportunity for a further day's debate of that kind.
Mr. David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement or an early debate next week on the preferred bidders for the coal industry? I listened to the President of the Board of Trade two weeks ago when he announced at the Conservative party conference who was buying the pit in my constituency. To date, I have received no news about that in the House, I have not had a chance to question the matter in the House, and I have not received written confirmation of

439
the matter from the President of the Board of Trade. I hope that we can have an early debate on the matter next week.
Mr. Newton: I will bring that complaint to the attention of my right hon. Friend. However, the fact that by January we expect around 30 of the former British Coal mines to have transferred to new private sector owners since the coal review in 1993 represents welcome progress.
Mr. Roy Hughes: Can the Leader of the House at least tell us whether there will be an early ministerial statement about the unfortunate events which took place outside the House last night? Is he aware that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) suffered a very serious injury when trying to enter the House merely to record his vote? What discussions have there been with the Metropolitan police to ensure that hon. Members have proper access to this place?
Mr. Newton: There are three points here. First, I would like to express on my behalf, and I am sure on behalf of others, our sympathy to the hon. Member for Caernarfon. Secondly, discussions between the authorities of the House, in particular the Serjeant at Arms, and the police are not something I would wish to enter into across the Floor of the House. Thirdly, I must say frankly that I think that in this context, as in some others, to give those who caused such disruption last night the additional satisfaction of diverting the proceedings of this Chamber by the publicity of ministerial statements would actually encourage them rather than the reverse.
Mr. John Gunnell: The Department of the Environment published a paper in August about the disposal of low-grade nuclear waste in municipal sites, many of which were in urban areas. I have two requests. First, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that paper is available in the Vote Office because it is not available at the moment? Secondly, may we have a debate led by the Department of the Environment on the disposal of low-grade nuclear waste?
Mr. Newton: On the question of a debate, I must give my standard answer and say that I cannot give a promise of that at the moment. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I will certainly look into what he said.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry that I have to return to the events of last night, but is my right hon. Friend aware that in Germany the kind of demonstrations that occurred here last night are banned from within 1 km of the Bundestag? Will my right hon. Friend consider imposing such restrictions here?
Mr. Newton: I would not want to add off the cuff to what I have said, but I note my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the biggest political scandals, which strikes at the heart of parliamentary democracy, is that millions of people are
440
missing from electoral registers. The situation has become worse in recent years. When can we have a full debate in Government time to discuss that serious matter?
Mr. Newton: Again, I cannot promise a debate, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who I think I am right in saying would be responsible for electoral registration matters, has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1586. [That this House condemns the proposals of the National Blood Authority which would result in the closure of Liverpool's Blood Transfusion Unit with the loss of some 100 jobs; expresses its anxiety that the health of Liverpool citizens would be put at risk whenever there was an urgent need for a blood transfusion, and that it would also result in the loss of a training centre for the study of haematology; notes that over 100,000 Merseysiders have signed a petition objecting to the proposals; commends the Liverpool Echo for its part in opposition to these ill-thought out measures; rejects any diminution of blood transfusion services on Merseyside; and calls on the National Blood Authority to withdraw its proposals.] I tabled the motion and it refers to the misconceived proposals of the National Blood Authority to close the Liverpool blood transfusion unit. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is unsatisfactory? It is a matter of life or death for many people in Liverpool and in the north-west of England and, rather than being subsumed in a general debate on Tuesday, it requires a specific statement by the Secretary of State so that it can be debated.
Mr. Newton: This is the second time today that the matter has been raised in respect of Liverpool. As before, I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health sees what is said.
Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Floor of the House on the gathering and publication of unemployment statistics in this country? Has he seen today's report in The Scotsman analysing the Government's own statistics and showing that there has been a 500,000 increase in the number of people registering for income support as disabled and sick, that 2 million are denied the right to be on the unemployment register by being disabled and sick, and that there has been a 63 per cent. increase in such registration in the south-east of England, where the recession is biting deepest? It is important not only that the people have a lead from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to be honest in Government, but that we be honest with the people. Is not it time to debate the real unemployment statistics so that, when we know and accept the problem, we can jointly try to solve it, instead of trying to deceive the people?
Mr. Newton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I have not seen the report in The Scotsman, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's comments to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman had a

441
substantial opportunity to make such points during debate on the Bill in respect of invalidity benefit that was discussed in the House earlier this Session.
Mr. John McAllion: Following the announcement this week by the Home Secretary that an additional £2 million is to be made available for closed-circuit television schemes in England and Wales and the failure of the Secretary of State for Scotland to say anything about an equivalent spend in Scotland, may we have a statement early next week by the Secretary of State for Scotland on whether money will be made available for such schemes in Scotland, so that Scottish Members can satisfy themselves that the Government regard tackling crime in Scotland just as seriously as they do in England and Wales?
Mr. Newton: That is a question which the hon. Gentleman could put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland next Wednesday.
Mr. James Wallace: Is the Leader of the House aware that, last week, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was a rule of the House that a Bill to set up a parliament for Scotland or Wales could not be guillotined? Can he confirm that the Secretary of State for Scotland got it wrong, or is it his intention to bring in such an amendment to our Standing Orders?
Mr. Newton: As there is no question of the Government's bringing in such a Bill, I do not think that the question arises.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Would it be possible to have a debate next week to examine the way in which early-day motions are tabled? In particular, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1616.
[That this House notes the allegations made against the honourable Members for Tatton and Beaconsfield, respectively, in connection with the tabling of parliamentary questions referred to in The Guardian for Thursday 20th October; and, in the light of the allegations in that article, calls upon the Prime Minister to appoint an independent commission of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary with full powers to enquire into and report upon ethics and standards in British political life.]
That motion was tabled by the Liberal Democrats last night, and it refers to the article in The Guardian today. One of the questions that I should like to ask in such a debate is whether the effect of that early-day motion was to confer parliamentary privilege on the article and, in the process, possibly deprive an hon. Member of effective action in the courts. If so, would not the House want to debate that matter? Is it right that a newspaper can be given such protection by hon. Members in what amounts to a sleazy deal?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to say whether the motion was tabled before or after the earliest editions of The Guardian were available, and I would not want to speculate on that. Also, because of the subject matter of the early-day motion, again I would not want to add anything to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on such matters about an hour ago.

Points of Order
4.14 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the circumstances surrounding the injury to my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) when he attempted to come to the House last night to register his vote at about 10 pm. You will have the full circumstances surrounding that incident, and I do not wish to dwell on them; save to say that I am pleased to tell the House that although my hon. Friend suffered an injury, he was released from hospital last night. I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for making urgent inquiries about him, and he is grateful for your concern. I accompanied my hon. Friend last night, and we were accompanied by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
I want to look at the more general issue that arises out of the incident. Hon. Members who have offices in the Norman Shaw building have difficulty in coming to the House to vote, even forgetting the incident last night, because the underpass at Westminster is closed. That means that we must go into the main entrance of Westminster station, and that can be blocked by a considerable number of people even late at night.
We had to cross the road and we came through the normal entrance of the House along Parliament street. The difficulty that we encountered in Parliament street was that there was a cordon of police officers across the pavement which prevented access by hon. Members. Where police officers are on duty, clearly expecting a Division to take place at some time during the evening, I would expect them to clear a path for hon. Members to come in through the gates. That is the issue, Madam Speaker. How can we be absolutely assured that such an incident will not happen again—that a clear path will be made so that hon. Members can come safely to vote?
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) when the worrying accident took place. Whatever other unacceptable incidents happened last night, the accident was not the direct result of the demonstrators. The development of both Millbank and the Norman Shaw building is creating problems. In this case, the problem was that the entrance to the Westminster subway was closed. The fact that we knew that the entrance was closed led us to come through the Carriage Gates. I support the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) that it was impossible to get through the main Carriage Gates last night because of a large cordon of police.
Madam Speaker: I made inquiries and found that access to Westminster underground station was open yesterday evening. If hon. Members who were coming to the House had proceeded as though they were passengers to Westminster underground, they would have been able to use the subway to the House. As hon. Members know, the steps from Victoria Embankment to the subway are closed. That is the responsibility of London Underground and Members have been notified of that on the all-party Whip.

443
I very much regret the problems caused to the hon. Member for Caernarfon yesterday evening. I telephoned him today; he is in considerable pain, but I gave him the good wishes of the House. We wish that he will be back here soon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I will draw the attention of the Serjeant at Arms to what hon. Members have said on this matter. He will look at these matters, because what has been said is valuable. The objective last night was to see that the Sessional Orders were enforced, that public disorder was prevented and that any offenders were arrested. I have strong views that violence and vandalism will not be tolerated wherever they rear their ugly heads. I believe that last night, despite some of the problems that the police had, there was a high standard of policing. Perhaps we might leave the matter at that.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you know, I was one of those who were prevented from getting into the House from 7 Millbank. Happily, I came to no harm. However, one consequence of what happened to me was that I saw, for a long time and at close quarters, exactly what was taking place in Millbank which was the centre of the disturbance. One of the things that I saw was very great restraint by the police under enormous provocation. When you make further inquiries, Madam Speaker, perhaps you would tell the Commissioner that the majority of hon. Members admire what the police did last night and are grateful to them.
Mr. Max Madden: On a separate point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you will understand and accept that any allegation made against any Member of the House inevitably damages the reputations of all Members and of the whole House. You were elected by the whole House to protect and uphold the rights and reputation of the House.
I would ask you to reflect on a suggestion that I wish to make. We seem to be facing an impasse when it comes to the ability of the House properly and effectively to investigate complaints made against Members, so I wonder whether you would be willing to consider convening a meeting with representatives of all parties to discuss what can be done to find a resolution of this impasse.
I have been sceptical about the ability of the House to investigate complaints effectively ever since I served on the Committee that inquired into the relationships between the late John Poulson and Members of the House. I have considerable sympathy with suggestions that we need to find a new way of dealing with such matters. I ask you again to reflect on whether you, as Speaker, might convene such a committee or group—call it what you like—consisting of Members and non-Members, who could investigate complaints against Members of the House.
It would also be extremely useful if the group could draw up a list of principles governing standards in public life—we have no such principles at present, and I do not believe that there is time for a royal commission to consider them again.

444
I ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider these matters seriously, since I know of your deep and genuine concern for the reputation of the House, which I believe is in grave danger of doing itself considerable damage.
Madam Speaker: As the House knows, I have no authority to take the type of action suggested by the hon. Gentleman, but I do take these matters seriously and I will look at all that he has said this afternoon.
There is no problem about raising matters of complaint. In the statement that I made on 12 July, when I granted precedence to a motion relating to a complaint now before the Committee on Privileges, I made it very clear that the Committee
"will have power to inquire not only into the matter of the particular complaint, but into the facts surrounding and reasonably connected with it".—[Official Report, 12 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 829.]
I worded that statement carefully. So if there is evidence relating to the matters that are now being raised and which have been raised this afternoon, it can be submitted to the Privileges Committee, which is free to consider the evidence. There really is no need for any further action by the House to bring that about; but I take seriously everything that has been said this afternoon and the points that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has just put to me.

Orders of the Day
  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill
  Lords amendments again considered.
  Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill

    Before Clause 134
    Lords amendment: No. 125, insert the following new clause—Criminal Injuries Compensation—
    (". In section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—

    (a) in subsection (2), for the words after "any provision" there shall be substituted the words "brought into force under subsection (1) above,"; and

    (b) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsection—

    "(2A) Sections 108 to 117 above and Schedules 6 and 7 to this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is passed.".")
    4.23 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 take Lords amendment No. 175.
    Mr. Howard: The aim of the amendment is to require the Government to drop the tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation, introduced on 1 April this year, which provides a simpler, faster and more easily understandable service for victims. The amendment would reinstate the old system by bringing into force the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which would make the old criminal injuries compensation scheme statutory. Hon. Members will recall that the House firmly rejected a similar amendment to the Bill on Report in March.
    Let me remind the House briefly of the background to the scheme, and why we changed it in the way that we did. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was introduced in 1964, following public concern that something should be done for the innocent victims of violent crime. The scheme was a new and experimental venture and, after alternative options had been considered, it was decided that compensation should be assessed on the basis of common law damages, since that made use of existing legal expertise. The level of demand was unknown—although I suspect that it is fair to say that no one foresaw an operation on anything like the scale that we see today.
    Madam Speaker: Order. It was remiss of me not to mention that this amendment involves privilege.
    Mr. Howard: As the House knows, provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for the old scheme to be made statutory, but those provisions were not brought into force. First, my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who was and is the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, requested a postponement so that the board could concentrate its efforts on dealing with the large backlog of unresolved cases. Shortly afterwards, it became increasingly evident that the old scheme needed fundamental revision.
    446
    When the old scheme was introduced 30 years ago, the level of crime—not just in this country, of course—was much lower than it is today. In the first full year of the scheme, 1965-66, there were just 2,500 claims, 1,164 awards were made and a total of £400,000 was paid in compensation.
    Since then, the increase in expenditure on compensation has been relentless. Twenty years ago, in 1973-74, the board received 12,000 claims, made 9,000 awards and paid out £4 million—still a modest amount by current standards. Ten years ago, in 1983-84, there were 32,000 new applications, 21,000 awards and a total of £33 million was paid out in compensation. By last year, however, there were 73,000 new applications, 41,000 awards and £165 million was paid in compensation.
    That increase in expenditure was not merely a result of the increase in the number of claims. During the past 10 years, average awards have increased by 5 per cent. a year more than inflation, almost doubling in real terms since 1979.
    If the old scheme had continued, by the turn of the century, the annual cost of compensation would have been in excess of £500 million. That rate of growth is simply not sustainable; nor do I think it appropriate for a state scheme funded by the taxpayer. Those rapidly escalating costs—
    Mrs. Barbara Roche: In the light of what the Home Secretary has just told the House, will he and the Government come absolutely clean with the public and admit what they have never admitted before— that the whole purpose of the changes to the scheme is to save money? The changes have absolutely nothing to do with offering a better service to the victims of crime.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady is wrong on at least two counts. First, it is not true that we denied that savings played an important part in the decision. They are not the only reason, because we have other important reasons, but savings are one reason and they are an important one, so the hon. Lady is wrong on that count. She is also wrong to suggest that savings are the only reason. Her protestations would carry a little more weight if those on the Opposition Front Bench had undertaken—when it was suggested to them on the last occasion that we discussed such matters on the Floor of the House—to reinstate the old scheme if they ever found themselves in government. They have consistently refused to give that undertaking, and without it the hon. Lady's protestations and those of her hon. Friends carry no weight.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Excuse me for intervening for the first time during the Bill. I have received representations on the question of criminal injuries from the Law Society of Scotland, where the law is a little different. I am not asking the Home Secretary to answer off the top of his head what are, frankly, complex representations. Because of the differences in Scottish law, all I ask is that the subject is dealt with. Can we tell the society that there will be reflections on its very real concerns?
    Mr. Howard: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had the concerns of the Law Society of Scotland drawn to his attention, as I have had drawn to my attention the concerns of the Law

    447
    Society for England and Wales. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will address those concerns in what he regards as the most appropriate way.
    The rapidly escalating costs highlight the stark fact that the old scheme offered no mechanism for exercising any control over costs. That was not the fault of the board. It was simply charged with administering the scheme—a job it has managed with considerable credit. Also, of course, in earlier years, when costs were relatively small, the need for control was not so apparent, but the rapid growth in expenditure on the scheme in recent years makes change imperative so that costs can be brought under control.
    4.30 pm
    Let me stress here just how generous our scheme is. It is by far the most generous anywhere in the world. In the most recent year for, which comparative figures are available, Great Britain paid out £165 million in compensation; France paid out £27 million, and Germany just £7 million. In fact, we pay out far more compensation than all the other European countries added together. We even paid out more last year than the United States of America—not more per head, but more in total—despite the fact that the United States has, of course, a vastly greater population, a much higher gross national product, much more violent crime and a very active victim support lobby.
    The tariff scheme will remain one of the most generous anywhere. Under the new scheme, 60 per cent. of beneficiaries will get as much as or more than they would have done under the old scheme.
    Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend concede that one of the failures of the present scheme is the inordinate delay in making payments to the victims of crime? When I was in practice, a matter of two years' delay was in no sense an exception and, as a constituency Member of Parliament, a case was brought to my attention recently of a delay of seven years in making payments. Will not the move to a tariff system ensure that we produce sums of money for victims more quickly than now?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend raises an important point, to which I shall come in just a moment—indeed, even sooner than that.
    Having pointed out that 60 per cent. or more of beneficiaries would get as much or more under the new scheme as under the old, I wish to add precisely the point made by hon. Friend; they will get their money more quickly. Of course it is true—I do not seek to hide the fact—that some people will get less. But most awards are comparatively small, and the vast majority are under £5,000.
    Mr. David Sumberg: I appreciate that, if 60 per cent. of beneficiaries will get the same, 40 per cent. will get less. That worries me, in the sense that they will be the headline cases. Will my right hon. and learned Friend address—either now or later in his speech—the proposal from the Law Society which would deal with
    448
    smaller claims on a tariff basis, but which would perhaps avoid the dangers that I have mentioned with the big claims?
    Mr. Howard: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point now. If he will permit me to correct him, it is not true that 60 per cent. of claimants will get the same. Sixty per cent. of claimants will get the same or more, and many will indeed get more.
    The scheme to which my hon. Friend refers and which was advanced by the Law Society is a hybrid one, which would provide a tariff for relatively small claims, and the same kind of scheme as we have at the moment for larger claims. It would involve endless difficulties at the demarcation line and endless challenges from those who felt that they were being hard done by because their claim was being dealt with under the tariff and not on the basis of compensation.
    We have looked carefully at the possibility of such a hybrid scheme, but I must tell my hon. Friend that the practical difficulties which it would involve would be insurmountable.
    Dr. Lynne Jones: I always understood that it was Conservative policy that we should aspire to the very best and not reach for the lowest common denominator. Why does that principle not apply in this case?
    Mr. Howard: It does not apply for the reasons that I have given. There is no question of going for the lowest common denominator, and I am afraid that the hon. Lady's question bears no relationship to the realities of the issues before us.
    Mr. Michael Shersby: The report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the year ending 31 March 1992 referred to four cases in which people received payments in excess of £500,000—awards of £689,000, £645,000, £568,000 and £521,000. They obviously involved serious cases, and were perhaps exceptional.
    Is my right hon. and learned Friend telling the House, however, that, with the introduction of the new tariff scheme, in that kind of case, where the individual has probably lost all opportunity ever to pursue his lawful occupation again, the person would have to rely on the tariff payment and the available state benefits to top up benefit received, rather than on the payments that he would have received under the old scheme? Can my right hon. and learned Friend clarify that point?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend has left out one important factor—there is, of course, the ceiling of £250,000 under the new scheme. In addition to that, a number of other payments and a number of other sources of help are available. For example, one of the elements that is taken into account when deciding compensation in serious cases is the provision of private health care for someone who suffered a serious injury, but the health care provided by the national health service is always available to that individual.
    My hon. Friend also referred, quite correctly, to all the other state benefits that are available and which will continue to be available. It is also important to bear in mind occupational benefits, which now assume such an important significance and will, of course, continue to be available.

    449
    It is important to remember that, under the present scheme, an offset operates in relation to occupational benefits and the awards made. Some of the figures that are cited, which seem to demonstrate that large losses will be suffered as compared to the awards made under the old scheme, do not tell the whole story. All the factors I have listed must be taken into account.
    It is also not entirely irrelevant to remember that some of the apparently worst cases would arise in respect of people who have high incomes, and therefore high loss of earnings claims. It is not unreasonable to suggest that someone with high earnings is in a position to make provision of his own for the kind of contingency that we are discussing. Additional help is available in a number of different ways, some of which were identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
    Mr. David Trimble: I should like to take up the right hon. and learned Gentleman's final point about the large sums of compensation that are often paid to people with high earnings. Such people often also have high liabilities. If a ceiling is put on the amount of compensation paid, does he accept that one will inevitably encounter cases where the amount of compensation paid will be much below the loss the person has suffered and possibly also below his commitments? Does he accept that that will cause grave financial hardship to that person? Such cases may be rare, but they will inevitably occur. If the Government stick to the tariff system, they are committing themselves to committing serious injustices to some people.
    Mr. Howard: I simply do not accept that it will lead to injustice. In the rare cases of injury to people with high earnings, they will know that if they suffer some accident through no one's fault—so they are unable to establish a claim of negligence—and which is not the result of any criminal act, they could find themselves in a serious financial position. We could all have an accident at any time that stopped us from working for the rest of our lives. People with high earnings—the category that we are currently discussing—know that it is possible for them to make provision against such a contingency. Just as it is reasonable to expect them to make provision for such a contingency in respect of accidental injury, so it is reasonable also to expect them to make a provision in respect of an injury that results from a criminal attack, rather than expect the taxpayer to underwrite the consequences of that contingency.
    That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about a situation in which everyone, whatever the source of their misfortune and whatever the source of the contingency that places him or her in that difficulty, is automatically entitled to compensation in every respect from the taxpayer. That is why, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I do not accept that the change that we are making leads to injustice.
    Mr. John Gunnell: The Home Secretary was saying that people on high incomes would have made provision, presumably through some sort of occupational scheme, for such a contingency. However, in this case we are discussing criminal injury, so the fact that someone could be injured through other mechanisms is not relevant in this case. Would not the age at which that injury occurs make a significant
    450
    difference to the extent to which the provision is effective? Will not a significant number of people with serious problems be gravely affected and their resources gravely reduced by the changes which the Home Secretary is introducing?
    Mr. Howard: In almost all cases, people in that position will have occupational benefits—usually substantial occupational benefits. Those are what they should look to in the first instance for compensation, and I believe that they will do so. If that factor is taken into account, the complaint about the provisions of the new scheme is seen, on examination, to have much less substance than seems to be the case at first sight.
    I now turn to the other main reason for reform. Hon. Members may recall that the Home Affairs Committee, in its 1990 report on the administration of the board, was highly critical of delays in the processing of claims. Undoubtedly, one reason for that was the enormous increase in business, which swallowed up the considerable staff increases made at the board. Staff numbers had more than doubled between 1978-79 and 1988-89, to a total of 312. The figure has since increased to no less than 460, and that does not include the 44 members of the board.
    Assuming that numbers of claims continue to grow, we could only expect further massive staff increases and corresponding increases in administrative costs to run the old scheme. The alternative would be ever-lengthening delays. I do not think that the House would regard either option as acceptable.
    Mr. Peter Butler: I echo the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) concerning delays. When I was in practice, delays of two years were considered not to be delays but swiftly-dealt-with applications. Worse, the Opposition seem to think that the present scheme is not far short of perfection. It is not. It is exceedingly flawed, as my right hon. and learned Friend says.
    One of the flaws is that the scheme was arbitrary in its application, so that someone with a previous conviction—I recall a case in which the person was convicted 15 years previously and had never reoffended—could still be ruled out of the scheme and receive nothing when, for 15 years, he or she had been a perfectly respectable member of the community. That effect needs to be remembered.
    The scheme was not good and had to be changed, and I commend the changes.
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The point that he raises is right.
    Mr. Alun Michael: May I correct one inaccuracy in the intervention of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Butler), for the benefit of the Home Secretary? There is no suggestion from this side of the House that the present scheme cannot be improved. We have always argued for change, in respect both of speeding up judgments and of making them more consistent. Our argument is simply that the cut in the availability of compensation to victims of the most horrendous crimes does not have to come with that improvement in the scheme.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman failed to give the undertaking to which I referred in answering a question from his hon. Friend earlier in our proceedings.

    451
    Notwithstanding what I have just said about how the board deals with claims, its efficiency has improved considerably with increasing use of information technology and streamlined management procedures. But the very terms of the old scheme—being based on common law damages—militated against more speedy resolution of cases. As a result of its complexities, a small industry has grown up around the scheme, in which ever more subtle calculations and fine judgments about medical prognoses are produced by applicants' lawyers or other representatives, engaging the board in equally time-consuming labour.
    I do not believe that that was the vision of the scheme's originators, or that it works to the general benefit of those the scheme is meant to help—the victims of crime. What is needed is a simple, user-friendly service that gets the money to the beneficiaries as quickly as possible and enables them to put the incident behind them and get on with their lives. That is exactly what the tariff scheme aims to do.
    Our White Paper, which was published last December, explained that there is no objectively "right" sum of money which can compensate an individual for the pain and hurt suffered as a result of criminal injury. Under the tariff scheme, therefore, we are not aiming to provide finely judged "compensation", in the sense of trying, in some way, to put the victim back in the position that he or she would have been in had the attack not taken place. Instead, we are providing a lump sum payment—and a generous one—in tangible recognition of society's concern for the blameless victim of a crime of violence.
    Under the tariff scheme, therefore, victims with comparable injuries will be treated in the same way. They will have a good idea in advance of how much compensation they are likely to get. That was far from the case under the old scheme. It gives the tariff scheme the advantages of simplicity and transparency. It will be easier for victims to understand, and simpler and less expensive to administer. Nevertheless, as the tariff levels have been based on nearly 20,000 recent awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, they reflect what actually happened in practice under the old common law damages scheme.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Home Secretary is explaining the simplicity of the scheme from his point of view. Will he explain how often and under what circumstances he expects the level of the tariffs to be uprated? Clearly, with inflation they will lose their value. What will be the basis for uprating the tariffs?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly fair question, with which I shall deal towards the end of my remarks this afternoon. I accept that that matter has given rise to some concern.

    We have left the basic rules for eligibility largely unchanged, so anyone who might have expected an award under the old scheme should be eligible under the new tariff scheme.
    I must emphasise that we are not in the business of change for its own sake. We recognise what is valuable and do not lightly alter it. We have changed the scheme because it was essential to do so.
    452
    We are sure that our new tariff scheme is the right way forward, but, as we made clear on several occasions previously, we shall monitor its working very closely. Its terms are not immutable. We shall continue to listen to the views of responsible people and practitioners and, if the scheme can be refined or improved in the light of experience, we shall not hesitate to make the necessary changes.
    I was just asked by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) what the arrangements are for reviewing the tariff bands. As I have said, we shall keep all aspects of the tariff scheme under review, but I can tell the House—this point has given rise to particular concern on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby)—that our intention is to review the tariff bands every three years.
    I also assure the House that, once the new scheme has settled down and any necessary adjustments or refinements have been made, we shall aim to put it on a statutory basis as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity occurs. But we must of course first be satisfied that the scheme is working as effectively as possible.
    Finally, I stress again that reversion to the old scheme, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve, is simply not a viable option. No responsible Government can allow a situation to continue in which costs grow so rapidly and in a way that cannot be checked.
    For all those reasons, I invite the House to reject the amendment.
    Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before responding to the Home Secretary, I want to refer to something that arose after he had begun his speech. I was amazed to hear the suggestion that we are dealing with a matter of privilege. Surely that cannot be. It involves no change to spending under the existing scheme and under existing legislation, so there cannot be any question of additional spending. The Government want to cut spending without the support and scrutiny of the House.
    There is a question whether the Government's action is legal. Permission has been given for judicial review of the Home Secretary's actions. I appreciate that it would be convenient for the Government if the matter were to be dealt with under privilege, but there has been no previous suggestion of that during our many months of debate and in the long period during which there has been notice of the likelihood of the matter being referred back by the House of Lords.
    Obviously, it is impossible to deal with the matter fully and to challenge the ruling on the hoof. I simply give notice of our belief that the ruling that it is a matter of privilege should be set aside. We want to put forward reasoned arguments on that point at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The advice that I have received is that the House authorities advise that Lords amendment No. 125 raises questions of common privilege because the legal position under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which activates the statutory scheme by order, is proposed to be changed so that the scheme comes directly into force. An option to spend money is replaced by an obligation. Perhaps the hon.

    453
    Gentleman would like to reflect on that. I am happy to give him a copy of that ruling. I hope that he will now respond to the Home Secretary's opening speech.
    Mr. Michael: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first opportunity we have had to hear that explanation. I believe that the ruling is open to challenge and argument, and we shall seek to do that in the most appropriate way. We will seek guidance on how to do it outside the debate, so that we do not delay it further.
    The motion illustrates better than anything else the deep hypocrisy at the heart of the Conservative party—a party led by a Prime Minister and a Home Secretary who are ready to pay lip service to the claims of victims and to cry crocodile tears, while being willing to conspire to slash the level of compensation available to the victims of the most vicious and disabling crimes of violence.
    The Home Secretary claims that the Government are acting in the interests of victims. He says that the present system involves delay and that a tariff system will speed up the payment of cash to victims. That is a lame attempt to stave off criticism. It should not be beyond the wit of a half-competent Minister to devise a scheme that pays out quickly on simple cases but allows fair and generous settlements when the injury and loss are great. Ending delay gives no excuse for the cut.
    Let us consider the scale of opposition from, and outrage felt by, those who have first-hand knowledge of the way in which the cut will damage those whose lives have already been devastated by violent crime, and then let us consider the impact on real people. The opposition to the cut includes the House of Lords, the Police Federation, the Royal College of Nursing, the Fire Brigades Union and the Law Society, not to mention Victim Support and the chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
    Why will Ministers not listen to that mass of informed and authoritative opinion? Let us listen to the strength of that authoritative opinion. In the debate in the other place on 2 March, Lord Carlisle, the chairman of the CICB, said that, in the board's unanimous view, the proposed tariff scheme was fundamentally flawed, manifestly unfair and a retrograde step.
    Victim Support described the changes as hasty and ill thought out. Its director said on 23 February:
    "We are shocked at what Government is proposing. Many people will lose out significantly in future. I find it amazing that the Government can introduce such sweeping changes having taken no external advice. We are calling on the Government to suspend their plans and instigate a proper review of the way in which victims are compensated for violent crime."
    Did the Government listen? Did they institute a proper review? Did they open their proposals to objective scrutiny? No, they did not.
    Let us consider the actual impact on real individuals. I ask hon. Members on both sides to remember that the pain of such incidents of violence—which often devastate a life for ever—is invisible and unreal until the victim is someone you know and love, or even yourself. The first case I shall cite is that of a London Underground booking clerk who was the victim of armed robbery twice in the space of seven days. In the first, a gun was pointed directly at him. In the second, five shotgun and pistol
    454
    rounds were fired during the robbery. The man was unable to return to work and he lost his job. He is now in low-paid employment.
    As a side issue, a complicating factor was that the man had been present at the King's Cross fire disaster, and was therefore already suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, it was the two armed robberies that caused his retirement. The claim was finalised a few weeks ago with an award of £73,000. Under the new tariff scheme, he would have been awarded £7,500—one tenth of the present award. Independent research shows that the changes proposed by the Government would involve many victims losing by many thousands of pounds.
    I shall give two further examples. The first is a female psychiatric nursing sister aged 35 at the date of the hearing. She was assaulted by a patient and suffered extensive injury. She was assessed as 15 per cent. disabled for life and unfit for any work. The award, including an assessment for loss of future earnings and the future cost of home help, was £126,943. Under the Home Secretary's proposal, she would get just £5,000.
    The second case is that of a male police officer aged 34 at the time of the award. He was assaulted and sustained serious back injuries. He was unable to sit, stand or walk for long periods, and he was unable to carry out heavy tasks involving lifting or carrying. He retired on a medical pension. He was awarded £121,000 to cover loss of future earnings. Under the Government's proposal, he would get just £7,500.
    We are facing a treble whammy. We are hit by crime, which has doubled under this Government—
    Mr. Howard rose—
    Mr. Michael: I shall just finish the point, as I think it is one to which the Home Secretary might well wish to respond. As I said, we are hit by crime, which has doubled under this Government; we now have to pay VAT on home and car insurances, which have shot up to cover the cost of crime; and now the Government want to steal compensation from the victims of some of the most violent and horrific crimes. I am happy to allow the Home Secretary to intervene to respond to that point.
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman must not convey a misleading impression. It is quite wrong to suggest, for example, that the police officer in the case that he quoted would be limited to £7,500 compensation under the scheme—assuming that to be the right figure. He would be entitled to his average pensionable pay plus a gratuity of five times the amount of his annual pensionable pay. Therefore, he would have a gratuity of five times his annual pensionable pay and a pension of 85 per cent. of his annual pensionable pay. It would be quite wrong to give the impression that the police officer would be left with £7,500 alone.
    Similar points can be made about the other examples the hon. Gentleman cited. Serious issues are at stake relating to this change, and it would be wrong to deal with them on the basis of a wholly misleading impression, which is what the hon. Gentleman is trying to convey.
    Mr. Michael: The Home Secretary well knows that I am not conveying a misleading impression. I am comparing the figures that are available under the current system with what would apply if the Home Secretary has his way.

    455
    I want to bring to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention the comments of a police officer who bravely agreed to join me to publicise the effect of the change on any of his colleagues who might share his experience—not because he wants to support us or to make a political point, but because he is concerned about his colleagues who will be damaged if they have experiences similar to his. He said that nothing could bring back his health or the job he loved or, indeed, the opportunity to participate in sport, which had been very important in his life; but he doubted whether he could have survived the last couple of years if he had not had the level of criminal injury compensation that was awarded to him under the present scheme. That is accurate, and it is the argument that we are advancing. I noticed that the Home Secretary did not seek to respond to my accusation that the Government had given us a treble whammy.
    Mr. Max Madden: My hon. Friend has spoken of the 40 per cent. of people who are likely to lose under the Government's scheme. That figure has not been challenged by the Home Secretary or anyone else. If anyone is dissatisfied with the tariff settlement that he or she is offered under the Government's scheme, is there any right of appeal to an independent organisation with a right to vary any tariff offer?
    5 pm
    Mr. Michael: That is the problem. As I said, it should not be beyond the wit of a half-competent Minister to come up with a system that includes the benefits of a tariff—preferably better calculated than the one offered—and also enables specific circumstances to be taken into account, either immediately or on appeal. My hon. Friend is right. The Home Secretary could hardly deny the extent to which people will lose. Within the 40 per cent. of people who would lose as a result of the Government's new scheme would be those victims of the most horrific attacks and those on whom the effect of the change would be the most devastating.
    In view of the Home Secretary's intervention, I should say that, under the old scheme, in the case I mentioned, even after the victim's pension is deducted from his earnings loss, the total of past and future loss is more than ten times the award under the new scheme. That is the honest answer, and I hope that the Home Secretary will review his figures and the facts in the case.
    The Lords amendment brings into force the criminal injuries compensation scheme contained in section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It ensures that the current scheme is made statutory, and it throws out the Government's proposed scheme.
    The Government's proposal replaces a scheme based on individual assessment of the loss to the victim with one based on a crude tariff. Unlike the current system, the new scheme will make no allowance for the victim's loss of earnings, medical expenses or structural changes to his or her house necessitated by the injury—we should remember the horrendous nature of some of the injuries. But those elements are vital for a fair system of compensation.
    Other examples abound. An attack left a victim with a brain injury requiring continuous care day and night. Under the present system, the compensation is £500,000;
    456
    under the new proposals it would be just £40,000. The new scheme would remove the dependency award in fatal cases, which would result in greatly reduced compensation for some families who have suffered a bereavement. For example, the woman with two children who saw her husband dying on her doorstep after a stabbing received £137,000 in 1993; under the Government's proposals she would receive just £17,500, which is outrageous.
    It is precisely those victims who suffer the worst injuries who will be most heavily penalised under the new proposals. The Government are letting down those victims and the public, and, in addition, they are letting down public servants such as police officers, nurses and firefighters, who risk so much in our service and who will be shoddily treated if the Government get their way.
    The Home Secretary should recognise, even at this late stage, that the new scheme is misguided, and should withdraw his opposition to the Lords amendment. That would still allow him to bring forward changes, but would allow him to seek the approval of this House and the other place for changes, which might then constitute improvements rather than the undermining of an important element of the scheme.
    Mr. Howard: I do not know how near the hon. Gentleman is to the end of his remarks, and I may have misjudged the timing of my intervention, but I hope that he will not sit down without saying whether or not his party is prepared to give an undertaking to restore the old scheme if it ever becomes the Government of this country.
    Mr. Michael: The Home Secretary did not misjudge the timing of his intervention, but its nature, as well as the nature of the change that he is trying to introduce. The Home Secretary knows that it would be foolish for an Opposition Member to anticipate the state of legislation and the disastrous state of the economy that the Government will leave us. We look forward to that day with trepidation, but we shall also take on the challenge with pride when the Government finally leave office.
    It comes as no surprise that the Government have proposed a scheme without consulting any agency that deals with victims, and that none of those agencies supports it. The Government did not even consult the chairman of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, Lord Carlisle, who stated in another place:
    "I turn to my other criticism"—
    it was only one of his criticisms—
    "that it is being brought in without any attempt at consultation. I find that extraordinary. The board which has been responsible for running the scheme for 30 years was not consulted in any way before the decision of principle to change the basis of compensation was taken. I was asked to go and see the then Home Secretary"—
    the current Chancellor—
    "and was informed that he would be announcing his decision to Parliament the following day."
    It is a pity that the present Home Secretary did not allow his predecessor to take the proposal with him. Perhaps the reason for that is that his predecessor refuses to allow him enough money to run his Department—but that is a matter of misery within the Government, rather than a matter for us.
    It is not surprising that, having omitted to consult anyone who works with victims, the Government have proposed a scheme that is so fundamentally misconceived. Their true reason for doing so is to save money. Of course

    457
    we all want value for money, but it is not acceptable to save money at the expense of the most vulnerable victims of crime.
    When we last discussed the matter, on 28 March, the Home Secretary quoted two figures. He said that, since 1987-88, there had been only a 50 per cent. increase in the number of applications, but a threefold increase in compensation. In a devastating analysis in another place, Lord Carlisle showed that, allowing for inflation, the average award in 1993-94 prices in 1988 was £3,486. In March this year, the average was £3,778—hardly a massive increase. Similarly revealing is Lord Carlisle's assessment of the Home Secretary's claim that, since 1965-66, applications under the scheme had risen by 27 per cent. but compensation had risen by 378 per cent.
    Lord Carlisle said:
    "If instead of comparing applications we compare the number of cases, and if we take into account the tenfold reduction in the value of money in that period, we find that on their calculation the average award in 1965 was £3,458 and it is £3,778 today, which is something less than a 10 per cent. increase in a period of 29 years."
    Not only is the proposed scheme misguided and mean-spirited: it is contrary to our international obligations. The Home Secretary made great play of international comparisons, but the European convention on compensation for victims of violent crime, to which Britain is a signatory, states:
    "Compensation shall cover … loss of earnings, medical and hospitalisation expenses and funeral expenses, and as regard dependants, loss of maintenance".
    There are, in addition, profound concerns about the manner in which the Government have sought to change the scheme. As I said in a point of order, that matter is before the courts. Suffice it to say that the Government decided not to implement section 171 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which would have put the present scheme on a statutory basis. Instead, they sought to introduce the changes by prerogative power, which led Lord Ackner to say in another place:
    "Some may think that it bears the hallmark of elective dictatorship."
    Lord Carlisle said:
    "What is Parliament's purpose if one can commend one action to Parliament and then decide to do something totally different without going back to Parliament for approval?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1836, 1834, 1829, 1835.]
    Whatever the arguments about the way that the scheme was introduced, the Government's proposals to change the scheme will drastically affect those who are most seriously injured in criminal attacks. Surely that cannot be right. Neither the Government nor the Conservative party will ever again be able to claim concern for the victims of crime in future when they are treating them so callously today. No Conservative Members of Parliament will be able to claim an interest in victims in their speeches or election material if they vote to disagree with the Lords amendment today.
    No Conservative Member of Parliament who speaks of the sad case of a constituent who has a miserable life as a result of an inadequate level of compensation will have any credibility in the House if he or she votes to disagree with the Lords amendment today. I warn Conservative Members to bear that in mind if compassion and common sense fail alone fail to persuade them to join us in voting against the disgraceful motion to disagree.
    Mr. Shersby: I wish to declare an interest, in that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales and also president of Uxbridge Victim Support.
    I have taken a close interest in criminal injuries compensation and raised the matter in an Adjournment debate on 18 March 1993 when I first became aware, as a result of discussions with Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, that changes were afoot. I shall read a short extract from the reply given by the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). He said:
    "It is important to take some time to explain the conceptual change in the nature of the new scheme"—
    the tariff scheme. He went on:
    "Many people will accept that no amount of money can fully or properly compensate people for criminal injury, and that it is perhaps unrealistic to believe otherwise. There is no such thing as an 'absolute' or 'right' figure for the hurt suffered. Awards under common law damages are necessarily subjective, not objective. Even the courts are sometimes accused of inconsistency in the awards they make."—[Official Report, 18 March 1993; Vol. 221, c.506.]
    That was an interesting statement which revealed the Minister's thinking on this important issue.
    My concern is not only for police officers who are members of the Police Federation but for many other people who suffer criminal injuries and are left severely disabled. One of my concerns about changing the system is whether the tariff scheme would take account of an individual's loss of earnings if he or she were not able to work again. In my discussions with the present Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and other Ministers at the Home Office, I have been given the impression that the tariff level established at the inception of the proposed new scheme took account of loss of earnings, but perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, or whoever winds up the debate, will confirm that. It is essential that any compensation scheme should take account of an individual's loss of earnings.
    My second worry about the proposed change is that the level of payments under the tariff scheme would inevitably be whittled away by the effects of inflation, although inflation is very low at the moment, which is to be welcomed. I pressed my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter and was grateful that, in response to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), he announced today that the tariff bands would be reviewed every three years. That is at least a step in the right direction and it means that we shall not be saddled with a scheme under which the value of compensation is whittled away over time.
    Any hon. Member reflecting on what the Home Secretary has said today and what he said on 28 March 1994 has to recognise the burden placed on the Exchequer by the costs of the present compensation scheme. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
    "We estimate that, without reform, the annual cost of the present arrangements could be in the region of £500 million by the end of the decade. Under the new tariff scheme, the cost is likely to be about £250 million—still a very large sum by the standards of any other state scheme."—[Official Report, 28 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 686.]
    Like any responsible hon. Member, I have to consider the cost of any scheme instituted to pay criminal injuries compensation. I and many others realise that a scheme

    459
    instituted 30 years ago, in circumstances very different to those prevailing today, cannot necessarily remain unchanged. Were it to do so, the costs would rise enormously. If we are to stay with the existing scheme and make it statutory, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) suggests, it is incumbent on us to state how it is to be financed in the future. The only way that it could continue to be financed is by a reordering of priorities in terms of total Government expenditure. Anyone who wishes a scheme to continue without regard to cost must be prepared to propose changes in priorities. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to mutter, but that is the truth.
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Michael rose—
    Mr. Shersby: I shall give way a little later.
    Mr. Michael rose—
    Mr. Shersby: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make an important point that he believes cannot wait.
    Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is trying to provoke a response. The Government have presided over massive increases in the levels of crime, just as they have presided over massive increases in unemployment which have had a great impact on Government expenditure. The hon. Gentleman should remember that he is a Tory Back Bencher and that it is his Government who have caused many of the problems.
    Mr. Shersby: If I may say so, that was a rather poor intervention and not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. Crime—especially burglary—in the area that I represent has fallen substantially in the past year as a result of excellent policing of the area.
    Mr. Michael indicated dissent.
    Mr. Shersby: Yes, it has. It has fallen significantly because of Operation Bumblebee. Unemployment across the country is also falling steadily every month. That is my response to the hon. Gentleman's rather stupid intervention, which was hardly worthy of a Front-Bench spokesman.
    Mr. Michael Stephen: My hon. Friend and I have been here since April 1992. In that time, has my hon. Friend heard anything from the Opposition parties spokesmen that would lead him to suppose that their policies would result in a reduction in crime or in unemployment?
    Mr. Shersby: I can answer my hon. Friend easily—I have not.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Shersby: No, I shall not give way at the moment.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred to the ability of individuals, especially those with higher incomes, to insure against criminal injuries. It is an interesting point, but perhaps he will tell the House whether the average accident policy covers criminal
    460
    injuries or whether it would be necessary for individuals to take out a special policy. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) would have been covered had he suffered an even more serious injury than that which he unhappily experienced as a result of what happened outside the House last night. If my right hon. and learned Friend is to rely on private accident insurance, it must be clear beyond all doubt that such insurance is available at a price that people can readily afford.
    My response to the proposals are twofold. First, I should like to record my warm appreciation of what the Home Secretary said today about the triennial review of the present scheme. He has taken account of one of my key concerns and I am, as always, grateful for his attention.
    Secondly, I do not believe that it is right or proper for any of us to demand that a scheme that has been in operation for a long time should continue, irrespective of the cost burden that it places on the taxpayer. One has to review such schemes from time to time and, although I and many people would have liked the current level of compensation to continue over a long period, I recognise the cogent arguments made by the Home Secretary on 28 March 1994.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The victims of crime rarely find that their sufferings and grief end with the direct effects of the crime itself, severe though those may be. Frequently, their suffering extends into a sense of frustration and anger at the way in which they have been treated by the system during and after the investigation and trial, a sense that continues when they feel that their problems have been forgotten and neglected afterwards. One of the few sources of relief from that frustration is the system of criminal injuries compensation. Maintaining that system and ensuring that it works effectively must be a priority for anybody in any party who wants to recognise and deal with the problems of victims of crime.
    The Home Secretary cannot escape from the fact that the measures that he took to change the compensation scheme before the Bill came before the House involved saving money; that was what they were intended to do. Inevitably, they did so at the expense of victims of crime.
    That was all done on the basis of figures that have been vigorously challenged by those who have the best claim to understand the situation, especially the chairman of the board, our former colleague, Lord Carlisle, who did not understand how the Government could have arrived at their projection of how rapidly the cost of the scheme would increase. He claimed, with some authority, that if the Government's assumptions were correct and there were a 19.5 per cent. increase in the year just ended, the body should already have spent an extra £180 million, whereas it had spent only an extra £165 million. Already, in the first year of the calculation, the assessment of how rapidly the cost of the scheme would increase is £15 million out. The basis of the Government's figures has been seriously challenged.
    The victims charter—it is still remembered—encouraged the police to tell people to apply for compensation, but they would have been applying for it under a compensation scheme that has now been radically changed. The Home Secretary must realise that there are serious disadvantages to put alongside the supposed advantages of a tariff system.

    461
    Perhaps the most compelling instance of the disadvantage of a tariff system is the fact that it takes no account of the consequences of the injury for the livelihood of individuals, and their ability to earn their living and to maintain anything like their previous standard of living. Such considerations relate to the age of the people concerned and the extent to which the injury affects their livelihood.
    Inevitably, those who will suffer most from the changes include some of those whose injuries are the worst and have the most disastrous effect on their future mobility. Some of those who suffer most will be the youngest people, who will suffer the consequences of crime over so many more years, and whose ability to earn their own living will have been destroyed or severely damaged by the crime.
    Among those people will be injured police officers, often young men and women—both men and women have suffered criminal injury through service in the police force. That category will also include prison officers and people in civilian life who have to confront violence and criminality more often than many of us, because of the nature of their work. Examples are local authority staff, security guards and self-employed contractors, who, because of the nature of their work and where it takes place, come into contact with crime. Those people may be in a much less favourable position to make their own provision for insurance against crime than people on high earnings. I am talking about people running small one-man and one-woman businesses, who may be exposed to the danger of crime.
    The figures quoted in the debate and the references to people on higher earnings have sometimes ignored the limitations already in the system. As I understand it, the scheme does not take into account earnings of more than one and a half times the national average, so there is no question of the old scheme doling out large sums of money to people simply because they had a huge earning capacity. Quite a modest limit on the level of earnings that can be taken into account is clearly built in.
    The problems that will be faced under the new scheme have been vividly bought to light by Lord Carlisle, Lord Ackner and Martin Thomas QC, who, after serving on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for eight years, resigned in December 1993, with great regret, to protest against the changes and the serious consequences that he felt that they would have. The Home Secretary should not treat lightly the views of such people, or those of other organisations with considerable experience in dealing with victims of crime, who can see the reasoning behind the awards made, and who are deeply concerned about the consequences.
    There is also a constitutional point underlying the amendment. The Government never implemented the statutory basis for criminal injuries compensation that this House and the other place intended should exist. The format of the amendment is designed to implement that statutory basis. We all realise that if the Government agreed to do that they would do it with modifications to the scheme. No doubt, for the reasons that they have advanced, they would seek to apply further financial restraints.
    The framework of the Bill offered the Government an opportunity to put the new scheme on a statutory basis, and at the same time to listen to the concerns and objections of the people who understand how the old
    462
    scheme has worked and the terrible suffering that it deals with, and who believe, as many of us do, that victims of serious crime will be severely damaged by the changes.
    In making his projections for the possible cost of not changing the scheme, the Home Secretary seems to have little confidence in what he has said about reducing crime. He has stood before two Conservative conferences and told them that he would cut crime, but he does not show much confidence in the 27 measures that he announced last year if he thinks that there will still be spiralling costs because of increasing crime. The most effective way to reduce the future cost of the criminal injuries compensation scheme would be to reduce crime, and to introduce the measures involving policing in the community and changing attitudes in the community that many of us believe will bring that about.
    The victims of crime must command sufficient attention from the Government to prevent them from being as seriously disadvantaged as I believe that many of them will be by the new scheme. Their lordships were right to seek, through the Bill, to bring the Government back to that issue. The Government made changes without any statutory authority or parliamentary basis. Here is an opportunity for us to put things back on a statutory basis and to have a modified scheme properly determined by statute. For that reason, I encourage my hon. Friends to vote for the Lords amendment.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall first deal with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the Opposition spokesman. The logic of his criticism would be to go back to the old system and spend even more than the £570 million that we should have expected to spend, if the system had been left in place, in order to reduce delays.
    Will the hon. Gentleman give a commitment to that much more public spending if the Labour party ever takes power in this country? Of course he will not; nor was it to have been expected. What he says is just words. The Opposition always use the phrase "weasel words", but if people want weasel words and unconvincing words, there they are, without any commitment.
    The hon. Gentleman cites bodies that want more money to be spent. Of course they do. Every spending body wants more money to be spent, especially if it can be raised from the taxpayer. If the Government gave way to every claim to spend more, the deficit would be not £40 billion but £400 billion, and the British economy, instead of being one of the safest in Europe, would be one of the sickest. It would be the laughing stock of Europe, as it was when the Labour Government were in power.
    The hon. Gentleman said that it was not beyond the wit of a half-competent Home Secretary to come up with another scheme that combined the old and the new. But what about a half-competent Opposition spokesman? Where is his alternative scheme? He has all these groups and all these bodies closest to the question of criminal injuries compensation which support him. They have been thinking about the matter, agonising about the matter and worrying about the matter. Have they come up with the alternative scheme which would be an improvement on the scheme that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has introduced?

    463
    5.30 pm

    Finally, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth attacks the Government's record on victims. At least this Government have a record of achievement for victims. The previous Labour Government had none at all. They spent less money on victims; they did not have a victims charter; they did not give victim support and victim counselling in the courts. If victim support is so poor, why are so many victims coming forward to complain, especially women who are the subject of rape and sexual offences? They never came forward in the days when we had a Labour Government and there was no concern about victims.
    These criticisms are, again, just pathetic. They are just words and they have no content. It is the new-look Labour party, made for television, made for the sound bite and made for public consumption, which is actually meaningless and contentless.
    We must support the Government in their stand on the criminal injuries compensation scheme because the Lords amendments would clearly wreck the scheme and because it is necessary to take action as the Government propose.
    Mr. Bennett: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is so keen to criticise the Opposition, can he tell us the extent to which he expects the bill to be reduced over the next two or three years as a result of the Home Secretary getting tough on crime? Does he expect that policy to work? Does he expect the amount that has to be spent on victims to be reduced, or not?
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: We know that there has been an increase in crime every year since the end of the war. We also know that the increase in crime in this country is consistent with increases in crime in all other countries in the western world except those that have far more repressive forms of punishment. We also know that there has been a reduction in crime in the past year. We have had little praise from the Labour party for having done what it has suggested that the Government should do—that is, to reduce crime. We are reducing crime at a rate of between 5 and 10 per cent. a year. If that means so little to the Labour party, perhaps Labour Members should get up on television more often and say, "We ought to have more crime, not less crime as the Government are achieving through their policies with the support of the police and the courts."
    Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that even if the fall in crime were at the level of 5 or 6 per cent., as he suggests—and that is not the case in terms of genuine crime or of crimes of violence—it would take 15 years to get back to the level under the previous Labour Government, at which time crime was actually going down?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We need to get back to the criminal injuries compensation scheme rather than discussing the wider scene.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be happy to pursue the matter. No doubt we shall do so on other occasions. I should be more than happy to defend the Government's record.
    I come back to the present criminal injuries compensation scheme, which I have said is necessary and which the Lords amendments would wreck. The reason why it is necessary is quite simply that the previous
    464
    scheme was getting out of hand. The scheme before 1 April was getting too expensive. It was becoming too inefficient and too unfair. I do not say that as a criticism of the work of Lord Carlisle, who must be complimented on the great deal of effort that he, his team and his predecessors have put into the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board over so many years, with so many awards and such substantial increases. Therein, of course, lies part of the problem.
    The scheme was getting too expensive because the cost was rising from an equivalent of £4 million in 1965 to £570 million in six years' time. That is totally unacceptable. If the figures are inaccurate—I am the first to concede that Government figures are often inaccurate, because the Treasury is famous for its inaccurate assessments, whether to the good or to the bad—to the extent of £16 million in one year, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, that would amount to an inaccuracy of about £100 million in six years' time. That is still an increase from the equivalent of £4 million when the scheme was set up to £470 million in six years' time, which is an enormous sum. It is an exponential increase which must be addressed by any responsible Government.
    The scheme was getting too inefficient because of the delays, which were getting longer and longer. There were sometimes delays of years. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) and for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler). Every hon. Member must have written to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board over the past year or two on behalf of constituents who complained that after a year, two years or even longer, they had still not received their money. I would much rather receive £1,000 next month than £1,500 in two or three years' time. Everywhere, we see that delays in payment are expensive and hurtful to those who will rely on the payments to achieve a certain standard of living after serious injury as a result of crime. The figures speak for themselves. We have gone from 2,500 claims 30 years ago to 73,000 claims now, with 41,000 awards.
    The system was also getting unfair because there were too many examples of similar injuries attracting different amounts of compensation. Unfairness has arisen, which can be corrected to some extent by a tariff system.
    As a result of those unfairnesses and inefficiencies and because of the exponential cost, the Government have proposed a new scheme which contains the cost, reduces the inefficiencies and the delay and is a bit fairer. It is not perfect. How could it be? In a perfect world, costs would be unlimited, delays would not exist, each case would be perfectly tailored and there would be no feelings of injustice caused by one person getting a different surn because his or her income was greater. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has outlined and reminded us of the scheme. It is there in the Bill for all of us to see. It is an attempt to provide, as broadly as we can, the current levels of award, based on an assessment of 20,000 cases, which does not sound to me an unreasonable cross-section. The question is not whether it is perfect, but whether it does more harm than good.
    The scheme does do some harm; we have to accept that some people will suffer. We have to listen and we have to accept the fact that some of the hard cases that have

    465
    been outlined by hon. Members in this debate may well be true. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that 40 per cent. of cases might not be as well paid out as they are at present, but that 60 per cent. of cases will be as well, if not better, paid out.
    I am concerned, as Opposition Members are, about police officers and prison officers. I have listened to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said about taking into consideration all the benefits that would accrue in the form of awards of one kind or another to police officers. We must ensure that police officers, through occupational pensions, receive benefits that are, perhaps, greater in future than they have been in the past.
    When one looks at the alternative suggested by the Law Society and others, one must realise that if it will undermine the virtues of the new proposals, it must be unacceptable. The harm is not as great as some people are suggesting. We would still have the most generous scheme in the world. It is seven times more generous than the French, 20 times more generous than the Germans, and perhaps five or six times more generous than in the United States—where, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, there is an active victim lobby. Certainly, it is the most generous in the world if one includes Northern Ireland, which we always try to do in our proceedings in this place.
    The new scheme is a tariff system, but one cannot complain about a tariff system. Even now, the criminal injuries compensation scheme, or the scheme that existed before 1 April, was a form of tariff system. All the judges apply a tariff system. So it is merely an extension and a variation of the tariff system.
    Yes, loss of earnings will not be taken into consideration as a special damage. But that caused most of the delay. Fifty per cent. of the time spent on awards which, at the end, produced only about £100, was taken up by trying to assess with employers, sometimes with great difficulty, or with social security offices, when there was sometimes even greater difficulty, what the precise level of earnings loss had been. It is, in any event, somewhat doubtful whether a significant increase in payment ought to be due simply because one victim is earning more than the other, even though the injury is the same.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that under the old criminal injuries compensation scheme, the assessment of damages for loss of earnings amounted very often to no more than crystal gazing? It was a notoriously inexact science and was often no more than an educated guess.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: And often, it produced only something like £100, for which there had been a delay of perhaps a year or two in trying to assess the sum. Also, the system is not so harmful because it will be cheaper. If it brings down the increase in costs from £166 million this year to £243 million in six years' time—a saving of £327 million or, if the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is right, a saving of only £227 million—that money can be better spent elsewhere. It can be spent on a wider form of victim support. It can be spent on more health or more legal aid, or even in a reduction of taxation. Those are important benefits, even if it is no longer necessary because of the way in which the economy is improving, further to reduce the deficit.
    466
    It is a fact that the scheme is estimated to provide an improved situation or a no-worse situation for 60 per cent. of cases and it is a fact that social welfare, private insurance and occupational benefit schemes can be added to the benefits that will accrue from criminal injuries compensation. It will be more efficient because it will no longer be necessary to have a highly staffed board. There will be fewer appeals; there will be speedier settlements. As I have said, most people would rather have a sum of money in their pocket quickly, for the purposes of helping themselves immediately back to health, than a slightly larger sum of money a long time later.
    We have to strike a balance. There is no way in which we can try to be perfect. The scheme does not apply to people who are victims of other kinds of injury other than criminal injury. We do not make any pretence with special schemes to try to help those who are not falling foul of criminal injury, so there is an injustice in the existing system.
    5.45 pm
    On balance, there seems to be far more for the Government's scheme than against it. If we apply the Bentham rule of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, the scheme should qualify. Furthermore, it is consistent with the view that the House has already expressed on an important occasion in March when we voted for the Government scheme. Now that the Home Secretary has given an undertaking that his mind is not closed to improvements in the scheme if it should be seen to be lacking, it is obvious that, on balance, there is more sense in supporting the Government's proposal and less sense in opposing it, for there is no alternative that could be seen to be workable. Therefore, in those circumstances, we should reject the Lords amendment.
    Mr. John Morris: The Lords amendment gives us an opportunity to consider real anxieties about the conduct of the Government in relation to Parliament and also the unfairness of the tariff proposal. I find the attitude of the Government, on the face of it, to the future of the much-valued CICB incomprehensible and indefensible. It is, in fact, an affront to Parliament. Parliament gave of its time to consider the Government's proposals in 1988 and 10 clauses of the Criminal Justice Act in 1988 dealt with the statutory scheme. It was high time then that there was a statutory scheme, after a very long—far too long—trial period and it was being put in order as it should have been.
    The Bill ignores the 1988 Act. There was no mention of it until the Opposition tabled amendments. It is not even repealed. It will lie idle on the statute book. Instead, we have a non-statutory scheme and the Government have played ducks and drakes with Parliament and the time that Parliament gave to passing the 1988 Act. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity that the Lords have given us.
    The Home Secretary said today that the proposed scheme is generous. There is always a case for examining a scheme, especially a scheme that has been going for a long time. But if one changes a scheme that has brought benefit to hundreds of thousands of people, we should examine whether the change proposed is a fair change: whether there is fairness in what is now proposed. The scheme before us has no friends anywhere other than on the Conservative Benches.

    467
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) quoted a large number of important and knowledgeable organisations that oppose and have opposed what is proposed. Their lordships' House opposed it. The ink is hardly dry on the victims charter before the rug is pulled from under the very victims who the Government put themselves up as being their protectors. Those victims, the 40 per cent. who are the losers, will know that this Government do not care about them. The new scheme is Treasury led, it is a means of saving money and saving money in an unfair way. The argument is about the proposed unfair tariff system.
    We are replacing a carefully considered scheme, which had been working well—too well, the Government say—over the years, trying to put the principles of the common law into practice, by trying to put the injured back so far as was possible, financially at least, to the way they were before the accident or the injury. The common law has developed sensitively over the centuries and taken account paymentsof varying circumstances and a range of considerations. Instead of retaining the sensitive scheme, which had been run by the CICB, the Government have imposed a flat tariff and we have heard the admission that 40 per cent. of people will be losers.
    We have to go back to ancient Greece to find a parallel. Procrustes sought to harmonise his victims by putting them on one of his two beds. If they were too short for one bed, he extended the victims' legs by pulling on them and if they were too long for the other bed, he cut the legs off. That was bad government then and this new tariff is bad government now.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred to several examples and I want to refer to one or two. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was concerned about the loss of earnings. As the Home Secretary has told us, there may well be an element of loss of earnings in the tariff, but it will be a fixed amount and will not take into account the variable circumstances. That is the essence of a flat tariff.
    A young skilled steeplejack who fractures his leg obviously has a greater financial loss than a retired pensioner in his seventies. The common law has always recognised that. Anyone in physical employment has the potential of greater financial loss. A high earner's loss is bound to be higher than a low earner's loss. We should be very interested to discover how wide accident policies are, as indicated by the Home Secretary, to cover that kind of contingency. We should like to know how many people are covered by such policies.
    The scarred face of a girl model cannot be compared to a similar scar on a middle-aged man. That is what the common law has always been about, that is what our courts have emulated and that is what the board was trying to do its best to achieve.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?
    Mr. Morris: No, I do not have time. I am trying to close my comments.
    All that I have described will be thrown out the window and in its place there will be a flat tariff which is fundamentally flawed in that it takes no account of age, sex or occupation.
    468
    I agree that the tariff figures are generally comparable to what is awarded at common law for pain and suffering. However, there is no proper means of effectively and fairly compensating for loss of wages or earning capacity.
    One cannot have that. I shall be fascinated by the Home Secretary's explanation of a flat tariff.
    Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, an esteemed, distinguished and respected Member of our House over many years said:
    "In cases such as sexual abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder or scarring, the effects vary so enormously in different people that to use any form of tariff is meaningless."
    The scheme will do a grave injustice to a large number of people. Never again will Conservative Members be able to say that they care for the victims of crime. If they do say that—and I am sure that they will—that will be sheer hypocrisy, because, plainly, they do not care. I wish that some Conservative Members who will troop into the Lobby in support of the Government had read carefully the knowledgeable and learned speeches made in the other House. Plainly, the plan has no friends and is patently unfair.
    Mrs. Roche: In The Independent yesterday the Home Secretary said:
    "The Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill has a common thread running through it: it protects the public and fights crime. A crucial element is the effect crime has on victims. We should all pay greater heed to victims' plight."
    Given that statement, I was absolutely amazed when the Home Secretary sought to overturn the Lords amendment.
    The Home Office has already indicated that about 6,600 victims a year will receive payments that are less than half of what might have been expected under the present scheme. Written replies from Home Office Ministers earlier this year confirmed that 11 per cent. of recipients under the new scheme would receive awards which were 50 per cent. less than at present. A further 8 per cent. would receive compensation payments which were between half and two thirds of current awards. As the Police Federation put it,
    "The changes mark a significant and indefensible retreat from the Government's own commitment to give the highest priority to the victims of crime."
    From time to time in our surgeries, we all have the tragic experience of seeing constituents who have been the victims of crime, and sometimes the victims of very violent crime. Yet the Home Secretary and the Government are attacking a scheme that is doing its best under the present system—and any system to aid the victims of crime should of course be improved.
    Many examples already cited here and in another place show how the Government's proposals would adversely affect the victims of serious crime. The driving force behind the new tariff scheme is clearly Treasury driven and it attempts to make the victims of crime pay for the Government's failure significantly to reduce the level of crime, despite Ministers' spurious claims that the system will be improved.
    What is even worse is that those hit hardest by the proposals will be the families of victims of murder and manslaughter. They are the people in society who often face the most difficult task. The proposals will also hurt those with the most serious injuries and those whose injuries result in significant impairment of earning capacity and loss of employment.

    469
    Lord Carlisle said that his major concern throughout had been that he considered that the new scheme was unfair in that all the savings would be made at the cost of those with the worst injuries. I do not believe for a moment that Lord Carlisle reached that conclusion lightly or hastily. He obviously felt quite rightly that the new proposals and the new scheme were wrong morally and in principle.
    In cases of injury of maximum severity, the tariff system is wholly inappropriate. By
    "removing the subjective element of the assessment",
    as the White Paper put it, no account would be taken of the widely differing consequences of such serious injury. That point was made so well and briefly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris).
    Mr. Peter Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must look at the issue in a wider context? What does my hon. Friend think about a situation relating to a case—about which I wrote to the Minister, but did not receive a satisfactory reply—involving police officers in my constituency who were severely assaulted by a criminal who was on licence from prison? I will not go into the details, but the assault was sickening. Those officers saw that man being granted bail when he was taken to court. Not for the first time in his criminal career, that man did not respond to bail when the case came before the court. The officers then found that the injuries that the man had inflicted on them were likely to attract less compensation than they would under the present system.
    Mrs. Roche: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that case to the attention of the House. There are many tragic cases like that and that explains why the Police Federation reached the conclusion that it reached.
    The proposals have changed the scheme from being a finely tuned and flexible instrument designed to meet the individual needs of people who have suffered appalling injuries—many of whom are police officers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said—and have lumped those people together with people who have suffered other injuries without taking into consideration individual circumstances, age, future prospects or dependants.
    Another aspect of the proposal is the way in which it has been introduced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon has explained that the Lords amendment, and the Labour amendment supporting it, seek to put the current compensation scheme on a statutory basis, fulfilling the obligation made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell the House whether he thinks, as Earl Ferrers appeared to think in another place, that when Parliament enacted the 1988 Act and provided that the Secretary of State should bring that legislation into force on a day or days of his choosing, Parliament intended that he be allowed to ignore it altogether and introduce a completely different scheme without reference to Parliament. Clearly, the 1998 Act intended to ensure that the Executive were accountable to the House in this matter. That is a very important point of principle and I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would address it.
    470
    Reference has already been made to Mr. Martin Thomas QC, who was a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for nine years. Perhaps it would be salutary to note Mr. Thomas's article of 18 January, which states:
    "Conservative MPs, if no longer moved by justice and fairness, ought to be thinking about their skins. The voters will be out for Tory blood when they rumble what lies behind these alleged reforms. Perhaps it is time for Tories to plot a little political mugging of their Home Secretary. The board would sympathetically consider giving him an award."
    6 pm
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I remind the House that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. In that regard, I raise with the Home Secretary concern about his remark that an officer who is injured during the course of his service will receive his pension, plus a gratuity of five times his annual salary. That is incorrect. That occurs only when there is a violent death in service, as the Home Secretary should know. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary appears to ask from a sedentary position exactly what I said, so I repeat it: a violent death in service. Other than that, if he has, for example, 20 years' service entitlement, that officer will receive 27 60ths of his pensionable pay. The only gratuity will come from commuting up to a maximum of a quarter of the pension to which he is entitled. There is no gratuity of five times the annual salary in the case of Stonier, for example, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred. I hope that the Home Secretary will be good enough to correct that matter in due course.
    I also remind the House that one in 12 applications to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board arise from assaults on officers. The Police Federation therefore strongly opposes the Government's attack on victims in the form of cutting compensation. Yesterday, the police protected parliamentary debate and risked assault in doing so. Is it not a rich irony that some Conservative MPs, who today praised officers of the Metropolitan police for risking assault in protecting Parliament, will vote to cut the compensation that would have been payable to officers who were the victims of such criminal assaults?
    The Government's new criminal injuries compensation scheme is a betrayal of all victims of crime—the very victims for whom the Government have been trumpeting their support for months. The Government complain that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is becoming too expensive and that its costs have grown greatly during the past 15 years. Its costs have increased because the number of victims has increased during the Government's tenure. The Government's complaint is that the victims of crime—the victims of the failure of Tory law and order policies—are now becoming too expensive.
    How can the Government justify saying to a victim of crime that, whereas for the past 15 years their policy was to pay, as in the Stonier case, £126,000 for a certain injury, now, because the scheme is becoming too expensive for the Government, the amount is only £7,500? What Tory message is that to the victims of crime? The scheme robs those who have suffered the worst and most serious injury of the relatively fair compensation that was payable under the old scheme, as part of a criminal justice system which otherwise does little or nothing for the victims of crime.

    471
    Although it is fair to say that improving the speed of delivery of compensation is important, it should not be bought at the price of unfairness and injustice in the quality of what is delivered. Speeding up the process can be done without the Government's proposed system of arbitrary tariffs. The Government promise is that the new system will be much quicker. That is their main argument for it. I have my doubts. From long experience of such cases, I know that the main cause of delay has been and will remain awaiting medical and witness reports.
    Perhaps there will be some small savings in time, but they will not be enough to justify the increased unfairness that the new system will create. Fairness in dealing with the widely differing circumstances of victims is important if the victims are not also to regard themselves as victims of the unfairness of the criminal injuries compensation system.
    Each case is different; it has its own factors and consequences. Being blinded in a criminal attack does not have the same financial consequences for everyone. The consequences for a 24-year-old builder's labourer with a wife and two children are different from those for an 80-year-old who lives in an old folks' home. The law recognised that difference under the old scheme and it sought a certain level of fairness, despite some inadequacies. How can it be fair that the victim of a hit-and-run driver who breaks a leg will receive full compensation from the motor insurance bureau under common law principles and that the victim of a criminal attack with an iron bar will not receive such compensation under the Government's new scheme? That difference cannot be justified.
    The Government's proposals are all about saving the Treasury money at the expense of the victims of crime. Compensation without compassion for victims is the Government's message. If the Government deny that, let the facts speak for themselves, especially when it comes to victims of the most serious crimes. Let us consider a few cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has already referred to the Stonier case, on which I have had to correct the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend referred also to the Holton case, in which compensation was reduced from £126,000 to £5,000.
    In the Slater case, a woman aged 38 who witnessed her husband being stabbed to death would have received £137,000 under the old scheme but would receive £17,500 under the new one. In the case of Burrows, a 46-year-old social worker who was attacked at work would have received £55,000 under the old scheme but would receive £3,000 under the new one. Lady Tebbit, who was injured in the Brighton bombing, received £750,000 under the old scheme. She would receive a third of that amount under the new scheme. Quddus Ali, a 17-year-old who received serious head injuries when he was attacked, would have received £65,000 under the old scheme but would receive £40,000 under the new scheme. Colin Hickman, a Coventry solicitor specialising in civil litigation who was stabbed more than 10 times, would have received £100,000 under the old scheme. Under the new scheme because the offence resulted in a fatality, he would receive £10,000.
    472
    Those examples speak for themselves. In effect, the Home Secretary is mugging the victims of crime. The victims of crime are now becoming the victims of Government cuts.
    Mr. Howard: With permission, I will try and deal briefly with some points that have been raised.
    We are accustomed to hot air from the Opposition parties, but in this debate they have exceeded their normal performance by a large margin. It is simply no use at all protesting about the Government's proposals unless one is prepared to make a commitment that one will stick to the old scheme were one ever to form a Government. That would give some small credibility to the Opposition's points. In the absence of that commitment, what Opposition Members say signifies absolutely nothing.
    Questions were raised about the extent to which the new scheme compensates people for loss of earnings. It is the case that the tariff reflects loss of earnings. The tariff award is based on awards made previously by the board. It includes an element for loss of earnings and the other heads of damage payable under the old scheme. However, it is true that these elements are no longer separately quantifiable. There is a difference, but the tariff reflects loss of earnings in that way. That is the answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby).
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Howard: I want to make speedy progress. The tariff is not a flat rate; it represents an average of loss of earnings.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge also raised a question about insurance policies. As far as we are aware, most insurance policies which cover such loss do not exclude injuries caused by crimes of violence, so that route is open.
    Many of the examples that were cited by Labour Members, including the Front-Bench spokesman, leave out completely the extent to which people benefit from occupational schemes. There is one important respect in which the new arrangements are advantageous, compared to the old scheme. Under the old scheme, occupational and Department of Social Security benefits are taken into account by the board when making an assessment. Under the new scheme, such benefits will be disregarded. That is an important difference which is an advantage of the new scheme. It might well also be an advantage—I do not know whether it will be an advantage because that depends on the particular circumstances—in some of the examples cited by Labour Members.
    My information about the entitlement of police officers who have been injured is not the same as that given to the House by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien). Perhaps that is something which we can pursue in correspondence.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am concerned that some of the Home Secretary's information about the sorts of levels is wrong; he may be relying on wrong information. I suggest that what I said was right. My source of information is

    473
    well known both to him and to me and is well respected by us both—it is the general secretary of the Police Federation, whom I telephoned to check the facts.
    Mr. Howard: I do not think that we will be able to resolve the matter across the Floor of the House this evening, but I am certainly prepared to pursue it with the hon. Gentleman.
    The truth is that the new scheme has advantages of speed and bringing costs under control. It will remain one of the most generous schemes in the world. I commend the scheme to the House. On that basis, I invite the House to disagree with the amendment made in another place.
    Mr. Michael: The Home Secretary has totally failed to answer the debate. Indeed, he changed his question. He asked whether Labour would stick to the old scheme—the answer is yes. He is the one who seeks to change the old scheme.
    It is clear from the debate that Tory Members are no longer interested in justice or fairness. The Home Secretary is no longer interested in the victims of the most violent and horrific of injuries. If Tory Members vote to disagree with the Lords in the amendment, they will stand condemned by their own actions.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 264.

    Division No. 310]

    [6.12 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Alexander, Richard

    Carrington, Matthew

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Cash, William

    Amess, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Ancram, Michael

    Churchill, Mr

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clappison, James

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Ashby, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkins, Robert

    Coe, Sebastian

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Colvin, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Congdon, David

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Conway, Derek

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bates, Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Batiste, Spencer

    Couchman, James

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cran, James

    Bendall, Vivian

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

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Booth, Hartley

    Day, Stephen

    Boswell, Tim

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Dicks, Terry

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bowis, John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Dover, Den

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Duncan, Alan

    Brazier, Julian

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Dunn, Bob

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Eggar, Tim

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Elleton, Harold

    Burns, Simon

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Butcher, John

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Butler, Peter

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Butterfill, John

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    474

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Leigh, Edward

    Evennett, David

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Faber, David

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lidington, David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lilley, Rt Hon peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lord, Michael

    Forth, Eric

    Luff, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    MacKay, Andrew

    French, Douglas

    Maclean, David

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Madel, Sir David

    Gale, Roger

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gallie, Phil

    Malone, Gerald

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Mans, Keith

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Marland, Paul

    Garnier, Edward

    Marlow, Tony

    Gill, Christopher

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mates, Michael

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Greenway, John

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Merchant, Piers

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Mills, Iain

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hague, William

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Hannam, Sir John

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Harris, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hawkins, Nick

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hayes, Jerry

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Heald, Oliver

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hendry, Charles

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hicks, Robert

    Norris, Steve

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Horam, John

    Page, Richard

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Paice, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

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

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Pawsey, James

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Pickles, Eric

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Hunter, Andrew

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Jack, Michael

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Richards, Rod

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Riddick, Graham

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Robathan, Andrew

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Key, Robert

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Sackville, Tom

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

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

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Knox, Sir David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Sims, Roger

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Legg, Barry

    Soames, Nicholas

    475

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Trotter, Neville

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Viggers, Peter

    Spring, Richard

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Sproat, Iain

    Walden, George

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Waller, Gary

    Steen, Anthony

    Ward, John

    Stephen, Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stern, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Stewart, Allan

    Watts, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Wells, Bowen

    Sumberg, David

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Sweeney, Walter

    Whitney, Ray

    Sykes, John

    Whittingdale, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Willetts, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Wilshire, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Thomason, Roy

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Wood, Timothy

    Thurnham, Peter

    Yeo, Tim

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

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Tracey, Richard

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Tredinnick, David

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Trend, Michael

    Dr. Liam Fox

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Clelland, David

    Ainger, Nick

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coffey, Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Cohen, Harry

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Connarty, Michael

    Anderson, Ms Janet

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    (Ros'dale)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Corbett, Robin

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Ashton, Joe

    Corston, Jean

    Barnes, Harry

    Cousins, Jim

    Barron, Kevin

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Dafis, Cynog

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Darling, Alistair

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Davidson, Ian

    Benton, Joe

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Berry, Roger

    Denham, John

    Betts, Clive

    Dewar, Donald

    Blair, Tony

    Dixon, Don

    Boateng, Paul

    Dobson, Frank

    Bradley, Keith

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dowd, Jim

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

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

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Eastham, Ken

    Burden, Richard

    Enright, Derek

    Byers, Stephen

    Etherington, Bill

    Caborn, Richard

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Fisher, Mark

    Canavan, Dennis

    Flynn, Paul

    Cann, Jamie

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Chidgey, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Foulkes, George

    Church, Judith

    Fraser, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Galloway, George

    476

    Gapes, Mike

    McMaster, Gordon

    Garrett, John

    McNamara, Kevin

    George, Bruce

    McWilliam, John

    Gerrard, Neil

    Meacher, Michael

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Meale, Alan

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Michael, Alun

    Godsiff, Roger

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Graham, Thomas

    Milburn, Alan

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Miller, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Gunnell, John

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Hain, Peter

    Morley, Elliot

    Hall, Mike

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hanson, David

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    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'Neill, Martin

    Hodge, Margaret

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Hoey, Kate

    Olner, William

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Home Robertson, John

    Parry, Robert

    Hood, Jimmy

    Patchett, Terry

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Pendry, Tom

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Hoyle, Doug

    Pope, Greg

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hutton, John

    Purchase, Ken

    Illsley, Eric

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Ingram, Adam

    Radice, Giles

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Handall, Stuart

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Janner, Greville

    Reid, Dr John

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Rendel, David

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Jowell, Tessa

    Rogers, Allan

    Keen, Alan

    Rooker, Jeff

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Rooney, Terry

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Rowlands, Ted

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ruddock, Joan

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Salmond, Alex

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Lewis, Terry

    Sheerman, Barry

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Litherland, Robert

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Livingstone, Ken

    Short, Clare

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Simpson, Alan

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Skinner, Dennis

    Loyden, Eddie

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Lynne, Ms Liz

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

    Macdonald, Calum

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    MacShane, Denis

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Madden, Max

    Snape, Peter

    Mahon, Alice

    Soley, Clive

    Mandelson, Peter

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Marek, Dr John

    Stevenson, George

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stott, Roger

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Martlew, Eric

    Straw, Jack

    McAllion, John

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McCartney, Ian

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McFall, John

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McKelvey, William

    Timms, Stephen

    McLeish, Henry

    Tipping, Paddy

    477

    Trimble, David

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Turner, Dennis

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Tyler, Paul

    Wilson, Brian

    Vaz, Keith

    Winnick, David

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Wise, Audrey

    Wallace, James

    Worthington, Tony

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Wareing, Robert N

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Watson, Mike

    Welsh, Andrew

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Mr. John Cummings and

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Mr. Jon Owen-Jones

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    After Clause 136
    Lords amendment: No. 131, to insert the following new clause—Offence of selling confidential financial information—
    .—(1) It is an offence for a person ("the seller") to sell or offer to sell information as to the financial affairs of another person if—

    (a) the seller knows that the information has been or will be obtained dishonestly or by deception; and

    (b) the information is intended to be disclosed without the consent of such other person.

    (2) An advertisement or circular indicating that information of that description is or may be for sale is an offer to sell within the meaning of subsection (1).
    (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

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

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

    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, at end insert 'or otherwise provide'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 150, Government amendments (a), (b), (c), (aa), (bb), (cc), (d), (e) and (f) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 163 and 180, and Government motions to disagree to Lords amendments 131 and 163.
    Mr. Darling: I know that the House has many other amendments to deal with this evening. The point that needs dealing with here is a fairly short one, necessitating only a short debate.
    The Lords amendment introduces a new clause to the Bill which would make it a criminal offence to disclose confidential financial information obtained by deception and disclosed without the consent of the person concerned. Our amendment would make it an offence to sell such information or otherwise to provide it—in other words, even if there were no consideration or sale involved, simply providing information obtained by deception and without consent would be a criminal offence.
    There is an increasing problem, caused by the fact that banks and other financial institutions hold considerable amounts of financial information on all of us. Agencies have grown up and people have appeared all over the country who are willing to obtain this information by deception and then provide it to third parties. Indeed, it is
    478
    possible to find out someone's bank balance for about £250, and to find out details of standing orders and other confidential information for payments of about £1,000.
    During the summer, ITN, with my consent, instructed a firm of inquiry agents to see whether they could find out information about my bank account. I authorised them to do this because I believed it was possible to obtain the information: and so it transpired. A firm of inquiry agents in London was instructed, and managed to obtain details of my bank balance. It is quite easy to do that by deception, and as far as the inquiry agents knew there was no question of my consent having been given.
    Most people want that practice stopped. When Lord Brightman moved the amendment that is now Lords amendment No. 131, there was widespread support in the other place for prohibition of that sort of behaviour. It is not easy to see on what grounds the Government want to remove that new clause from the Bill, other than that they believe that it might impede the activities of credit reference agencies.
    The legitimate activities of such agencies would not be impeded because they do not need to obtain their information by deception. They might not have consent, but no element of deception is involved because they are, or they ought to be, straightforward about the business in which they are engaged.
    6.30 pm
    There can be no place for individuals obtaining confidential financial information by deception and without the consent of the person involved. If we respect an individual's right to privacy—a fundamental right—it is important that we accept the Lords amendment.
    We broadly agree with what the Government are trying to achieve in Lords amendment No. 150. As I understand it, however, the Government amendment would not stop someone obtaining information, if the provider had registered that he or she was able to provide it under the Data Protection Acts. Most banks state on their data protection certificate that they are prepared to disclose information to inquiry agents, for example. The Government amendment does not go far enough, although I welcome the fact that it appears to make limited progress.
    The fundamental argument is that the House should accept Lords amendment No. 131, with our amendment to it, because that is the only way in which we will stop people obtaining confidential financial information and making it available. If the Minister is going to reply that such affairs are covered by the law on confidentiality, I hope that the Government will refresh their memory and bear in mind the difficulties that they faced over the "Spycatcher" and Ponting cases. They will realise that the law on confidentiality is by no means straightforward. That law would not provide the protection that people are looking for.
    In that spirit, I move our amendment and trust that the Government will think again and accept it.
    Mr. Beith: The Lords amendment is most welcome—I shall summarise it and the amendment to it as though they were one, although it is a little more complicated than that. It is clearly necessary to attempt to extend some protection to financial information and the combined efforts of the Government and certain of their lordships have at last achieved some results.

    479
    One must be aware of the seriousness of the problem. I have seen newspaper reports of advertisements by companies that offer to obtain such information and charge tariffs. A company called ACT is reported to have a tariff for information from banks and building societies. For obtaining a balance, the charge is £245—in some of our cases, that might be more than the balance—and a statement can be obtained for £1,000, while confirmation of overdraft or loan facilities costs £300.
    Those services are freely advertised by companies purporting to have access to information that can be obtained only by some form of deception, or by inviting a dereliction of duty by employees of banks, building societies and other financial institutions. Such institutions are extremely worried about the situation. The majority of their staff would not assist such an activity in any way, but the possibilities of deception on the part of the person obtaining the information, the failure of security systems and the fact that someone might occasionally be willing to pass such information in dereliction of his or her duty, combine to expose the security systems of financial institutions and individuals to such a danger. The fact that companies are able to offer a tariff for that information suggests that it is being obtained on an extremely wide scale.
    I support the Lords amendment, which the Government are resisting, because I am anxious about information that is not obtained directly from a computer. I hope that the Minister can clarify the position. If we do not pass the amendment, although information held on computer will be protected, all sorts of similar information, which is in written form or is not necessarily obtained direct from a computer, including many of the things listed in the tariffs, will still be available to those organisations.
    I do not know to what extent it will be possible to transfer information from a computer, write it down and pass it on. In many cases, the information will already exist in written form. Copies of statements, a passbook or a number of other things may be floating around the office.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: The right hon. Gentleman may know that I was a banking lawyer before entering the House, and that I helped to draft the codes of banking practice. Once material has been produced in computerised form, it is covered, even if it becomes part of a separate written document.
    Mr. Beith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that advice, for which I am pleased not to have had to pay any fee—the House is greatly advantaged. I would still like to hear the information from the Minister's mouth.
    There must be some ambiguous cases. Information might be held in a computer as well as in written form, perhaps because a cashier has written something down for a customer, or because of some correspondence that is entirely separate from the computer records, which leads me to believe that the amendment's provisions must be bolstered. Their lordships were certainly persuaded that the amendment was appropriate. Despite the wish to
    480
    dispatch the matter quickly, I hope that the Minister will realise that it is important, and that he needs to explain the position.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I shall, of course, support the Government, but there is some good sense in Lord Brightman's amendment. My hon. Friend the Minister might well be arguing that it would have all sorts of ramifications for press freedom, which we do not want to develop by imposing swingeing criminal offences when we have not yet sorted out what we are going to do about Calcutt. I must warn my hon. Friend that an awful lot of people are concerned about press freedom, and if we do not introduce some of the Calcutt proposals, we may well have to return to this element of the Bill.
    The Minister knows that I believe that we must do something to contain abuses of press power, but I fear that the Government will not do anything—certainly not before the next election. There may be good political reasons for that. If they do not intend to do so, Lord Brightman's amendment should be reconsidered. I should be grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us some sign that he has not totally closed his mind to the viability of the amendment in due course.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) knows that I never have a closed mind on any subject, and he has touched on an important point. It is far from easy to determine how far the press should be allowed to go to expose stories about criminal activity or anti-social conduct in a democratic society. Sir David Calcutt dealt with the issue, suggesting, inter alia, new criminal offences in certain circumstances.
    The Government will, before long, be announcing their reactions to those recommendations. At this stage, I cannot anticipate what line we will be taking, but I am clear that it would be wrong for the House to agree new criminal offences that would impinge on the press, in ways that go beyond anything suggested by Calcutt and which contain no form of defence on which the press could rely, in advance of the Government's proposed White Paper. That would be the wrong way to proceed, as I am sure that the House and my hon. and learned Friend would agree. Those are sensitive issues and we must consider them properly.
    Mr. Beith: Surely any restraint on the press from the amendments applies to the amendment that the Government are accepting as much as it does to Lord Brightman's amendment. Is not the only circumstance in which the press would appear to be affected if a freelance reporter were involved, and that therefore there was a financial consideration to the passing of the information?
    Mr. Maclean: I shall explain that we have concluded that Lord Brightman's amendments went further than was appropriate before we have the Government's conclusions to the Calcutt report. We are not dismissing his suggestions out of hand, and we have carefully considered them.
    We have now concluded, in the light of Lords amendment No. 131, that we should go a stage further in regard to the Data Protection Act 1988. We cannot advise the House to keep Lords amendment No. 131, but we propose in an amendment that is now before the House to

    481
    attach the key feature of that amendment—the offering for sale of improperly obtained information—to our own new data protection offence.
    Accordingly, we propose to make it an offence for a person to sell, or offer for sale, data procured in contravention of the Data Protection Act. That is the effect of the new subsection (7) inserted into section 5 of the 1984 Act. The new subsection (8) covers the situation of the person who makes an offer for sale at one point in time, and carries out the illicit procuring subsequently. Such a person will be guilty of the new selling offence once data are actually procured.
    I listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) for the amendment standing in his name and that of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I think that I can see the intention behind them. If the person who sells data that he has procured in breach of the Data Protection Act 1988 is to be guilty of an offence, so ought a person who has given data away to a third party or might get his eward by devious means some considerable time later. If the words "or otherwise provides" were capable only of covering such a person, the Government would have no substantial objection to them.
    The words are capable of being much wider in their application. They would, for example, cover the handing over of data to another person in the same organisation simply to be filed with a view to future use. It is unsatisfactory in principle that the scope of a criminal law should be so vague in its application that it is capable of covering acts that it is not intended to prohibit.
    I must also say to the hon. Gentleman that the additional words are unnecessary. By virtue of Lords amendment No. 150, it is already an offence to procure disclosure of personal data, knowing or having reason to believe that the disclosure constitutes a contravention of subsection (2) or (3) of section 5 of the Data Protection Act. Accordingly, the person who has obtained personal data in this way is already guilty of an offence.
    The additional amendments standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary are designed to catch the person who, in addition to procuring the data, sells and offers to sell the data. This is intended to cover some of the concerns that lay behind Lords amendment No. 131, which, as I have explained, is unacceptable in its width. Those concerns were principally to combat the advertising and sale of improperly obtained information—companies which specialise in commercial activities of the nature to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred.
    6.45 pm
    The Government's amendments to Lords amendment No. 150 are deliberately aimed at sales and advertisements offering to sell. We believe that they do not need the further extension that would be made in the amendments standing in the names of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Central and for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Although I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central's point of view—I can understand the way in which he wants to widen the amendment—I must advise the House not to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Darling: I shall reply to the debate briefly. First, it is important to realise that Lords amendment No. 131
    482
    deals with information obtained by deception and without consent, so those elements are necessary in order to constitute the offence. The amendment would therefore not cover information that was legitimately passed around in an organisation, because there would not be deception and there might well be consent.
    The second point was the question of press freedom. The Opposition have no desire whatsoever to limit investigative journalism—would that there were more of it. The problem the law faces is that it cannot discriminate between a member of the public and a journalist, because a journalist is a member of the public who happens to be engaged in the business of writing. It is not possible within the framework of the law to put journalists in a privileged position.
    The mischief that we now face, where people are willing to obtain financial information by deception and without the consent of the individuals concerned and then sell it, ought to be stopped. Every one of us has substantial amounts of information held by banks and financial institutions. As I have said, I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing additional protection so far as the Data Protection Act 1988 is concerned.
    The point of Lords amendment No. 131 and our amendment would be to cover cases that are not covered by the Data Protection Act. A lot of information is held that is not covered by the Act, and the amendments would ensure that anyone who tried to obtain that information dishonestly, by deception or without the consent of the individual concerned would face a criminal offence.
    I have a great deal of sympathy with the point made by Government Members, that the Government will have to consider these matters sooner or later. But frankly, to say that we must wait for the Government's consideration of the Calcutt report does not carry much weight.
    If I remember rightly, the Calcutt report was prepared in 1990 or 1991, and we still have not had the Government's response. The matter raises some delicate political problems and Government Members may now take a different view on the freedom of the press from that which they took before the election, because the press have—for the moment, at any rate—turned their unwelcome attention on the Government.
    It is not our function to try to curtail the legitimate activities of investigative journalism, but I am concerned that there are individuals in this country who are in the business of obtaining confidential financial information, and at the moment there is nothing to stop them. It has affected me and other hon. Members who have experienced people trying to get into their bank accounts and to get information, and members of the public generally look to Parliament to protect their privacy. I am sorry that the Government have taken the view that they have, and for that reason we will press the amendment to a Division.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House proceeded to a Division:
    Mr. Simon Hughes(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Several colleagues and I have come immediately from No. 7 Millbank. We took the same lift, and we got here as quickly as we could. We have just missed the Division because it was impossible to get here in the time allowed—I do not know how many minutes were allowed

    483
    for the Division. I wonder whether you could allow the Doors to the Lobby to be reopened to allow us to vote, as we came as quickly as we could.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): No, I am afraid that I cannot allow that. I have taken account of the fact that we recently had a Division in the House, so I think that hon. Members had warning that further Divisions were likely.
    Ms Clare Short(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a Division about an hour ago, but those of us who have to work in our offices in Millbank have to return to them in order to do our job properly. We all know that we have to leave that building the minute the Division bell goes—we sometimes run down the stairs if necessary.
    We left instantly the bell rang and ran across to the House—we did not delay. Earlier, we were given a clear undertaking from Madam Speaker that discretion would be exercised to allow the Doors to be reopened if a Division was not called at a fixed time, as happened just now. I appeal to you to reconsider your decision, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we were given a promise, and we all came here as fast as was physically possible.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I was not in the Chamber previously, and I did not hear what Madam Speaker said. Obviously discretion may be used at a particular moment when a decision has to be made, but I am not aware of any suggestion that something will happen for ever more; otherwise, we would need to alter the normal arrangement whereby we have a set amount of time for a Division.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of what has been said by you and other hon. Members, it is within your power to order a new Division to be called to enable those hon. Members who could not get here, through no fault of their own, to record their votes on this important matter. It would not delay business.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I have considered the matter, but I am staying with my original decision, that I will not reopen the Doors and allow further time.
    Mr. Greville Janner(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am one of the inhabitants of No. 7 Millbank. I always have to run over to vote. When I inquired, Madam Speaker said that, when it is a first vote, she does, as a matter of discretion, allow extra time before the doors are locked. If it is a matter of discretion, colleagues can be locked out, as has happened to hon. Members on both sides of the House on this occasion.
    Would you be kind enough, please, to talk to Madam Speaker to see whether an extra two or three minutes can be added to the first Division of a series, so that colleagues can get over here? It is difficult even for the able-bodied to get to the House in time, but it is impossible for those who are not able-bodied. My only parliamentary win against the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) occurred when I got here in time
    484
    to vote and he did not, but he left Millbank much later than I did. Even that hon. Member has been locked out of the Lobby on occasion.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the fact that difficulties arise from time to time and I have, on occasion, exercised that discretion. But tonight, people had due warning that votes could be expected at various times. I shall draw this matter to the attention of the Speaker and further consideration may be given to the general principles involved. I think that that is what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind.
    The House having divided: Ayes 246, Noes 279.

    Division No. 311]

    [6.46 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Davidson, Ian

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Ainger, Nick

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Allen, Graham

    Denham, John

    Anderson, Ms Janet

    Dewar, Donald

    (Ros'dale)

    Dixon, Don

    Ashton, Joe

    Dobson, Frank

    Austin-Walker, John

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Barnes, Harry

    Dowd, Jim

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Eastham, Ken

    Bell, Stuart

    Enright, Derek

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Etherington, Bill

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Benton, Joe

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Berry, Roger

    Fisher, Mark

    Betts, Clive

    Flynn, Paul

    Blair, Tony

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Blunkett, David

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Boateng, Paul

    Foulkes, George

    Bradley, Keith

    Fraser, John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fyfe, Maria

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Galbraith, Sam

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

    Galloway, George

    Byers, Stephen

    Gapes, Mike

    Caborn, Richard

    Garrett, John

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    George, Bruce

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Canavan, Dennis

    Godsiff, Roger

    Cann, Jamie

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Chidgey, David

    Graham, Thomas

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Church, Judith

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clapham, Michael

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Gunnell, John

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hall, Mike

    Clelland, David

    Hanson, David

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hardy, Peter

    Coffey, Ann

    Henderson, Doug

    Cohen, Harry

    Heppell, John

    Connarty, Michael

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Hodge, Margaret

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoey, Kate

    Corston, Jean

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

    Cousins, Jim

    Home Robertson, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hoyle, Doug

    Darling, Alistair

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    485

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Parry, Robert

    Hutton, John

    Patchett, Terry

    Ingram, Adam

    Pendry, Tom

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Janner, Greville

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Jowell, Tessa

    Purchase, Ken

    Keen, Alan

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

    Radice, Giles

    Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

    Randall, Stuart

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Redmond, Martin

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Reid, Dr John

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Lewis, Terry

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Roche, Mrs. Barbara

    Litherland, Robert

    Rooker, Jeff

    Livingstone, Ken

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Ruddock, Joan

    Loyden, Eddie

    Salmond, Alex

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Macdonald, Calum

    Sheerman, Barry

    MacShane, Denis

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Madden, Max

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Mahon, Alice

    Simpson, Alan

    Mandelson, Peter

    Skinner, Dennis

    Marek, Dr John

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Martlew, Eric

    Snape, Peter

    McAllion, John

    Soley, Clive

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Stevenson, George

    McCartney, Ian

    Stott, Roger

    McFall, John

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    McKelvey, William

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    McLeish, Henry

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McMaster, Gordon

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Timms, Stephen

    McWilliam, John

    Tipping, Paddy

    Meacher, Michael

    Turner, Dennis

    Meale, Alan

    Tyler, Paul

    Michael, Alun

    Vaz, Keith

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Wallace, James

    Milburn, Alan

    Walley, Joan

    Miller, Andrew

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Welsh, Andrew

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Morley, Elliot

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Wilson, Brian

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Winnick, David

    Mudie, George

    Wise, Audrey

    Mullin, Chris

    Worthington, Tony

    Murphy, Paul

    Wray, Jimmy

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Wright, Dr Tony

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Mr Eric Illsley and

    Olner, William

    Mr John Cummings

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Ancram, Michael

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Arbuthnot, James

    Alexander, Richard

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Ashby, David

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Amess, David

    Atkins, Robert

    486

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    French, Douglas

    Baldry, Tony

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Gallie, Phil

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Bates, Michael

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Batiste, Spencer

    Garnier, Edward

    Bellingham, Henry

    Gill, Christopher

    Bendall, Vivian

    Gillian. Cheryl

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Booth, Hartley

    Grant, Sir A. (Cambs SW)

    Boswell, Tim

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    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

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bright, Graham

    Hannam, Sir John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Harris, David

    Brown, M. (Brigg " Cl'thorpes)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    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

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Carttiss, Michael

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Cash, William

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Horam, John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clappison, James

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

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

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hunt, Rt Hon David

    Colvin, Michael

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Congdon, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Conway, Derek

    Jack, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Cran, James

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Key, Robert

    Dicks, Terry

    Kilfedder, Sir James

    Dorrell, 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)

    Dunn, Bob

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Knox, Sir David

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Eggar, Tim

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Elletson, Harold

    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

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Lloyd, Rt Hon peter (Fareham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Lord, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Luff, Peter

    Forth, Eric

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    487

    MacKay, Andrew

    Soames, Nicholas

    Maclean, David

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Madel, Sir David

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Malone, Gerald

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Mans, Keith

    Spicer, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Spring, Richard

    Marlow, Tony

    Sproat, Iain

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mates, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Stephen, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stern, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stewart, Allan

    Merchant, Piers

    Streeter, Gary

    Mills, Iain

    Sumberg, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Sykes, John

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Thomason, Roy

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

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

    Norris, Steve

    Tracey, Richard

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Trend, Michael

    Ottaway, Richard

    Trimble, David

    Page, Richard

    Trotter, Neville

    Paice, James

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Viggers, Peter

    Pawsey, James

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Walden, George

    Pickles, Eric

    Waller, Gary

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Ward, John

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Richards, Rod

    Watts, John

    Riddick, Graham

    Wells, Bowen

    Robathan, Andrew

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Whitney, Ray

    Robertson, Raymond S.

    Whittingdale, John

    Robinson, Mark

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Willetts, David

    Sackville, Tom

    Wilshire, David

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Yeo, Tim

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Shersby, Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Sims, Roger

    Mr. Sydney Chapman and

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Mr. Simon Burns.

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.

    After Clause 136
    Lords amendment: No. 132, to insert the following new clause—Offence of causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress—
    In Part I of the Public Order Act 1986 (offences relating to public order), after section 4, there shall be inserted the following section—
    "Intentional harassment, alarm or distress.
    4A.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

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

    (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

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

    (a) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or

    (b) that his conduct was reasonable.

    (4) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
    (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.".")
    Read a Second time.
    7 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 5, after 'if, insert `recklessly or'.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment (b) to the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Hughes: The amendments are to a new clause that was introduced into the Bill in Committee in the other place. The new clause is entitled "Harassment, alarm or distress". It seeks to amend the Public Order Act 1986 to create a new offence. The original debate on the matter arose after much pressure and lobbying, and engaged a lot of interest. The new clause inserts a new section into the Public Order Act 1986, which states:
    "a person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

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

    (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

    thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress."
    There follows a definition of where that offence can be committed. The section says:
    "An offence … may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is also inside that or another dwelling."
    The mischief against which this new clause is intended to act is committed when one person is outside a dwelling and another person is also outside, or when one person is outside and another is inside. Put simply, if someone lives in a property in, say, Deptford, Bermondsey or Rotherhithe, and someone outside in the street acts in such

    489
    a way as intentionally to alarm, harass or distress that person through the use of language, behaviour or writing, they commit the offence. That is absolutely acceptable to me. I am sure that it is acceptable to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) and I hope that it is acceptable to the House. There will be no dissent from the fact that we must act against people who behave in such a way that they interfere in the private lives of other people by harassing them or causing them alarm or distress.
    Some people doubt whether the clause is tough enough. The general view held by the communities in urban constituencies is that it is not. The general view is that it is difficult to nail people for what the Prime Minister calls "the yob culture" and extreme anti-social behaviour. It is often difficult to pursue people to the courts and secure a conviction for such crimes. Although the clause is welcome and will improve matters, it will certainly not be the end of the story because it will not be tough enough.
    Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I agree with what he has said thus far, but I am puzzled as to why the new clause does not specifically include a criminal act of racial harassment, racial violence or incitement to racial hatred. I cannot understand the thinking behind a clause of this importance not addressing specifically an issue of enormous concern and danger to many people, particularly in inner urban areas such as the hon. Gentleman and I represent.
    Mr. Hughes: That is a matter of dispute around the House. The hon. Gentleman is right, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) has similar experiences, probably almost as regularly as we do. The hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) has introduced a Bill that has all-party support and seeks expressly to provide for an offence of racially motivated crime. We must not be mealy mouthed about the matter—racially motivated crime exists. Those of us who represent inner urban areas—actually, it applies throughout the country—know perfectly well that people are willing to express racist views and, when people are not looking, behave in a racist way, often egged on by others. The most undermining activity of which anyone can be a victim is that which singles one out for aggression, abuse or intimidation for something that one cannot change—something that concerns the victim, not how he or she behaves. The law must be tough on activity based on a discriminatory view of other people which in the mind of the perpetrator justifies that behaviour. Such behaviour happens in my constituency and I am ashamed about it. It also happens in many others, if not all others, represented in the House.
    It can therefore be argued that we need an offence of racially motivated crime. The answer given by the Government is that a better way to deal with it is to increase the sentence if the crime is seen to be racially motivated. This issue will not go away and no matter whether the new clause is accepted by the House today and becomes law, as I believe that it will within the next few days, the matter will come back because many people will not feel that the law goes far enough.
    Having understood the debate in another place and had perfectly courteous discussions with the Minister's predecessor about the issue, I anticipated that at this stage we would not move the Government on this issue. I have therefore chosen two much simpler amendments which,
    490
    even at this stage, I hope to persuade the Minister to accept. I realise that Ministers come to these debates with briefs prepared by civil servants and give wonderful lists of arguments why such amendments should not be accepted. The Under-Secretary of State did a good job in his previous post and I welcome him to his new post. I hope that he will be brave and, once he has heard the arguments, say that the two amendments can be accepted because they deal with two specific but important points.
    First, let us accept that the clause deals with harassment, alarm and distress generally, without singling out racism. I want the Minister to accept that there are two ways—intentionally or recklessly—in which someone could cause that harassment, alarm and distress.
    I have been trained as a lawyer. Something that a criminal lawyer learns almost ad nauseam is the difference between the states of mind that people have to be in if there is to be a conviction. For a conviction of intent, ultimately a jury or the magistrates have to find not just that an activity happened, but that the accused intended it to happen. Often, that is difficult to prove. It is much easier to prove that someone has behaved in a way that was careless as to the consequence or that was not thinking as to the consequence, because we can then draw an inference that any reasonable person would have known what the consequence would be.
    I want the Government to change the law so that it provides that if anyone uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, disorderly behaviour, writes graffiti, racist comments or whatever, or by using signs or other acts behaves in a way that is abusive, threatening or insulting, and he is aware that that might just cause harassment, alarm or distress, he should be found guilty.
    For example, someone may approach a house in Peckham, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, Deptford, Rochdale, Islington, Stalybridge or your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker. He may not know whether anyone is in the house, but he knows that, for example, a black family, an Asian family, a mentally disordered person such as an adult with learning difficulties, someone who is physically disabled or other people in all sorts of circumstances used to live there. Perhaps somebody who was anti-social—a difficult and cantankerous individual—used to live there. He may not say, "I want to get the person in that house", but he is careless and mindless of the consequences of his action and should be guilty of an offence. That is the only way that we can be sure that we deal with such people effectively.
    If intent has to be proved in a court, I can guarantee that many cases will not be proceeded with by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, so they will not get to court and people will not learn a lesson. They will get away with their behaviour when they should be convicted. I make this serious plea from my recollection of how the law works—I remember it all too well—and my understanding of how society works, which is something that we all have as Members of this House.
    The second amendment is similarly simple and, I hope, persuasive. It would remove from line 19 the two simple words "or another". I want to make it possible for someone to be guilty of causing harassment, alarm or distress if he is in one building but is having a go at somebody in another building. The House held a debate last year on the question of neighbour noise and noise nuisance. The Mail on Sunday has run a good campaign and an increasing amount of publicity is being given to

    491
    the issue. A fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference that debated it was very well attended. Neighbour noise is the bane of people's lives. It can literally drive people mad or to suicide.
    Some weeks ago, I attended a press conference on the issue in the Jubilee Room. Spike Milligan and others were there on behalf of the campaign for peace and quiet. The hon. Member for Erit and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) was there. Other colleagues, such as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), support the campaign, the aim of which is to clamp down on rowdy, nuisance neighbours. There are plenty of them and they behave as though there was nobody else on God's planet. They yell out of windows, sometimes throw cans and rubbish out of windows, and have hi-fi's or stereos blasting out of windows, especially in summer.
    It must be made absolutely clear to people that if they own or occupy a property and they behave not necessarily with intent, but in a car less and mindless way, are not bothered whether they keep their neighbours up all night, and blast the person on the other side of the estate, in the block opposite, or on the other side of the street. they should be nicked.
    I take a tough view of such behaviour: not only should such people be nicked, but their property should be confiscated. We need to modify the law to make it tougher. There could be a first and a second warning, but then such people should be taken away and put overnight in a place that will remind them that blasting the diving daylights out of their community is not acceptable.
    7.15 pm
    If the law is toughened in the way that the Government propose, all that it will allow is somebody to be nicked if he is in the street and the victim of the nuisance is in the house. However, that is not what usually happens. I accept that an offence is caused if noisy drunkards run up and down a street shouting. That happens occasionally in Bermondsey and other places. However, it is more often the case that somebody in a property is blasting his stereo or yelling out of the window and making life a nuisance. I want that person to be prosecuted. Tough legislation would signal our intent and we would make progress.
    I know that the Government are consulting on the issue—that is always their defence. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beth) wanted to introduce legislation on payment of interest on debt, the Government said that they opposed that because they were consulting on the issue. They have been consulting for decades; yet everybody knows that it would be a good idea. The Government have issued a consultation paper on noise and I am grateful for that. However, we now have an opportunity to move in a way that I believe will unite the House, provide legislation that will work and not preclude debates on what else we do after that.
    I want noisy neighbours to be aware that they are acting criminally, not just anti-socially. If such behaviour is clearly illegal, police, environmental health officers and others can act to make communities places worth living in again.
    People have been driven to suicide, driven mental or driven to attacking others in their home by noisy neighbours and anti-social behaviour. I do not think that
    492
    that applies to any particular part of the country—it is applicable to all areas. It is as applicable to Luton, where I have been many times, as to anywhere else. I see that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is in the Chamber.
    I hope that the Minister will say, "It is not or idea; we would not have gone so far, so quickly, but it is a good point." I hope that the Minister will at least concede that the argument is valid. Even if he needs a minute or two to take advice, I hope that he will then say that the Government will accept the amendment. I advise him to be brave. He will then become the most popular Minister in the Government today—[Interruption.] I accept that on this day, of all days, that is not saying a lot. However, if he accepts both amendments he will be one step ahead and his future will be assured.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: I thank the Government for their response to the Select Committee's report and its recommendations on racial harassment. I want to flag my concern on behalf of the Committee about the one element that the Government have not seen fit to support: what we said about intent. Through amendment No. 132, the Government have, as we asked, taken into account the seriousness of many of the actions that make up racial harassment. They have not called it racial harassment, but it comes under the same heading—the daubing on the wall, the swastika and other such appalling behaviour.
    The Government have also created an arrestable offence, which is what the Committee recommended and they have increased the maximum penalty from a fine to imprisonment, again as we recommended. I am grateful for that.
    But we also said that police officers at Plumstead considered that the requirement of an intent, which is present in Lords amendment No. 132, made it difficult for them to bring effective charges—few criminal charges for harassment of any sort have ever been brought or, if brought, have succeeded. That issue is relevant to the contribution of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). The police told us that they considered it a drawback as it was so easy for an accused person to say, "I had no idea that my words were likely to or may have caused that offence." Such a line meant that magistrates often gave those accused of the offence the benefit of the doubt. More importantly, the Crown Prosecution Service would often think that there was not sufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.
    We therefore suggested that it was not necessary to have a subjective test and that it was preferable to have an objective test as to whether a reasonable man would have considered his actions likely to have that effect. The police in Plumstead said that that would help them considerably. I understand that the Government have not been keen to adopt such a policy.
    I have not had an opportunity to discuss the subject with the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, but I understand that "recklessness" would provide a halfway house between dropping the necessity for intent, and intent. If I am right on that, I must say on behalf of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that I have some sympathy with the submission made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey.
    One issue that I am sure about—as was the Select Committee on Home Affairs—is that the legislation on the subject needed to be toughened up. There will

    493
    inevitably come a time when the pressures of immigration and asylum on these shores will be even greater because of what is happening in the rest of Europe. In those circumstances, from time to time, the reaction of the indigenous community will, alas, be to revert more frequently to racial hatred and the sort of response that follows. Now is the time to dig in our defences and prepare ourselves so that the law is adequate to the task of protecting people, whether black or white, against the sort of sickening harassment that now occurs in our society less frequently that it may do in future.
    I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the action that he has taken to support the recommendations of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. But I ask him to take seriously the important need to strengthen this aspect of the law—if not now, in the future—so that it provides adequate protection for those whom it is our task and duty to protect.
    Ms Joan Ruddock: We have some sympathy with th words and the amendments of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and look forward to hearing the Minister's response. We have not been completely satisfied in any way and cannot echo the sentiments of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) who believed that we had been given an adequate response to the case involving the problems of racial violence made in the House and in the Select Committee.
    In response to Opposition and all-party amendments, Government spokespeople, both in Parliament and outside, have repeatedly expressed concern about racially motivated crime. But the undertaking given in the House and acted on in another place has produced nothing more than a tougher version of the existing public order offence in section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Standing alone, that is totally inadequate to the task of dealing with the huge and rising tide of racial violence.
    I cannot remind the House too often that there were an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 racial incidents in England and Wales last year. Those incidents range from daubing, spitting and graffiti to the most severe violence and, indeed, murder. Yet, by the Government's own admission, only one in 20 such incidents are reported to the police. Those that are reported must be recorded as racial incidents, but there is no requirement to record the clear-up rates, which makes it difficult to judge the effectiveness of existing law.
    The one sector for which we have figures for prosecutions and convictions under public order legislation involves cases of incitement to racial hatred, where the figures are not impressive. In 1990, there were 45 prosecutions for incitement to racial hatred and only four convictions. In 1991, there were 65 prosecutions and only three convictions. Against that backdrop of inaction, the Minister will not be surprised to learn that the Lords amendment hardly inspires confidence.
    The Government's failure to specify racial harassment and racial violence in any of their Lords amendments sends a more powerful signal to our ethnic minority communities than any crocodile tears of sympathy for victims.
    Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Lady accept that, where a criminal court is dealing with any criminal offence and
    494
    racial motivation is proved, under existing law the court has the right to treat that as an aggravating factor and impose a more severe penalty than it would otherwise?
    Ms Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but I think that he will know that amendments were tabled in the House that would have made it mandatory to seek out any racial motivation and bring it to the courts. The problem is that often such motivation is not properly examined or researched, and the evidence is not brought to the courts. The procedure suggested by the hon. Gentleman can often not be applied in practice. Many examples of that have been cited in previous debates.
    In another place Lord Ferrers sought to justify the omission of the issue of race. He said:
    "Proving motivation … is particularly difficult."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1864.]
    As the hon. and learned Member for Burton has said, the amendment requires proof of intent. Does the Minister honestly believe that intent is less difficult to prove than racial motivation? Will he put his explanation on the record tonight, as it will be important to those who try to bring cases under the new legislation?
    Lord Ferrers also sought to justify the exclusion of race on the ground that the same punishment should be available for behaviour causing the same distress. He illustrated his point by citing offensive behaviour directed at people in wheelchairs. In doing so, he was not comparing one individual with another individual, but citing a class of people. He implied that the legislation must apply equally where the victim is harassed because he or she belongs to a definable group. Will the Minister confirm that, by virtue of not containing the term "racial", the amendment applies equally to sexual harassment, harassment on the grounds of sexuality or disability, as well as to race? It is important that we have an explanation. Those organisations that represent the large numbers of victims of those various forms of harassment will take a keen interest in the Minister's response.
    Finally, I should like further clarification of the Government's intentions. I recently received a report from the Lewisham racial equality council, which stated that in just eight months it had found 175 cases of racial harassment on local housing estates in that borough alone. The report cites examples that I shall read to the House. It states that one family received a total of 10 threatening notes, one of which included the words:
    "How many times do we have to say it. Leave as quick as you came, niggers are not welcome, especially when they drive fancy cars".
    7.30 pm
    The report continues:
    "Two maisonettes were daubed with racist graffiti; two eight year olds were chased by a boy with a knife; one youth estimated he was harassed every single week for 2 years; people were called "nigger", "black bitch" as a matter of routine; people had stones and eggs thrown at them; one woman had a lighted match thrown in her face, families had their windows were smashed; dog excrement was smeared over doors and cars."
    Will the Minister reassure those victims that the amendment provides the means of ending their misery? Will he explain to us how we will know whether it has? He knows that although there are tens of thousands of incidents recorded under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, there is no record or analysis of those that are deemed to be racially motivated offences. Therefore, I

    495
    submit that the amendment, which takes the form of a new clause, has the great weakness that it is a "catch-all clause", although that might be regarded as a strength. The fact remains that the Government came to the House proposing to deal with racially motivated offences and offering us the amendment. How will we know how effective it is if, as at present, there is no mechanism for describing the different types of offences that occur under section 5? If there is to be no monitoring of the racially motivated nature of some offences, no one will be able to judge whether the Government's stated intentions have been realised. Will the Minister clarify that point?
    The Government have chosen to ignore all the proposals to deal with racial harassment and racial violence made by the Opposition, most of those made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs and those from numerous expert organisations, including the Commission for Racial Equality, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Anti-Racist Alliance and other interested community groups.
    We appreciate the fact that something has been done. We shall not oppose the amendment. The stronger powers of arrest and greater penalties are much to be welcomed, but experience leads us to doubt the Government's commitment and intention to deal with racism. Many hon. Members and many more people outside will not rest until the scourge of racism has been removed from our society. Legislation has a part to play, but much more needs to be done. However, legislation can send a powerful signal to victims and potential victims, to perpetrators and potential perpetrators. I have no doubt that the amendment will prove inadequate to the task. I have no doubt that we shall make further attempts to amend the law to make it more powerful in dealing with racial harassment and violence, but the Minister now has the opportunity to tell us how he believes that the amendment will deal with the misery, violence and cruelty inflicted on people of different colour and different race.
    Mr. Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) who has spoken on this matter many times and who will no doubt continue to do so until we manage to change the law.
    I find the amendment rather strange. It contains some truisms about harassment—no one is ever in favour of harassment—but it is weak in dealing with the crucial factor.
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), I represent a multi-racial, inner-city community where, tragically, although racial violence and harassment is not rife it does exist. Much of it goes unreported because, as in some areas outside London, there is either a lack of confidence that the police will investigate or a belief that nothing can be done.
    Asian families are afraid to walk the streets at night; black people are afraid to go down certain streets or into certain areas; Indian families have excreta pushed through their letter boxes; people are sent firebombs and phone threats, abuse and hate mail but feel wholly unable to do anything about it. They feel constantly harassed throughout their lives and believe that there is no redress or support.
    496
    My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said that there were more than 100,000 reported cases of racial harassment in Britain last year. I suspect that the figure is very much higher for cases that could be reported or in which action could be taken if there were, a specific offence of racial violence rather than, as the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) said in an intervention, courts being able merely to consider race as an exacerbating factor once the case had gone to court. My point is that it is extremely difficult to get such cases to court in the first place.
    Racial harassment is a Europe-wide phenomenon. It is increasing not only in this country but especially in France, Germany and Scandinavia. The introduction of a proper law to deal with racial violence would have two effects. The first is that all police stations would be forced to take racial cases seriously rather than simply recording them if that is the wish of those "either side of the counter", so to speak. Secondly, such a law would perhaps mean that a prosecution could be brought more quickly. At present, it is often difficult to acquire proof in, for example, cases of harassment of neighbours. I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly how the Government plan to deal with racism and racial violence.
    The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey also mentioned problems between neighbours. There are many problems facing people who live in high-density, urban areas housing. They include harassment caused by noise, disturbance, differing life styles or—dare I say it—even by building design. Many flats and houses are ludicrously designed. Housing in my area is largely late Victorian and was built cheaply in the first place; often, conversions are done cheaply and, for that reason, there is no soundproofing or sound insulation. It means that what one family consider normal behaviour can be terrorism for the family above or below, even though such behaviour can simply be the problem of five or six-year-old children running around a flat.
    People who live in detached or semi-detached houses might find it difficult to understand what it is like for people who live in the kind of environment that I have described. I have no truck whatsoever with people who play loud music out of their windows, who threaten violence or harassment or who attack their neighbours to such an extent that they are frightened to go near the police, Members of Parliament, councillors or clergymen, but we should also consider what causes the problems in the first place.
    This particularly awful legislation could have provided us with an opportunity to do some good for one group of especially victimised people in our society—those who are racially attacked or harassed—but the opportunity appears to have been completely lost. However, people outside the House have noticed that fact and realised that something must be done. We cannot go on watching the daily toll of racial violence and harassment while nothing is done by those in positions of power. We cannot allow that to continue. It is wrong that anyone should feel fear when walking the streets of his or her own community, or should feel afraid of going out in the morning. It is wrong that children should feel afraid at school. That situation can turn into copycat racial violence.

    497
    The opportunity has been missed in the Bill, but I hope that we shall be able to return to it in the new Session. Opposition Members will keep returning to it until we can remove the scourge of racism and racial violence from our society.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): We have had a good debate, and I must say at once that the Government share the concern about racial harassment and the other forms of harassment mentioned in the debate. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the clause is tough, and that toughness may have been underestimated in the debate. It closes a gap in the law and creates an offence of intentional harassment, which will enable the courts and the police to deal more effectively with serious forms of deliberate racial harassment. The new offence provides the police with an immediate power of arrest, thereby enabling them to take swift action against the perpetrators of those odious crimes. A maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a fine of £5,000 is also provided for.
    In order to justify those increased powers and penalties, it will be necessary to prove that the action of the defendant was intentional and that someone was actually harassed. Although the offence is clearly aimed at combating racial harassment, race is not mentioned in the clause. The explicit inclusion of race would require that the racial motivation of the defendant be proved. In saying that, I believe that I am responding to two of the main concerns expressed in the debate.
    Motivation is extremely difficult to prove. It is a subjective matter, far more difficult than intent. To prove racial motivation is difficult, too, and it is right that other forms of harassment are also covered by the clause—the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) mentioned that. For example, disabled people and homosexuals should be covered by the offence, and they are.
    We examined the Select Committee's report carefully, and have accepted a good number of its recommendations, including the further action needed to alert the Crown Prosecution Service and other arms of the legal weaponry of the judiciary, so that they are aware of, and on the lookout for, racial harassment. We share the determination to do everything that we can to stop it.
    I shall now deal with some specific points that were raised. I do not quite share the concern of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Select Committee, about intent being all that difficult to prove. Indeed, the police say to us that they do not regard it as such. Where conduct is deliberate, malicious and targeted, such as regular abuse, it displays clear intent, and should not be difficult to punish by using the new tough weapon provided by the clause.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Baker: I should be grateful if I could go on, because I am about to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend goes on to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, may I ask one? It is obvious that some police officers—those whom the Select Committee saw—thought that intent was an obstacle to prosecution and conviction. Other police
    498
    officers—those who have advised my hon. Friend and the other Ministers—think the contrary. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Will my hon. Friend assure us that, should the number of prosecutions and convictions under the harassment provisions added to the Bill not be substantially larger than the nu ber taking place now, the Government will undertake to reconsider the matter with a view to toughening the provision, perhaps by removing the requirement of intent? If my hon. Friend agreed to that, it would give some comfort to those of us who are slightly dissatisfied with the Government's response.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. Baker: I understand my hon. and learned Friend's concern, and although I cannot give an undertaking on future action, I can assure him that we shall keep the matter under close review, and will watch to see precisely what the new offence achieves. That undertaking also meets one of the concerns of the hon. Member for Deptford.
    Ms Ruddock: May I clarify that point? The purpose of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) would be served if statistics were produced, and we could make a comparison between what is happening now and what happens in future. My argument adds to that the need to distinguish between different kinds of offence within the group. It is important to us to know whether it is racial incidents or other kinds of incident that are dealt with in that way.
    Mr. Baker: I hope that, in examining how the offence works in practice, we shall consider all kinds of harassment. I cannot say how those will be categorised, but I hear the hon. Lady's request, and of course we shall consider the matter closely, because it is important.
    Several hon. Members said that the offence should mention racial harassment in particular. I must tell the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others that we believe that avoiding a specific reference to racial harassment will make it easier to secure prosecutions. As I have said, it would be very hard to prove racial motivation. I should not like, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like, to see prosecutions fail for that reason.
    Mr. Corbyn: Unfortunately, many attempts at prosecution and eviction by local authorities for racial violence and racial harassment have failed precisely because there is no specific law dealing with that. There is nothing on earth to stop a subsection saying, "and a motive based on racial hatred or incitement to racial hatred" being added to the clause. That would be an addition to the armoury of the law against such people. I fail to understand what point the Minister is making. Again, he seems to be trying to avoid the basic issue that we need a law that outlaws racial harassment and racial violence, and makes them a criminal offence, as they should be.
    Mr. Baker: The clause covers that kind of harassment, as it does others. If one tries to prove racial motivation one makes it harder to get a prosecution, and that is not what the hon. Gentleman would want. I believe it right that there should be similar penalties for other forms of harassment, and I believe that the hon. Member for Deptford is with me on that.

    499
    My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) made a sensible point when he said, rightly, that in other crimes racial motivation is well recognised as an aggravating factor that the courts should take into account. That point has got rather left behind.
    Now I shall speak briefly about the amendments, and the reason why I cannot accept them. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 132 would weaken the test of intent by including within the offence behaviour that was reckless, but not actually intended to cause harassment. The test of intent was included in the new offence in order to distinguish it from the existing offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, and to justify a custodial sentence. Not just from having spent a great deal of my life in Peckham, but from living in London generally and having heard many examples of neighbourhood noise, I do not regard a custodial sentence as the right remedy for such neighbour problems. Indeed, there are remedies under the Public Order Act 1986.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I put it to the Minister that resisting the addition of the word "recklessly" does not meet the concern. The Minister nows my borough. In the past few weeks, I have had at my surgery a black family, a gay couple and some disabled people who have all been badly harassed. Let us imagine that somebody had attacked the homes of those people when they were not in them, careless as to whether they were in them or not and believing that that is where they might have been. Such attackers should be convicted if they were careless or reckless about whether someone was there or not. One could not convict them if one had to prove that they intended that the person who lived there should be the victim. That is the present weakness.
    The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), supporting the argument, has sought to persuade the Minister—I still seek to persuade him—that such an action is deserving of custody, whether of a short or long period. A person deserves custody if he or she is not bothered about whether somebody is being harassed by his or her actions. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable consequence.
    Mr. Baker: The word "recklessly" applies to a far lighter kind of behaviour than does the word "intent". Yet if conduct were deliberate, as I have said, malicious and targeted, which could certainly cover the type of conduct that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey has described, it would, no doubt rightly, be caught by the new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 132.
    Amendment (b) would make the offence inconsistent with other public order offences by extending its scope to include private acts committed when the defendant and victim were in different dwellings. That is why we have to be careful before invading neighbourhood disputes with a new clause as heavyweight as this. If we accepted the amendments, the result would be legislation that was neither clearly designed to tackle a specific type of crime nor consistent with public order provisions. I am afraid that I cannot, therefore, recommend to the House that we
    500
    should accept the amendments. I urge the House to reject both amendments and to agree with the Lords amendment, which would add the new clause.
    Mr. Stephen: On the point of conduct in one dwelling affecting people in another dwelling, I have in my constituency many elderly people who live in flats or in semi-detached houses whose lives are made a misery by behaviour in the next-door flat or house. The behaviour may be shouting or screaming, playing loud music or banging on the wall. Those people are affected by the behaviour in the adjoining dwelling. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government to keep the matter under review because it causes serious distress to many people, particularly elderly people.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has not dealt with many of the matters that have been brought to him. To start with the least important first, he has not said when the Government intend to do anything else about the general issue of nuisance, neighbours, noise and so on. I gave him the peg to hang that on because I put to him the fact that there was a consultation paper. We have not been told that there is a deadline or an end in sight.
    Secondly, the one undertaking that the Minister has given is the mildest undertaking that Ministers can give—to keep things under review. There has not even been an undertaking—the debate in the House of Lords was clear about the need for it—that the Government will look at the issue, at what the Select Committee has proposed and at what all the organisations to which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) referred have proposed, and that they will have the issue specifically on their agenda in the near future.
    Thirdly, there have clearly been two concerns in the debate. One has been that under the general law—the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) made the point that we can all make perfectly properly, and in which we support him—many of our constituents, particularly the vulnerable, often elderly single people, are effectively powerless. They find themselves at a huge disadvantage relative to the person next door, the person across the road or the person above or below. They need much more support.
    Sometimes, the only way in which the neighbours understand the position is if they are threatened with losing their liberty. Custody need not be for six months; it could be for six days or for one night. Just as on the football field a player is told that he will not play in the next match, the courts could say, "You will be locked up for the weekend." The Dutch do that regularly. Their gaols are not nearly as full as ours because they send loads of people away for short periods. They give people a short, sharp shock. That is one point that we should have heard from the Minister.
    Fourthly, there is a huge concern that the law will not be tough enough in dealing with harassment against minority communities in our society. I have learnt a lesson in this place—[Laughter]. This is an important point. The only people who can judge—
    The Lords Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Derek Conway): I am here all the time.
    Mr. Hughes: I know that the hon. Gentleman is here all the time and some of the London Members seem to be here most of the time, too.

    501
    The only way in which one can judge whether people feel that they are harassed or that the law is not tough enough is to ask them. White people, for example, cannot speak for the feelings of the black community or of Asian people. If such people say to us that the law is not tough enough, we must accept that. That was the lesson that some of us learnt, and which others did not learn, from the debate over the age of consent. If people say, "We feel discriminated against," it is not for the rest of us to say, "Oh no you don't." We are not the 16, 17 or 18-year-olds protesting outside the House of Commons. We are talking about people saying to the House, "The law needs to be toughened."
    The Government are moving the goalposts. We concede that the Government have come up with some legislation that is better. However, we are saying—the House of Lords debate was clear—that this legislation will not ensure that we clobber people as we should. I am strongly of the view that the matter should be left for the House to decide. Therefore, I will not seek to withdraw the amendment.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made—
    The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 183.

    Division No. 312]

    [7.58 pm

    AYES

    Austin-Walker, John

    Maddock, Diana

    Barnes, Harry

    McFall, John

    Bayley, Hugh

    Michael, Alun

    Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

    Milburn, Alan

    Bennett, Andrew F.

    Murphy, Paul

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

    O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Olner, William

    Burden, Richard

    Pendry, Tom

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Pickthall, Colin

    Corston, Jean

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Dafis, Cynog

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Dixon, Don

    Reid, Dr John

    Dobson, Frank

    Rendel, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Ruddock, Joan

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Salmond, Alex

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Harvey, Nick

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Vaz, Keith

    Home Robertson, John

    Wallace, James

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Hutton, John

    Winnick, David

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Wise, Audrey

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Livingstone, Ken

    Mr. Archie Kirkwood and

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Ms Liz Lynne.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Baldry, Tony

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Amess, David

    Batiste, Spencer

    Ancram, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Arbuthnot, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Booth, Hartley

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkins, Robert

    Bowis, John

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

    Brazier, Julian

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    502

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Key, Robert

    Browning, Mrs. Angela

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Burns, Simon

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Butler, Peter

    Knapman, Roger

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

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

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Knight, Greg (Derby N)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Cash, William

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Clappison, James

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Legg, Barry

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Leigh, Edward

    Coe, Sebastian

    Lidington, David

    Colvin, Michael

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Congdon, David

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Peter (Fareham)

    Conway, Derek

    Lord, Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Luff, Peter

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Cran, James

    MacKay, Andrew

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

    Maclean, David

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Malone, Gerald

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Mates, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Merchant, Piers

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Mills, Iain

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Dover, Den

    Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

    Duncan, Alan

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Eggar, Tim

    Norris, Steve

    Elletson, Harold

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Paice, James

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Evennett, David

    Pickles, Eric

    Faber, David

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Forman, Nigel

    Richards, Rod

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Riddick, Graham

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    French, Douglas

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

    Gale, Roger

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Gallie, Phil

    Sackville, Tom

    Gill, Christopher

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Shersby, Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Sims, Roger

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Hague, William

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Harris, David

    Stephen, Michael

    Hawksley, Warren

    Sweeney, Walter

    Hayes, Jerry

    Sykes, John

    Heald, Oliver

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

    Hendry, Charles

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Hicks, Robert

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Thomason, Roy

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Trend, Michael

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Jack, Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Ward, John

    Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    503

    Watts, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wells, Bowen

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Whittingdale, John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Willetts, David

    Mr. Michael Bates.

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

    Clause 142

      INCREASE IN CERTAIN PENALTIES
      Lords amendment: No. 141, in page 114, line 9, at end insert—
      ("(2A) For the maximum term of imprisonment specified in column 3 of Part III of Schedule 8 to this Act that may be imposed under the enactments specified in column 2 of that Part of that Schedule on conviction on indictment, or on conviction on indictment or summary conv ction, of the offences mentioned (and broadly described) in column 1 of that Part of that Schedule there shall be substituted the maximum term of imprisonment specified in column 4 of that Part of that Schedule.")
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      8 pm
      Mr. Michael: It is necessary to point out to the House that there has been a change since we last debated this proposal during the earlier stages of the Bill. As on a number of occasions recently, we see the Government reluctantly and belatedly accepting a case that was made by the Labour party at an earlier stage of the Bill but rejected by Ministers. There was nothing in the Bill about firearms, violence, drugs, drug-related crime or many other serious issues until those matters were raised and pressed by Labour Members. Indeed, when the Government rather belatedly accepted that there was a need for action, Ministers had to tack the proposals on to the amendments to the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967. That shows how reluctantly and late the Government came to recognise the importance of dealing with firearms penalties.
      The amendment introduces a range of increased penalties for possessing, selling, repairing and supplying firearms, as we proposed. The amendment was tabled at 2 am in the House of Lords. Perhaps it would have been embarrassing for the Government to acknowledge such a volte face on the issue which we, of course, raised in detail in this House.
      In Committee on 15 March, we proposed two new clauses—one to regulate the sale of weapons by mail order and the other to increase penalties for the possession of guns. The need for action is undisputed. Between 1986 and 1992, there was a 42 per cent. increase in crimes involving firearms in England and Wales.The link between drugs and guns is increasingly evident and it is frightening. There can be no excuse for illegally carrying guns and every reason to increase the penalty for so doing.
      The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Sir Paul Condon, has warned us that we are being pushed by events towards the arming of the police. That was not a prediction, but a warning which, as we said in earlier debates, should be heeded by the Government who should
      504
      do all they can to reduce the availability and use of firearms and other weapons. However, when we proposed such a measure in Committee, the Minister refused to accept our amendment.
      We tried again on Report on 12 April. The Government moved an amendment that dealt just with prohibited weapons such as machine guns and machine pistols. That was far more limited than our proposals which the Minister suggested were
      "not on the right lines."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 961]
      The Government voted against our amendments.
      In the Lords, the Government moved the amendment under discussion which incorporated almost all our original proposals. In that debate, Earl Ferrers said:
      "it is important that the courts should have power to deal more severely than they do at present with illegal possession of firearms by criminals and their associates."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 1994; Vol. 556, c. 1782.]
      Yet again, the Government have been forced to act after pressure from the Opposition. That is yet another climb down, but in so far as it accepts the case that we have made, I welcome it. However, the Government have still not acted to tighten the regulations in relation to mail order. I ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that he will tackle that issue in the next Session.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I welcome the Minister's conversion on this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) rightly said, the Minister opposed the increases in penalties in our debates in Committee.
      In Committee, I pointed out to the Minister that there had been a case in which a person had been arrested for possessing a large quantity of weapons. He possessed those weapons not to use them himself, but as an armourer. He hired out weapons to criminals who wished to carry out offences.
      I have never believed that we can deal with crime simply by increasing penalties. It is sometimes possible to do that, but more often it is not. However, there are cases such as the one to which I have referred, where it is important to deal with cases where armourers possess weapons. Those people must be dealt with not just as ordinary people unlawfully possessing weapons, but as people who are making a business out of being unlawfully in possession of weapons and who make profits from that. They must be dealt with much more severely. We therefore need laws that allow the courts to deal with worst issue cases.
      When that point was put to the Minister, he did not accept it. He said:
      "I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North said and I sympathise with the concerns that lie behind it. It is essential for us to ensure that proper penalties are available for unlawful possession of offensive weapons and unlawful dealing in and purchase of firearms. The Government's paramount concern … is public safety, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has the correct approach. The longer I listened to his speech, the more convinced I was that he was tackling the wrong problem. The existing maximum penalty for possession of an offensive weapon is already substantial and we feel that it adequately reflects the seriousness of the offence and provides the courts with the necessary powers to deal with the worst examples of the offence that come before them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 15 March 1994; c. 1357.]

      505
      The Minister has undergone a great and welcome conversion. It is another example of his road-to-Damascus politics. We hope that he will be converted to other Labour party policies on law and order. Perhaps in due course, he will be saying in his sleep, "I'm tough on crime and the causes of crime." Perhaps that is the first step towards his doing a jig in his sleep to the tune of Die Tannenbaum.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    After Clause 145
    Lords amendment: No. 150, insert the following new clause—Procuring disclosure of computer-held personal information—
    ("Obtaining computer-held information
    ,—(1) In section 5 of the Data Protection Act 1984 (prohibitions in relation to personal data, including its disclosure), after subsection (5), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(6) A person who procures the disclosure to him of personal data the disclosure of which to him is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above knowing or having reason to believe that the
    disclosure constitutes such a contravention shall be guilty of an offence.".
    (2) In consequence of the amendment made by subsection (1) above—

    (a) in subsection (5) of that section, after the word "other" there shall be inserted the word "foregoing"; and

    (b) in section 28 (exemptions: crime and taxation), in subsection (3)—

    (i) after the word "contravening" there shall be inserted the words "or in the case of section 5(2)(d) procuring the contravention of"; and

    (ii) after the words "to make" there shall be inserted the words "or (in the case of section 5(2)(d)) to procure".")

    Read a Second time
    Amendments made to the Lords amendment:
    (a) in line 4, leave out 'its'
    (b) in line 5, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
    (c) in line 10, at end insert—
    '(7) A person who sells personal data shall be guilty of an offence if (in contravention of subsection (6) above) he has procured the disclosure of the data to him.
    (8) A person who offers to sell personal data shall be guilty of an offence if (in contravention of subsection (6) above) he has procured or subsequently procures the disclosure of the data to him.
    (9) For the purposes of subsection (8) above, an advertisement indicating that personal data are or may be for sale is an offer to sell the data.
    (10) For the purposes of subsections (7) and (8) above, "selling", or "offering to sell", in relation to personal data, includes selling, or offering to sell, information extracted from the data.
    (11) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (6), (7) or (8) above, whether a disclosure is in contravention of subsection (2) or (3) above, section 34(6)(d) below shall be disregarded.".'.
    (d) in line 16, leave out 'word "contravening'" and insert 'words "section 26(3)(a) above".'.
    (e) in line 17, leave out from 'words' to 'and' in line 18 and insert
    "'or for an offence under section 5(6) above";'.
    506
    (f) in line 20, leave out '5(2)(d)' and insert '5(6)'. —[Mr. Maclean.]
    Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
    8.15 pm
    Lords amendment: No. 152, to insert the following new clause—Local authority powers to provide closed-circuit television—
    .—(1) Without prejudice to any power which they may exercise for those purposes under any other enactment, a local authority may take such of the following steps as they consider will, in relation to their area, promote the prevention of crime or the welfare of the victims of crime—

    (a) providing apparatus for recording visual images of events occurring on any land in their area;

    (b) providing within their area a telecommunications system which, under Part II of the Telecommunications Act 1984, may be run without a licence;

    (c) arranging for the provision of any other description of telecommunications system within their area or between any land in their area and any building occupied by a public authority.

    (2) Any power to provide, or to arrange for the provision of, any apparatus includes power to maintain, or operate, or, as the case may be, to arrange for the maintenance or operation of, that apparatus.
    (3) Before taking such a step under this section, a local authority shall consult the chief officer of police for the police area in which the step is to be taken.
    (4) In this section—
    "chief officer of police", in relation to a police area in Scotland, means the chief constable of a police force maintained for that area;
    "local authority"—

    (a) in England, means a county council or district council;

    (b) in Wales, means a county council or county borough council; and

    (c) in Scotland, has the meaning given by section 235(1) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973; and

    "telecommunications system" has the meaning given in section 4 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and "licence" means a licence under section 7 of that Act.
    (5) Until 1st April 1996, in this section "local authority" means, in Wales, a county council or district council.")
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 21, at end insert—
    '(3A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to control the use of any apparatus provided under subsection (1) above, and such regulation shall provide for—

    (a) restrictions on such apparatus to prevent, where practicable, the surveillance of private residential premises without the consent of the majority of the occupiers of those premises;

    (b) the provision for the display of notices to the public of the existence of any system using the apparatus;

    (c) the selection, training and supervision of the operators of the apparatus;

    (d) arrangements for the storage of, and access to, any recordings made;

    (e) arrangements for access to the recordings by the subjects of those recordings;

    (f) arrangements for the destruction of the recordings.'.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment (b) in line 27, leave out 'or district council' and insert
    'district council, London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London.'.

    507
    Lords amendment No. 176.
    Mr. Michael: I will be brief because the amendment offers me an opportunity to raise a point and I hope to have a positive response from the Minister. Amendment (a) is narrower in scope than we would have liked. It requires a code of conduct in relation to closed-circuit television systems that are introduced and operated by local authorities. We should like a code of conduct that goes much wider than that, because local authorities are much more likely to be responsible and accountable to public interest than are other bodies that operate. such systems.
    The amendment gives us an opportunity to point out the need for a code of conduct and I hope that the Minister will respond positively by accepting that there is a need for discussion on the issue and to achieve a code of conduct that would apply more widely than that proposed in our amendment. That is why we do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.
    The reason for a code of conduct in relation to local government CCTV systems—I will not refer to systems outside local authority operations, but the same case would apply to them—is that organisations should learn from the experience that has been garnered by using systems in a variety of different circumstances. I say that, because some systems have been found to be unsuitable or inappropriate, either technically or in their location because lessons had not been learnt before they were installed.
    We should learn from best practice because there is now a wealth of experience around the country—some positive and some not so positive. In other words, sometimes the investment has been cost effective and sometimes it has not. There is also a need to ensure that the public are properly protected against misuse such as inappropriate access to recordings or a failure to destroy them after a reasonable period.
    The Lords amendment gives local authorities the power to provide CCTV. I understand that it has always been thought that that power existed and it is simply a matter of confirming that that is so and clearing up an anomaly following a query by a district auditor. It is reasonable that the point should be cleared up and that there should be no doubt. We therefore support the amendment in its attempt to achieve that.
    My colleagues and I have encouraged that power. CCTV brings about greater protection of the public in city centres, for example. I argued for police access to the traffic television system in the centre of Cardiff for precisely that purpose—it helps in targeting police activity and it can discourage crime. Our concern is to make sure that that is done properly.
    Of course, the greater infringement on liberty is to be the victim of a crime, which is why we support the use of such equipment in proper circumstances. At the same time, we must ensure that there is a proper system of regulation to prevent abuse. That becomes more necessary when the availability of such systems becomes wider and more comprehensive. Many local authorities and other organisations are using such systems. In general, the appropriate requirements are made by authorities when they set them up.
    508
    The Government should accept the need for such protection, whether it is by the police, local trusts, police authorities or large institutions such as health authorities in locations to which the public have access. As I have said, local authorities are more likely to observe a regulatory system—many that I have visited and inspected are doing so responsibly—than are other bodies, including some public bodies that are not as accountable to the electorate as local authorities are. The principle that is put forward is that there should be established a basic standard which should apply to CCTV schemes.
    In May 1992, in the foreword to the Police Research Group publication, "Closed Circuit Television in Public Places", the then Under-Secretary of State wrote:
    "Further work is now under way looking at the actual effect CCTV systems have on crime and disorder in the streets."
    The results of that work have not yet been published. They should be published. There should be an opportunity for discussion and a code of conduct, based on positive experience and on experience of cost effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will be his concern also and that it would be appropriate for the House to return to the issue not just in relation to local authorities but in the wider context at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope that he will respond positively to those suggestions.
    Mr. Bennett: I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for a code of practice. I have always had considerable reservations about people being under television surveillance, but, having seen in the Stockport area in my constituency the use of closed-circuit television in big tower blocks, having noted how it has greatly improved the environment for the people who live in them, and having seen such equipment in Ashton town centre, I am prepared to accept that, provided there is a proper code of practice, the benefits might outweigh the disadvantages. However, it is very important that we have a proper code of practice and proper standards.
    There are housing blocks in the Stockport part of my constituency. The housing authority has been tempted to increase the number of cameras, but not the number of staff who supervise them. If someone watches screens for a long time, their concentration tends to wander. If we are not careful, some systems might be undermined because they are not effective and people might not realise that if they misbehave on camera action will be taken. It is important that standards are set, that people are riot expected to watch screens for long periods without proper breaks and that they have to watch only a reasonable number of screens.
    As for the Tameside part of my constituency, I pay tribute to Tameside council, which took the trouble to operate a town centre scheme. That involved the council putting up money. It was a major initiative by the council to defend and enhance Ashton town centre. Councillors also took the trouble to look at other places in the country where such schemes are in operation. They saw that the best systems involved police co-operation and supervision. Having looked at the system in operation in Ashton, the police understand the civil liberties issues involved. I wish that the installers of the equipment had shown the same efficiency, and I hope that some of the teething troubles have now been overcome.

    509
    As a member of the Environment Select Committee, I have also looked at one or two other town centre schemes. Standards vary considerably according to who has supervision, whether it is private security people or the police, and particularly according to who has access to areas in which cameras are located. Having seen the amusement of young security officers following a group of young girls on camera, I can understand that there is considerable scope for misuse. Now that the best cameras can zoom in on a car and enable us not only to read its number plate but to determine whether a tax disc is present, there is considerable scope for misuse.
    I plead with the Government not only to make it necessary for local authority schemes to have a clear code of practice but to make sure that all schemes are subject to an enforceable code of practice to ensure that we benefit from closed-circuit television rather than infringe individuals' civil rights.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I welcome the amendment and support the plea for a code of practice. I have been trying for some time in the town of Bedworth in my constituency, with the local chamber of commerce which was recently set up through the good offices of a number of local traders, the police and the local authority, to raise funding for a CCTV system in the town centre. We have had increasing problems with crime in Bedworth. One of the senior security officers for Boots the Chemists said that many of her workers refused to work in the town because of their fear of people coming into the shop and causing difficulties when stopped for shoplifting.
    The police, the local authority and I thought that CCTV might be one way to approach the issue. The police have also adopted a policy of community policing, which is very welcome, but we think that CCTV might provide an added incentive for criminals to stay away from the town.
    The problem, as always, is finance. The local authority has problems in finding the necessary money and the traders are hard-pressed after a very difficult recession. We need more Government funding. The Government have now come forward with a proposal involving about £40 million for a bidding system for local authorities. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. Newspaper reports this week suggest that that figure is singularly inadequate. There is great demand among local authorities for such systems because of increased crime. The Government need to recognise the importance of CCTV and put more resources behind a bidding system, if that is the way they wish to operate it. CCTV is an important way of reducing crime. It is certainly supported by the police, and I very much hope that we will see more such Government action.
    Mr. Beith: Closed-circuit television has proved to be a very useful tool in combating crime, particularly in town centres and on sites where there are considerable areas to watch. The way to regard CCTV is not, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) feared, as the surveillance of people, but as the surveillance of places to ensure that they remain safe.
    It is only when people do wrong that they have anything to fear from CCTV. That has been the experience of police-operated systems in Northumbria. Police in Newcastle and Berwick are soon to use CCTV. When trained and accountable police officers are in charge of the operation, one has confidence that abuse can be avoided. There is no doubt about its value. It has led
    510
    to many prosecutions in the force area. None of the prosecutions in the Northumbria force area has been contested because the evidence on the film is so clear that guilty pleas are forthcoming immediately, which is a useful indication.
    Obviously, there has been some misplacement of crime from areas served by closed-circuit television to other areas, which has been a bit of a spur to other places to set up systems. One of the features of the use of closed-circuit television is that it has been necessarily, until now, a crime prevention initiative involving the business community and others simply to finance the operation. It is good that businesses and other organisations have got together to set up such systems. I hope that we can continue to have a partnership through Government funding, business funding and community funding of various sorts so that everyone is involved in making a success of the scheme.
    There will be an increasing need for codes of practice, not least because of the operation of closed-circuit television by people other than the police. The line between the proper use of closed-circuit television to protect the public and surveillance could easily be crossed, and we must build up a satisfactory means of preventing that. The operation is still in its infancy.
    The Government can build up the kind of practice to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred, but they should be actively doing so in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. I hope that the Minister can give us a commitment that he intends to keep a close eye on both the valuable development of closed-circuit television crime fighting and the safeguards that it will need.
    8.30 pm
    Mr. Maclean: The Government have always backed, and consistently and enthusiastically welcome, the development of closed-circuit television schemes. There are dozens of highly successful schemes around the country. Most work with some Government safer cities funding or with money from the single regeneration budget in partnership with the police, local councils and, importantly, the business community.
    The schemes have been successful, and the initiative that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced this week will build on that success and get the schemes into some of the smaller towns and cities because some of the large centres are already covered by many hundred-thousand-pound schemes. Recently, I opened a scheme in Warwickshire, and a scheme in Liverpool which I opened cost about £350,000. We should now like to see the initiative get down into smaller towns.
    The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) was not generous in his remarks about the initiative that we have announced. We expect dozens more smaller towns and cities to take some of the money and use it as pump priming for their partnerships.
    Opposition Members claim that they invented the concept of partnership, admittedly years after the Government had been involved in such partnership initiatives. We will not hand over wadges of money to towns and tell them that it is the complete sum for CCTV and that they should get on with it. We will invite towns to get together with the private sector and the council in

    511
    their area, together with the police and any other people, and come to us with an initiative. They should then go into the partnership bidding round to get some of the millions of pounds that we are making available. That is how the partnerships already work; that is how we intend them to work.
    Of course, the Government accept the need for close consultation between the police, local councils and the community when CCTV systems are being planned and developed. We are not convinced, however, that statutory regulations to control the use of CCTV are necessary or, indeed, desirable. Regulations setting out a statutory code of practice would inevitably be prescriptive and would not allow for flexible local responses, and that is where the tremendous success of CCTV has been.
    Shortly, we will issue a good practice guidance booklet on the way in which CCTV can contribute to combating crime. The guidance is aimed at town centre managers, crime prevention partnerships and other groups that may be considering setting up CCTV schemes. The guide will recommend that a local code of practice should be developed for each scheme. As schemes vary widely in their nature and extent, with different operating requirements and different aims and objectives, each scheme will need an individually tailored code of practice to meet its local needs.
    Our good practice guide will include advice about the main issues that a code of practice should address. It includes issues such as staffing, control room procedures, video tape handling and storage, spot checks and liaison with the police—in essence, the issues covered in the amendment.
    The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued a policy statement on CCTV which supports that approach and offers the advice and guidance of the police service in developing effective schemes and codes of practice. Therefore, in view of the advice offered by ACPO, and in view of the Government's good practice guide which will be issued shortly, there is no need to establish a bureaucratic statutory framework to enforce the adoption of the codes of practice.
    Mr. Michael: With the permission of the House, I shall reply. I see that the Minister could not resist noting the references in the debate to the partnership approach. I cannot resist reminding him yet again that the Morgan report lies gathering dust on the shelf and that the Government have voted down the necessary statutory support for the partnership approach on a number of occasions in debates on both the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill. The Minister's recognition of our claim of having pushed forward the partnership approach both in the House and through the actions of many excellent Labour local authorities is well placed.
    What we should have heard from the Minister is a promise to publish the research—presumably, it is the research on which his guidance will be based. We do not want more pontification by Ministers; we want a debate and advice which will be helpful for those operating such schemes. Policy statements and advice notes, whether from the Government or the Association of Chief Police
    512
    Officers, do not deal with the maverick users of CCTV, and that is what is required to provide protection for the public.
    As I said before, we are well aware that local authorities in particular and many police forces have worked together in a positive way and, indeed, have placed sensible limitations and requirements on their schemes. The Minister again fails to recognise that there is a need to regulate those who do not voluntarily restrict themselves in a sensible way. Indeed, there is a wider need for regulation of the private security industry, especially in view of recent developments that threaten, in some cases, the safety and good order of local communities. I hope that that will be recognised by the Minister. I regret that it was not recognised in his response to this short debate. However, as I said earlier, because of the nature of the amendment, which is necessarily narrower than the one that we wished to table, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords amendment agreed to.[Special Entry.]
    Lords amendment No. 153 agreed to. [Special Entry.]

    Clause 147

      SALE OF TICKETS FOR DESIGNAT D FOOTBALL MATCHES BY NAUTHORISED PERSONS
      Lords amendment: No. 154, in page 120, line 6 at end insert—
      ("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument amend the provisions of this section so that they apply to any sporting event for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale.")
      Mr. Tom Pendry: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a), in line 3, leave out from 'instrument' to 'sporting' in line 4 and insert
      `apply this section, with such modifications as he thinks fit, to such sporting event or category of'
      Government amendment (b), in line 4, after 'sale' insert `as he thinks fit'
      Government amendment (c), in line 4, at end insert—
      `(7) An order under subsection (6) above may provide that—

      (a) a certificate (a "ticket sale certificate") signed by a duly authorised officer certifying that 6,000 or more tickets were issued for sale for a sporting event is conclusive evidence of that fact;

      (b) an officer is duly authorised if he is authorised in writing to sign a ticket sale certificate by the home club or the organisers of the sporting event; and

      (c) a document purporting to be a ticket sale certificate shall be received in evidence and deemed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.

      (8) Where an order has been made under subsection (6) above, this section also applies, with any modifications made by the order, to any part of the sporting event specified or described in the order, provided that 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale for the day on which that part of the event takes place.'
      Lords amendment No. 170.
      Mr. Pendry: Clearly, we welcome the fact that Lord Donoughue's amendment was carried in another place with considerable cross-party support. I am glad that the Government have listened and accepted the amendment.

      513
      However, what we want from the Government tonight is acceptance that the principles that lie behind it are with them as well.
      Following the Home Secretary's speech in Bournemouth, I am sure that the Minister will wish to heed the calls from the Police Federation to outlaw ticket touting at all major sporting events by supporting the Lords amendment, as well as enacting it. That is what many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to hear from the Minister tonight.
      I understand that the All England lawn tennis club at Wimbledon, the Test and County Cricket Board, the Rugby Football Union and the Professional Golfers Association figure among those bodies which have written to hon. Members on both sides of the House with sporting interests—[Interruption.] If the Minister for Transport in London would be quiet for a moment, perhaps he might join us in supporting the amendment. Those bodies have written to Members on both sides of the House who entertain sporting interests. As I said on Report, this is a criminal justice Bill as well as a public order Bill. That is why we urge the Minister further to consider his position. There is clearly a criminal aspect, as well as a public order aspect, to ticket touting.
      Similarly, we would urge the Minister to act on the overwhelming evidence pointing to the harm that ticket touting is doing to sports other than football, a point that the Government accepted earlier in the Bill's passage. According to the chief executive of the All England club at Wimbledon, ticket touting creates
      "a market for criminally obtained goods".
      Two years ago at Wimbledon, tickets were stolen from the offices of the legitimate holder— [Interruption.] If the Minister for Transport in London and the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) will listen to me, they may learn something. Within 24 hours, the tickets in question had been sold through a number of different outlets, all ticket touts, to unsuspecting victims who lost their money.
      In another place, my noble Friend Lord Donoughue eloquently described the illegal activities of touts at Wimbledon, before the Lords gave the Bill its Third Reading. The Minister will also recall similar examples that I gave on Report—the German gentleman who was ripped off to the tune of £50,000 buying tickets for Wimbledon. I and others will be happy to supply the Minister with many more such examples— [Interruption.] There are not many Tory Members in the Chamber, but they are certainly an unruly bunch, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      We should remember that Lord Justice Taylor made his recommendations more than four years ago. Only a few months ago, I was sent a letter by an official of a major premier league football club stating:
      "In our view the typical ticket tout has changed significantly over recent years. Nowadays they appear much more aggressive when they approach our staff, and threats of physical violence or damage to their cars are common place. Customers approaching the box office are often intimidated into purchasing tickets on behalf of touts."
      If the Minister needs further proof that touting gives rise to real crimes in a number of sports, I and others can supply him with evidence that fraud, theft and intimidation are all commonplace in ticket touting.
      514
      In the past, the Government have maintained that they do not see the activities of ticket touts as criminal. Over the years, I have received many letters from Ministers claiming that the aspects of criminality so clearly associated with ticket touting can be dealt with under existing law. The Minister himself repeated that argument on Report. So why, in his report, did Lord Chief Justice Taylor say, in justification of creating a new offence after the Hillsborough disaster:
      "Police should not have to stretch the law to deal with a public mischief. There should be a specific prohibition which the police can then enforce"?
      That is what the police want; it is what the sporting bodies want; and it is what many in this House want, as the Minister must by now have realised.
      The soundness of the principle behind my noble Friend's amendment caused Lord Ferrers to admit in the course of opposing it, on 19 July, that the Government were "in some difficulty". That difficulty can be avoided tonight by a clear-cut commitment on the part of the Minister to the effect that criminality in ticket touting will be carefully monitored with a view to enacting the new powers. We shall not oppose the Home Secretary's measure tonight, as we agree that there is likely to be a need for a discriminatory use of the powers. After all, the Home Secretary's modifications mean that he will be left to act as he sees fit. If he wants to add to his long list of duties and responsibilities, who am I to disagree? I hope that when he does act, his actions will be based on the real situation, not on the situation that he wishes existed.
      We should also appreciate clarification from the Minister of how the clause will be implemented. How will he protect the ordinary, honest fan from possible prosecution if he buys a ticket for a friend? As the Bill stands, the fan who asks a friend to buy him a ticket in advance and then pays for it at face value on the train to a match or in another public place will be asking his friend to commit an offence. I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention, but what direction will he give the police and courts for such circumstances? These measures are designed to protect genuine sports fans; there should be no possibility, therefore, of their suffering as a result of the measures.
      I trust that the Minister will be able to clarify the matter and to assure us that the wider powers will be enacted. I should add that we do appreciate the Government's movement on this issue since last we debated ticket touting. All we now ask is that the Government show rather more determination in future to eradicate the growing menace of ticket touts.
      8.45 pm
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Originally the clause was intended to deal specifically with football, but the amendment seeks to extend its powers. If we agree to the amendment, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) says, the powers will extend to all sporting activities for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale. That covers practically every large sporting event in the country.
      In the hon. Gentleman's remarks just now we heard a great deal of envy and all the old stuff about hard cases making bad law. We always hear that when the subject of ticket touts comes up. As I have often said in this House, ticket touts are street traders. They are not necessarily especially nice people; they may be reprobates, but what

      515
      they are doing is not illegal and by and large it causes no offence—except to people who seem to object to touts making extra profits. That is pure envy.
      My objection to the amendment is that it will widen the scope of the original intention far more than anybody anticipated. The clause was drawn up specifically with the Hillsborough tragedy in mind, when it was suspected that the sale of tickets on the day to opposing teams' supporters, who then got mixed up in the ground, might have been a contributory factor in the disaster. In fact, as I understand it, the tragedy was largely due to late entrants to the game and to crushing, not to internecine warfare between the two groups of supporters.
      The point is that there has been a huge growth in the perfectly legitimate business of the sale and resale of sporting event tickets through agents. The amendments, however, will require all agents to be licensed or authorised in writing by a home club or by the organisers of a match. That virtually gives the people running a match control over the whole sale process. We do not accept that for other industries or businesses. Someone making socks in a factory does not control everyone who sells the socks on or distributes them—so why should we apply such rules to this industry?
      A lot of hospitality entertaining goes on at football matches and at Wimbledon, and I imagine that some of our colleagues in this place have benefited from it on occasion. Unfortunately I have never had that privilege, but I still believe that the original wording was too loose, and that the measure should surely be restricted to the sale of tickets on the day, to enable those trading in tickets legitimately before a match to continue to do so. We should certainly not extend the idea to other sports. There is no evidence of the sort of disorder that the clause was intended to deal with being caused by the resale of tickets by street traders.
      I believe that we have given the Home Secretary a dangerous extension of his powers. He will be able to make decisions by order and by statutory instrument. We all know that that means that he can more or less do what he likes on the nod without having to come back to this place. We know, too, that there are plenty of hon. Members who will always speak against street traders and touts, but very few who will stand up for their rights. But the point about a democratic system is the fact that even those of whom we do not necessarily approve still have the right to do what is legitimate, lawful and harmless. I disagree with the legislation and with the amendments, which would massively increase the powers that I have described. I urge the Government, who are dedicated to reducing restrictions, licensing and controls, not to go down that path and to reject the amendment.
      Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) spoke with her usual eloquence and clarity. She is absolutely right, as it seems remarkable that the Government, who have rightly been set on the path of deregulation, have seen fit to bring before the House—as they have done on a previous occasion—an amendment and a clause which will regulate the sales of tickets for sporting events. Frankly, such sales have nothing to do with us and for that, among other reasons, I regret that this debate had to take place.
      516
      May I address some remarks to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) who is an old foe but has been promoted to what is known as shadow Minister for Sport. He showed tonight that he is the shadow Minister for Spoil-sport. He intended to try and stop those poor souls who—unlike him and me—do not have the privilege of access to tickets to sporting events. We have shared in attending notable sporting events at the behest and gratuitous request of other honourable bodies. I shall not say which commercial interests they might have represented. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to state which sporting events we have attended and who has been our host on those occasions—be they possibly tobacco companies—that is entirely up to him, but I shall not press that point.
      The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and I have enjoyed such events, but he is seeking to spoil other people's enjoyment and to tell them that they cannot get a ticket because those available are not legitimate and they cannot go to an authorised agent. The rugby fan from Wales who uses his life savings, or sells the tiles off his house, for the chance of buyi g a ticket in a public house outside Twickenham to see his beloved team soundly beaten by the English side—as they usually are—would be denied that opportunity by the Bill, and more particularly by the provisions of the amendment.
      I must briefly declare an interest, as I am a member of the Marylebone cricket club and also of a rugby club. I suppose that some might say that in sporting terms I am the Stan Flashman of the House of Commons. Several hon. Members—I see one has just arrived in the Chamber—have asked me if I could, quite legitimately, obtain for them tickets for certain sporting events. I confess that I have not declared that interest in the Register of Members' Interests because I gained no financial advantage for so doing. I did it on the basis that I felt sporting interest should spread throughout colleagues on both sides of the House. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said that she had missed out on my generosity and will certainly try to put that right.
      On the basis of the amendment and the clause before the House I fear that my activities will not merely be curtailed but may cease altogether and many hon. Members would be extremely disappointed if they were no longer able to obtain tickets for such events.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said, there is a worry that, as a result of the Government amendment, the Secretary of State will be able to take powers to extend the provision beyond the range of football. That is a great worry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State would not even consider that such powers might be necessary during the lifetime of this or any Conservative Government. Should the shadow Minister, the spoil-sport, ever be in a position of power, however, and see some disorder at a boxing match—perhaps like the disorder that the chairman of the Conservative party described so eloquently a few weeks ago as a minor difficulty within the crowd—he would immediately say that tickets could be sold only by authorised agents.
      I am not totally against tickets being sold through authorised agents. The Rugby Football Union, which the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde mentioned, has a

      517
      good system whereby it sells tickets through clubs and has virtually cut out the chance of criminal activity through ticket touting.
      I object to our having to pass legislation to ensure that only authorised agents can sell tickets. If the sports wish to sell tickets in that way, that is up to them. It is not for us to direct them in that way. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister of State is right to reject the Lords amendment. He knows that several of us do not like the clause in any way. If he can say anything to mitigate the damage to many companies, especially corporate hospitality companies—my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay was right about that—and the fact that genuine sportsmen will not be able to watch the events, I hope he will respond.
      This is an ill-thought-out proposal, prompted by the Opposition in jealousy and envy because they cannot get the tickets that we legitimate sports fans can get hold of and it should have been rejected before now.
      Mr. Maclean: I much njoyed the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). How spot on they were on so many issues. I have often had to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay—whether on salmonella, when I was an environment Minister or, at times, on law and order issues—but I agreed with almost every word that she said tonight.
      In the Lords, we accepted the amendment that powers to deal with ticket touting be extended to other sporting events for which 6,000 or more tickets are issued for sale. We accepted it purely on the basis that it did not undermine Government policy on ticket touting per se, since any decision to extend the offence by means of the order-making power would be taken only should those public order and public safety considerations, which we all agree apply to football, become a feature in other sporting areas. The Government's position in that respect was made clear during debate on the amendment.
      I want to make the position clear. The essential feature of the clause is not to deal with ticket touting per se, or with some of the problems that sporting organisations should be controlling. They are not going to pass the buck to the Government and order police resources to be used to control tickets for their matches when they should be doing that job themselves. The Government will become involved and will use the powers when we witness public disorder, or when public disorder begins to increase at any other sporting matches which necessitates action in the same way that it necessitated action at football matches. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends on that point.
      9 pm
      I must inform the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde that we shall not be telling the police what they should do in this matter. The law is perfectly clear. It does not penalise the individual who plans to go to a match, discovers that he cannot go and passes his ticket to a friend. The law does not catch such people. So I hope that on that basis I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends that we are not introducing measures that we intend to use merely to clobber ticket touting, out of some anti-market feeling or spite. We are introducing powers that I will advise the Secretary of State to use only if we should witness public disorder at sporting events similar to the disorder that we have witnessed at football matches.
      518
      On that basis, I hope that my hon. Friends will not vote against the amendment and that they will be happy to agree with their lordships in the said amendment.
      Government amendments (a) to (c) made to the Lords amendment.
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 155, after clause 147, to insert the following new clause—Touting for hire car services—
      ".—(1) Subject to the following provisions, it is an offence, in a public place, to solicit persons to hire vehicles to carry them as passengers.
      (2) Subsection (1) above does not imply that the soliciting must refer to any particular vehicle nor is the mere display of a sign on a vehicle that the vehicle is for hire soliciting within that subsection.
      (3) No offence is committed under this section where soliciting persons to hire licensed taxis is permitted by a scheme under section 10 of the Transport Act 1985 (schemes for shared taxis) whether or not supplemented by provision made under section 13 of that Act (modifications of the taxi code).
      (4) It is a defence for the accused to show that he was soliciting for
      passengers for public service vehicles on behalf of the holder of a PSV operator's licence for thos vehicles whose authority he had at the time of the alleged offence.
      (5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
      (6) In this section—
      "public place" includes any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access (whether on payment or otherwise); and
      "public service vehicle" and "PSV operator's licence" have the same meaning as in Part II of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.
      (7) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after the paragraph (i) inserted by section 137 of this Act there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "(j) an offence under section (Touting for hire car services) (touting for hire car services) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994;"."
      Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Dr. Liam Fox.}
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 167.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall say a supportive word on the introduction of the clause. I expected to see other hon. Members standing up to protest against the illiberal proposition that one clamps down on people who are breaking the law. In London in particular—it may apply elsewhere—touting by vehicles for hire has become a pest in many public places, most commonly at railway stations and pubs and clubs late at night. It is not just a pest—or illegal—but it often puts together poor drivers, who do not know what they are doing and are out to rip people off, and people who have just arrived or who are not as capable as they might have been at other times of the day and who are most able to be ripped off. That is the real mischief. It is also important—this is a less frequently-argued point—that such touting adds to the nuisance and noise disturbance in an area. A load of minicabs queuing up around a block or station to take people away does not add to the general orderliness and civility of an environment.

      519
      I welcome the fact that the Government—and in particular the Minister for Transport in London, whom I welcome to the debate—listened to the pleas which came in this case mainly from respectable taxi drivers and reputable minicab firms. Both have parts to play, and the Minister will be deliberating further on exactly what parts. He will not tell us tonight, but he and I know that his proposals are awaited with keen interest outside this place.
      If we manage to clobber those who have been touting illegally, we will be making progress. I hope that, as soon as the measure is law, there will be a noticeable clampdown on the people responsible. I hope that the Minister will talk with his colleagues, to the Home Secretary in his role as the police authority for London and to the Commissioner and make it clear that the law will now be enforced. I ask the Minister to make sure that we have a tough few months so we deal with a problem that has been a plague, particularly in London, for months. These people must be put out of business, and they must be nicked on the occasions when they break the law. I welcome the law, and the public will be better served by it.

      Lords amendment agreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

      Lords amendment No. 157 disagreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

      Lords amendment No. 160 disagreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

      Lords amendment No. 163 disagreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

      Lords amendment No. 169 disagreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

      Lords amendment No. 175 disagreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

      Lords amendments Nos. 188 and 189 disagreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].

      Lords amendments Nos.335 and 316 disagreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].

      Lords amendments Nos. 335 disagreed to.

      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1, 2 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 18, 21, 79, 125, 131, 157, 160, 163, 169, 175, 188, 189, 315, 316 and 335 to the Bill: Mr. Nicholas Baker; Mr. Derek Conway; Mr. John Fraser; Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Alun Michael; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Maclean.]
      To withdraw immediately.

  Community Care, Herefordshire
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: Usually at this time of night an hon. Member is on his or her feet complaining about something. Indeed, the Adjournment debate came about to enable grievances to be aired. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to the House to respond. My purpose in airing this subject tonight is not to gripe but to share with him and the House some good news. I am particularly grateful to Madam Speaker for selecting this topic from the many bids that are submitted for debate at this time of night.
  The formal title tha appears on the Order Paper, "Community care for physical disability in Herefordshire," conceals the real reason for the debate. A charitable organisation known as Herefordshire Lifestyles, which has been in existence for some nine years, is making a major impact on the lives of those disabled people in Herefordshire fortunate enough to have been referred to it or to have found it.
  Herefordshire Lifestyles is about enabling disabled people to pioneer their own integration into the community. The organisation came about as a result of the fortuitous confluence of the ideas of five senior people in the caring services who realised that there was a missing dimension. That was back in 1985, when Ray Brown, the assistant general manager of the health authority in Hereford, Eric Beatty, the area director of social services for Hereford, Wendy Francis, the district physiotherapist, Micheline Robson-Ward, the occupational therapist, and Len Gale, the specialist careers officer, put their heads together and came up with that approach to the needs of the disabled. In effect, it turned how the services had been delivered in the past on its head. Their way recognises that disabled people want to be regarded as equal members of society. It enables disabled individuals to be in the driving seat of their destiny and to marshal the various agencies from there, which is precisely the opposite of what usually takes place.
  Given the assistance of a volunteer, a disabled person is in a position to say, "OK, I have seven days in a week. What do I want to do with that time so as to meet my needs and personal objectives? What about work? What about going to college to obtain new skills? I lost mine when I became disabled. What about mobility? What about the need for company? What are my personal ambitions?" In that way, people come up with constructive proposals and plans for their future. The Lifestyles input and expertise helps disabled people to make things happen.
  The developed package worked out with the client is reviewed every six months. In that way, disabled people make tremendous progress and develop in terms of both their work and their residence, with many of them able to continue living in their own homes, out of residential care or hospitals, in a variety of ways.
  The outstanding feature of Lifestyles is the involvement of the disabled themselves in helping other disabled people. Indeed, the involvement of disabled people in all aspects of the organisation, work and structure, singles it out as being different from anything else that I have

  521
  experienced. The point that I want to emphasise as much as possible is that the work that these people are doing on behalf of their clients does not duplicate other agencies; it is complementary and helpful.
  A wealth of information, in many forms, is available to the disabled, but if one does not speak or understand the jargon it is difficult to comprehend or to put in context. The help given by a Lifestyles volunteer is, as it was put to me, rather like having somebody to read the telephone directory when one is in a strange country and does not understand the language. Then, it all comes into place. The Lifestyles volunteers provide the necessary help for people to get around in the system. For Herefordshire Lifestyles, what started from very small beginnings is now an organisation with 55 volunteers who each give an average of 100 hours a year, which is a substantial voluntary input into the important work it does for its clients.
  Of course, there is a financial dimension. I pay tribute to Mr. Len Gale, who abandoned what might be described as a safe haven within the careers service for the precarious position of executive director of Herefordshire Lifestyles. He has dedicated himself to the project. The financial future of Herefordshire Lifestyles is not secure; it is precarious. Until 1987, it had no budget at all. The Spastics Society—or Scope, as it is now called—gave it its first break with a commitment to cover a year on behalf of some of its clients. That enabled the provision of a small operating base.
  It would be unkind to say that, since then, the project has staggered on, because it has in fact progressed very smoothly. However, financially it has staggered on on a month-to-month, hand-to-mouth basis with never more than a short-term view of its future. Over the years, it has been aided in its work by such eminent charities as the Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust, Comic Relief, the Hereford and Worcester training and enterprise council—for which it has done valuable work—and social services, not to mention the Rowntree Trust and the King Edward VII Fund. I am pleased to say that the Eveson Trust has enabled the retention of a fundraiser for a year—an addition that is very much appreciated and needed in the light of its £100,000 budget for 1994–95.
  At present, about 100 people are benefiting, but there are many, many more who could benefit, not only in Herefordshire but across the country. That is one reason why I wanted to raise the matter tonight. Herefordshire Lifestyles would like to be able to develop what it is already doing on behalf of a resident who is the responsibility of Suffolk county council—a referee of the Spastics Society for whom the county council has long-term responsibility. It provides the money necessary for the care of that individual and that money is ring fenced. Lifestyles then works out the appropriate package. In effect, it is working as a broker on behalf of its participants and procuring the best and most suitable package for each individual as an individual. The project is highly tailored to the needs of the recipients and a reflection of the Government's policy of community care. Lifestyles would like to be the recipient of finance, ring fenced on behalf of the client, so that it can work out a package that enables the community care objectives to be met.
  I have mentioned the "people benefit", but there is also a cost benefit. In practical terms, the benefit is very much in the form of a stitch in time that saves nine. Lifestyles'
  522
  contacts mean that social services can be alerted before a crisis happens, such as a carer collapsing under the strain or a major problem developing. Action can be taken in a measured way before matters develop into an emergency.
  For many other people, the project offers an alternative to using social services departments and provides a useful tool for social services to achieve goals that they would otherwise be stretched to achieve, given their own financial limitations, as obliged by law. In addition, it becomes possible for disabled people to use the ordinary facilities of the community rather than special ones. I am told by those involved in the Herefordshire Lifestyles project that that is an important objective for a disabled person. The scheme meets both society's objectives and those of disabled people. It is possible to see Lifestyles as the missing component of the community care model, acting at the interface between purchasers and providers, and enabling the clien to obtain the best and most effective value from the system.
  The project provides a good gearing mechanism. The concept needs to be developed on a far wider basis than that of Herefordshire. The efforts of Len Gale and others have resulted in 10 nascent Lifestyles organisations in other parts of the country— north Dorset, Salisbury, Swindon, Trowbridge, Cirencester, Stroud, Worcester, Sandwell and Exeter. But Herefordshire is the most advanced and developed; it is the pioneer. All the projects are staggering from one financial uncertainty to another and existing from hand to mouth.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will know that sections 1 and 2 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 have not yet been implemented. The development of the concept that underlines Herefordshire Lifestyles provides a value-for-money way forward as it can put in place those two important elements of that legislation. For my hon. Friend the Minister, who has to deal with realities, there is a distinct cost benefit involved in developing the concept.
  I should like my hon. Friend to work out how the Lifestyles concept can be spread nationwide to the benefit of all physically disabled people. I want disabled people throughout the country to have what some of the disabled people in Herefordshire have. Herefordshire Lifestyles has put much effort into spreading the word, and not without success. But effort spent in that direction is effort not spent on Herefordshire Lifestyles' intended objective, which is to work to the benefit of Herefordshire's disabled.
  Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can set up what might loosely be described as a task force or working party or study group which can look at the Herefordshire Lifestyles experience, see how it can be extended and report to my hon. Friend with its recommendations. Perhaps he can use his good offices to promulgate awareness of the concept and can give specific advice to social services departments on how they can help the project along. I am sure that a push from him could enable an enormous number of disabled persons to benefit as so many of those in Herefordshire have done. For my part, I want to preserve and develop something good that is already up and running.
  I give the last word to some participants in Herefordshire Lifestyles. One said:
  "Lifestyles has made me think that there is more to life than just my disability."

  523
  Another said:
  "Lifestyles has got me up and doing things",
  while yet another said:
  "They help disabled people get a grip on their life and make something of it."
  Finally, one participant said:
  "Lifestyles has given my life a real rocket."
  Herefordshire Lifestyles has started something good; I want it to expand and I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for help in that.
  9.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I was going to say that it was a double pleasure to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), but I think that it may be a triple pleasure. It is indéed a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend; it is a pleasure to hear what he describes as a good news story; and it is also a pleasure to both of us, and perhaps to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to ray hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), that this debate is taking place at a reasonable hour, and earlier than some had expected.
  I was delighted to hear of the work being done by Herefordshire Lifestyles, and I greatly welcome initiatives that seek to enable disabled people to achieve greater independence and choice in their daily lives. I certainly recognise the important role of advocacy in helping people who, for whatever reason, may have difficulty in making known their views and wishes. The local availability of advocacy and self-advocacy services is an essential part of community care, and Lifestyles seems to be a prime example of the type of scheme that we are actively encouraging local authorities to use and support.
  My hon. Friend's success in securing this Adjournment debate means that I have had the opportunity to read some of Herefordshire Lifestyles annual reports and the case studies contained in the 1993 report. They bear witness to the practical help that Lifestyles workers and volunteers have been giving disabled people, giving them the confidence to maximise their opportunities for education, employment and training and trying out new social activities.
  My hon. Friend referred to the experience of one participant and I have seen the testimony of another beneficiary of Lifestyles—Jonathan Wood—from a different part of the country, who said:
  "My experience of the Lifestyles project has given me a state of mind which I have not had the opportunity to experience before. Also, a sense of control, and essentially, direction of mine and subsequently others' thoughts and actions. Unlike the majority of forms of provision for disabled people, the advantage with Lifestyles projects is that the client, i.e. the disabled man or woman, is accepted for themselves … Lifestyles should continue and thrive. The freedom of choice must not be taken in the form of charity, but a disabled person's fundamental human right … they must be given the ability to choose".
  I can respond immediately to my hon. Friend's request by saying that I intend to examine more closely the work done in Herefordshire. I shall ask the social services inspectorate to provide me with a detailed report on Lifestyles activities.
  524
  This project for the physically disabled in Herefordshire sits well with our overall community care philosophy of putting the needs of users and their carers first and involving them in decisions about the care that they receive. Community care is a complex and long-term undertaking, involving partnerships between public, private and voluntary agencies. None the less, the new arrangements have already brought us the beginnings of care which is better tailored to individual users' needs, for day, domiciliary, residential and nursing care.
  We are listening carefully to users and their carers, and increasing numbers of them are beginning to benefit from the improved choices in care options available. People now have a better chance of being offered the help and support that they need to remain in their own homes—as my hon. Friend said, they should have the option of doing that. It is, after all, what most people want.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, and suggested that what he described could be one way of fulfilling the intentio s of that Act. He may well be right. In some ways, the community care reforms have overtaken the remaining provisions of the Act, and the reforms demonstrate our commitment to high-quality community care, responsive to the needs and wishes of service users and carers.
  The whole thrust of that policy is towards enablement. We are supporting advocacy projects that aim to help those with particular needs. So, as my hon. Friend said, schemes such as the one that he has highlighted may be the way to develop that aspect of the intentions behind the 1986 Act.
  We have made sure that the new community care arrangements have been properly funded, and we shall continue to do so. This year, a further special transitional grant of £736 million is being made available to English local authorities solely for community care. That takes the total over two years to more than £1.2 billion. The grant this year includes an extra £20 million to encourage further development of respite care and other services that give carers a well earned break.
  Joint working between local authorities and the NHS is generally good. The agreements that we required to be made on hospital discharge arrangements have had a positive effect in furthering the co-operative working that is so essential if users and their carers are to receive care that is both comprehensive and seamless.
  The independent sector has played an important part in community care to date, and I am sure that it will have an important role to play in the future. There is a challenge here for local authorities, the independent sector, and users and carers to work together to shape the future.
  I believe that there is still much greater potential for the independent sector to move into day and domiciliary care provision. We have a great opportunity to cultivate and nurture it now—one which I am not prepared to see wasted. Users and carers would not forgive us if we were to miss the opportunity to extend the range of services available to them. They can play a full part in helping us to design the pattern of future provision.

  525
  So often, the independent sector brings a freshness of ideas, and a willingness to innovate and be flexible. Built on the solid foundations of their experience and quality, that gives new opportunities for users and carers—and, indeed, for social services and health planners.
  We have a continuing commitment to the mixed economy of care. That is how we can secure a full range of services to meet the many diverse needs of vulnerable people all over the country. There is no question of preferring one sector at the expense of others; we simply want good care to be favoured over poor, the cost-effective over the wasteful, the imaginative over the dull, and the best over the adequate, so as to bring about effective, efficient provision for all users, whatever the sector.
  From the beginning of our new arrangements, we have had a full monitoring programme so that we can keep a check on progress, and, also so that we can see and disseminate best practic and innovation—ideas such as Lifestyles. This year, we shall want local authorities to report on, for example, how assessment is working, how users and carers are being involved and what new services are being bought to extend the range available. That, too, is relevant to Lifestyles.
  Earlier this year, we announced our plans to extend the benefits of the citizens charter to community care. That will help us to ensure that users and carers are in a position to make informed choices about the kind of care that they receive. Again, schemes such as Lifestyles can have an increasing role to play.
  The Government fully recognise the important role played by carers, and the dedicated and often arduous work involved in caring for a loved one. That is why the
  526
  community care reforms aim to promote the development of domiciliary, day and respite services for those receiving community care in their own homes.
  Our community care reforms make it clear that the voices of users and carers must be heard and listened to by those responsible for purchasing and providing services. To ensure that I as the Minister responsible was also hearing and listening, we set up the National User and Carer Group to give us its experience of community care and to help us monitor its implementation.
  However, as my hon. Friend has said, it is locally that advocacy comes into its own. That is true, whether it is advocacy or self-advo acy. It is perhaps the former that we have had the chance to consider tonight—the helping hand and the helping voice enabling people with disabilities to achieve and to enjoy the fullest and highest possible quality of life. In the example given by my hon. Friend this evening, he has shown how there can be the added dimension of disabled people themselves providing the hand and the voice to help others with disabilities. That is real added value.
  Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am most grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and for his commitment. It would be a matter of enormous pleasure if, in his busy schedule, he could find time to come to Hereford and to see what we are doing as part of that visit.
  Mr. Bowis: I close by thanking my hon. Friend for taking the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the work of Herefordshire Lifestyles. Yes, I should very much like to visit the scheme and to see it in action when I am next in his area. Meanwhile, I join him in wishing success to all working in the area of Lifestyles and advocacy, and to all who need their services.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Ten o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Companies' Annual Returns
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place a copy in the Library of the list of sensitive companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies with respect to which Companies house undertakes special measures to ensure the filing of annual returns.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  There is no such list, and there are no such measures. Companies house operates procedures which are intended to give all companies every opportunity to comply with Companies Act filing requirements before enforcement action is undertaken.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received in relation to the late filing of the annual returns by the Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd; what consultations he has had with the Registrar of Companies with respect to the default procedure; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  I am not aware of any representations received from members of the public in relation to the overdue annual return. My office has been informed by a member of the registrar's staff that the usual pursuit action is under way in respect of the Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd. There is a long-standing practice whereby my office is informed whenever, in the judgment of the registrar, pursuit action may result in publicity in a particular case.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has had from the Registrar of Companies in relation to the default procedure and reminder letters to the Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd.

  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  None. A member of the Registrar of Companies' staff has informed my office that the usual default procedures are under way in respect of an overdue annual return by the Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what has been the cost of establishing, advertising and operating the address The Post Office, Freepost Freedom, London EC1B 1GP for those wishing to write supporting the Post Office case for change and commercial freedom;

  (2) how many letters have been received at the address The Post Office, Freepost Freedom, London EC1B 1GP by those supporting the Post Office case for change and commercial freedom;

  (3) what authorisation his Department gave to the Post Office to establish and advertise the address Freepost Freedom, London EC 1GP for those wishing to write
  286
  supporting the Post Office case for change and commercial freedom.

  Mr. Wardle
  These are all operational matters for the Post Office.

  Nuclear Review
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those individuals, organisations and companies who have made a submission to the nuclear review; and if he will place copies of these submissions in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 19 October 1994]: In accordance with the terms of reference for the review, this information and copies of all substantive submissions are available in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures on the total debt relief resulting from the implementation of the Trinidad terms; which countries have benefited; which countries are eligible; and which of these have outstanding debts.

  Mr. Nelson
  To date over $7¼ billion of debt has been restructured by the Paris Club under the Trinidad terms which has resulted in debt or debt service reduction equivalent to over $2¾ billion.

  To date, 22 countries have benefited from a reduction in the burden of their official bilateral debt under Trinidad terms. These are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Cote D'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Republic, Guyana, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia.

  Trinidad terms are available to the world's poorest and most severely indebted countries which are following International Monetary Fund programmes of economic reform. It is not possible to say which countries might obtain debt relief under Trinidad terms in the future because the merits of all requests for debt rescheduling are considered by the Paris Club creditors on a case-by-case basis.

  Dividend Taxation
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of dividend taxation and related issues, initiated by the Financial Secretary; and when he expects to publish its findings.

  Sir George Young
  A programme of discussions on the industrial finance initiative with business people and financial institutions has been completed. The initiative is continuing by analysing the ideas collected during the work to date and by examining the scope for new approaches to finance industry. There will be no single report on the initiative, but announcements on individual issues will be made in due course.

  Doctor Dispensing
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have taken place between HM customs and representatives of the British Medical Association on the VAT liability of dispensing by doctors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Officials of Customs and Excise met representatives of the British Medical Association on 3 May 1994 to discuss the VAT liability of dispensing by doctors who are authorised or required to provide NHS pharmacy services. Provisional arrangements whereby doctors can continue to treat this dispensing as a non-business NHS activity have been agreed, pending the outcome of customs' further consultations with the BMA and others.

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ordinary gaming machine licences are currently due to applicants who have paid appropriate levels of duty; and over what period of time it has not been possible to issue licences.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In the period from the beginning of April 1994 to 14 October there were 59,126 applications to the licensing centre. From these there are currently 16,606 licences which have not been despatched. It has been possible to issue licences throughout this period.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants including those in next steps agencies earn more than the current basic salary of hon. Members.

  Mr. Nelson
  At 1 July 1994 about 15,000 civil servants.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his reply to the honourable Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks),Official Report, 19 July, column 91, if he will estimate the printing and publishing costs of written and oral questions and the costs of the relevant work of the Table Office.

  Mr. Tony Newton
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Safe Water
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom's bilateral aid programmes is spent on the provision of safe water.

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1993–94 around 4 per cent.—just over £30 million out of £795 million—of United Kingdom bilateral aid which was allocable by sector was spent on 288
  the water and sanitation sector. This figure, which is at present still provisional, excludes that part of emergency aid which is spent on the provision of water and sanitation during times of crisis.

  Aid Programme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what plans Her Majesty's Government have to reach the target for bilateral aid for basic needs recommended by the United Nations development programme;

  (2) if Her Majesty's Government will allocate a greater proportion of its bilateral aid to target the basic needs of poor people in developing countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  In allocating our bilateral aid, we recognise the importance of addressing basic human needs, but do not consider it appropriate to prescribe proportional targets for expenditure on a global basis. We estimate that in 1992–93 around 10 per cent. of United Kingdom bilateral aid expenditure, excluding emergency aid, was on basic human needs, above the average for all donors. In addition we provide around £150 million of emergency aid, most of which goes to meet basic needs in times of crisis.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve the focus of the European Union's aid programmes towards meeting the basic needs of people living in absolute poverty in developing countries.

  Mr. Baldry
  Article 130u of the treaty on European Union identifies the campaign against poverty in developing countries as one of the central objectives of Community aid programmes. The Development Council in December 1993 adopted guidelines to improve the poverty focus of Community and member state programmes and projects. Seven countries—Ethiopia, Mozambique, Bangladesh, Peru, Ghana, Mali and Nicaragua—have been identified for a pilot exercise in enhanced co-ordination between Community and member state efforts to combat poverty. A social development adviser from ODA is seconded to the Commission and is closely involved in this exercise.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of his Department's total aid budget is expected to be allocated through the European Union and through multilateral channels by 1996–97.

  Mr. Baldry
  As indicated in the memorandum submitted by the ODA to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 27 April 1994, by 1996–97 we expect, on current plans, that 34 per cent. of the aid budget will be allocated through the European Union and 18 per cent. through other multilateral channels.

  The figures for European Union expenditure are, however, constantly under review.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that all Overseas Development Administration funded aid projects are subject to assessment for their impact on different income groups or beneficiaries.

  Mr. Baldry
  ODA's procedures for the design and appraisal of projects require assessment of projects' impact on potential beneficiaries, with particular attention to the needs of disadvantaged groups.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing Improvement Grants
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have made representations to him about difficulties in meeting their obligations under the existing housing improvement grants policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Since April 1994 my Department has received separate written representations from 53 local authorities.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the review of the improvement grant system will be completed; when proposals will be announced; and when guidelines will be issued.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) the then Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction on 27 April 1994,Official Report, column, 205.

  Wildlife Trade
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what formal projects for monitoring all pet trade-related take of wildlife imported into the United Kingdom currently exists; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what scientific evaluations of natural populations of wildlife imported into the United Kingdom for pet trade purposes are made under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under CITES, scientific evaluations of natural populations are primarily the responsibility of those countries in which specimens are taken from the wild. Under a process promoted by the United Kingdom, a committee of the convention monitors the means by which these countries ensure that the number of animals taken from the wild for export do not threaten the survival of the species. Remedial action may be recommended and assistance may be offered in some cases. If recommendations are not implemented satisfactorily, trade may be suspended. The European Council regulation on CITES applies stricter tests to the import of certain species and trade in these may be suspended where there is insufficient evidence that the level of exports of animals taken from the wild is sustainable.

  Some of the animals included in these processes will form part of the pet trade.

  Individual import applications under CITES, including those relating to the pet trade, are also referred to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee which advises us on any conservation implications.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the outstanding arrears of community charge in total and by each local authority on 31 March.

  Mr. Curry
  I estimate that the level of community charge arrears for local authorities in England at 31 March 1994 was between £1·5 and £1·6 billion. Authorities have,290
  however, made provision for non-collection of £1·4 billion.

  There is insufficient information available centrally to make a reliable estimate for each local authority. However, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy regularly publishes estimates for individual authorities: figures for 31 March 1993 are available in the Library of the House.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Sykes
  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
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on Wednesday 19 October 1994,Official Report, columns 266-67.

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Leeds development corporation will be wound up and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Statutory orders will be laid before Parliament early next year to effect the wind-up and dissolution of Leeds development corporation. Subject to parliamentary approval, the corporation will cease to act from 1 April 1995, except for the purpose of preparing its final accounts and report and winding up its affairs. The corporation will be dissolved on 1 July 1995.

  Urban development corporations were set up, with finite lifetimes, to regenerate their designated areas. Since designation on 30 June 1988, Leeds development corporation, in partnership with other agencies, has made a considerable and lasting contribution to the well-being of Leeds.

  By the end of its lifetime, Leeds development corporation expects to have reclaimed 68 hectares of land, built 11·4 km of roads and footpaths and created 366,000 sq m. of non-housing floorspace and 561 housing units. This has led to some 8,000 jobs in new developments and levered in £317 million in private sector investment.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what representations he has received about the proposed deletion of the Cutty Sark station for the docklands light railway extension plans;
  (2) if the provision of a station at Cutty Sark will be included as an option when the docklands light railway extension proposals are put out to tender.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answers 19 October 1994]: We have received representations from a range of national and local organisations and from Members of both Houses in support of a station at Cutty Sark. We will shortly make an announcement on the next steps for the project and on the option for a Cutty Sark station.

  Zoos
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many exemptions have been granted
  291
  in each county to establishments keeping animals from provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 in each year since 1982; and if he will state the reasons for these exemptions in respect of the last year for which figures are available.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  Avon

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cornwall

  5

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Devon

  —

  3

  3

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Dorset

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  3

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Isle of Wight

  —

  3

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  London

  5

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greater Manchester

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merseyside

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Middlesex

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Northamptonshire

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Warwickshire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  West Midlands

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Worcestershire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Yorkshire

  —

  3

  1

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  No exemptions have been granted in 1992–1994. Exemptions from the Act are granted to collections which consist entirely of animals which are normally domesticated in Great Britain.

  Establishments which have been granted exemptions are not considered to meet the definition of zoo within the meaning of the Act by virtue of the fact that wild animals are not being exhibited to the public.

  Environmental Planning
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that environmental planning decisions are taken in full appreciation of their impact on human health and that adequate public health advice is provided by the national health service to joint regional offices of the Departments of Health, Employment, Transport and Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department does not have joint regional offices with other Departments.
  292
  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 19 October 1994]: Between 1984 and 1991 the following exemptions from the provisions of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 have been granted:

  It is a responsibility of regional and district directors of public health to have regard to and, when appropriate, provide advice on, all factors which may have significant impact upon the public health in their area—including those which may be associated with the consequences of planning decisions. Advice may also be obtained from the nation health service executive.

  Responsibility for planning matters rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We understand that guidance to planning authorities, and to applicants for consent to major projects, requires that impact upon human beings should be taken into account in assessing the environmental impact of development plans and projects.

EDUCATION

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the higher education institutions
  293
  that operate the USS superannuation pension scheme which are not able to offer nurse training facilities as a result of changes to pension arrangements for nurse training staff.

  Mr. Boswell
  Decision on whether to offer nurse training are for individual institutions. I understand that discussions about the pensions arrangements for staff transferring from the national health service to higher education institutions are taking place between the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the relevant pensions authorities.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the non-departmental public bodies to which her Department makes appointments in the Greater London area, together with the total annual budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research (CILT)

  Year

  Annual DFE Grant Aid

  Appointments and Re-appointment by the Secretary of State

  1990–91

  £535,000

  4

  1991–92

  £652,000

  3

  1992–93

  £949,000

  2

  1993–94

  £857,000

  4

  1994–95

  £832,000

  1

  Includes one appointment made by the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Further Education Unit (FEU)

  Year

  Annual DFE Grant Aid

  Appointments and Re appointment by the Secretary of State

  1990–91

  £2,840,000

  3

  1991–92

  £3,030,000

  8

  1992–93

  £3,620,000

  3

  1993–94

  £3,550,000

  12

  1994–95

  £3,550,000

  13

  Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), Greater London Regional Committee Established in 1993

  Year

  Appointments and Re appointments by the Secretary of State

  1993–94

  10

  1994–95

  1

  The FEFC Regional Committees do not have separate budgets. Their budgets are contained within the FEFC budget.
  294

  School curriculum and assessment authority (SCAA) Established on 1 October 1993

  Year

  Annual DFE Grant Aid

  Appointments and Re-appointments by the Secretary of State

  1993–94

  1£18,400,000

  15

  1994–95

  2£29,600,000

  15

  1 Part-Year.

  2 Estimated.

  Special Education Needs (SEN) Tribunal Established on 1 September 1994

  Year

  Annual DFE Grant Aid

  Appointments and Re-appointments by the Secretary of State

  1994–95

  1£775,204

  79

  1 Part-year.

  Appointments were made to the SEN tribunal to sit on hearings throughout England, effective from the Tribunal's creation. Whilst the Tribunal's HQ is in London, the hearings will take place across the country, as and when needed, and members will be paid on a per diem basis. Of the 79 members, 18 live in the Greater London area. These 18 members will not necessarily be assigned to hearings in the Greater London area.

  Teacher Training Agency (TTA) Established on 21 September 1994

  Year

  Annual DFE Grant Aid

  Appointments and Re appointments by the Secretary of State

  1994–95

  1£2,000,000

  211

  1Budget includes the costs of establishing the Agency part year.

  2To date.

  University Commissioners

  Year

  Annual DFE Grant Aid

  Appointments and Re-appointments by the Secretary of State

  1991–91

  £185,529

  5

  1991–92

  £201,851

  5

  1992–93

  £243,823

  5

  1993–94

  £255,124

  5

  Costs for 1994–95 arising from residual work are being met on a contingency basis.

  Students
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time students were registered in colleges of further education for each of the last five years, on a regional basis.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of full-time students by region enrolled on courses in colleges of further education, for each of the last five academic years for which date are available, were as shown in the table.
  295

  Number of Full-Time Students in Colleges of Further Education England 1988–89–1992–93

  Students on FE and HE Courses

  thousands

  Academic Year

  Region

  88–89

  89–90

  90–91

  91–92

  92–93

  North

  20

  22

  22

  27

  30

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  37

  39

  43

  48

  52

  North West

  56

  59

  64

  70

  75

  East Midlands

  27

  29

  32

  37

  41

  West Midlands

  41

  42

  46

  55

  61

  East Anglia

  13

  13

  15

  18

  20

  Greater London

  51

  52

  55

  64

  69

  South East

  72

  77

  83

  99

  108

  South West

  36

  39

  40

  49

  54

  Total (England)

  352

  371

  400

  469

  510

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many full-time students failed to complete courses in each of the last five years, on a regional basis.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of further education students who do not complete their courses are not centrally recorded.

  The wastage rates of full-time and sandwich students from first degree courses in former Universities Funding Council-funded United Kingdom universities and former English and Wales polytechnics are shown as follows:

  Academic Year

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Percentages

  17

  14

  16

  15

  17

  Source:

  Table 14 (page 43) DFE Department Report (Cm 2510) published March 1994.

  The proportions of students who left each of the former UFC-funded universities on successful completion of their full-time and sandwich first degree courses are published by the universities statistical record in "University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators". A copy of the 1993 edition is in the House Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff are employed by her Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department currently employs 2,152 civil servants, of whom 368 are in the Teacher Pensions Agency; 41·8 per cent. of the Department's staff are based in Darlington and the remainder in London.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total amount spent on 296
  official hospitality by (a) her Department and (b) her agencies for each year since 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is as follows:

  DES/DFE £'000s

  Teachers' pensions agency £'000s

  Total £'000s

  1990–91

  57

  —

  57

  1991–92

  86

  —

  86

  1992–93

  95

  1

  96

  1993–94

  87

  1

  88

  The cost of official hospitality in each of these years is included in the running cost expenditure for the Department which is published every year in the departmental report. Official hospitality includes the costs of teas and coffees, buffet lunches and dinners.

  University-Validated Courses
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many students are enrolled on university-validated diploma and first-degree courses and are studying in non-higher education institutions.

  Mr. Boswell
  In academic year 1992–93, there were 91,000 home domiciled students in English FE colleges registered on degree courses and on other institutional validated certificates and diplomas.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Consulate Staff, Kiev
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many embassy and consulate staff in Kiev speak(a) English as a first language and also Russian, (b) English as a first language and also Ukrainian, (c) English as a first language and also Russian and Ukrainian, (d) Russian as a first language and (e) Ukrainian as a first language; and what percentage speak Ukrainian.

  Mr. Goolad
  There are 17 United Kingdom-based officers at the British embassy in Kiev; there is no separate consulate. Of these(a) two have a knowledge of English as a first language and Russian; (b) one has a knowledge of English as a first language and Ukrainian; and (c) six have a knowledge of English as a first language and both Russian and Ukrainian.

  The remaining eight United Kingdom-based staff are in the support grades and are not given formal language training before they arrive at post.

  There are 11 Ukrainian locally engaged staff, all of whom speak English, Russian and Ukrainian. Of the nine United Kingdom-based staff in speaker slots, 77 per cent. have a knowledge of Ukrainian.

  World Summit for Children
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the targets agreed by the 1990 world summit for children will be met by 2000.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The United Kingdom published in July 1992 Command Paper No. 1984 entitled "Report on
  297
  the United Kingdom Implementation of the Goals agreed by the World Summit for Children". A copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  The report on the implementation of the world summit's goals noted a parallel initiative in the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the United Kingdom Government have agreed to be bound. A report on the application of the convention to the United Kingdom was published in February 1994. A copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad on the application by Tariq Mahmood, Ref: IMM/B72,99, to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the entry clearance officer in Islamabad to let me have a report on the application from Mr. Tariq Mahmood. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad on the application by Mrs. Najon Ul Noreen, Ref: IMM/C1222, to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the entry clearance officer in Islamabad to let me have a report on the application from Mrs. Najon U1 Noreen. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad on the application by Mr. Iftikar Hussain, Ref: B 1475, to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the entry clearance officer in Islamabad to let me have a report on the application from Mr. Iftikar Hussain. I shall arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people made applications for asylum to his Department in the last half of 1993 and the first half of 1994; and of these how many waited(a) less than three months, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six months and a year and (d) over a year for a decision;

  (2) how many people who made applications for asylum to the Home Office in the last half of 1993 and the first half of 1994 waited for a decision (a) for less than three months, (b) between three and six months, (c) between six months and a year and (d) for over a year.
  298
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  In the period 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1994, 25,660 applications for asylum, excluding dependants, were lodged in the United Kingdom.

  As at 30 September 1994, an estimated 11,100 decisions had been taken on the 25,660 applications for asylum lodged between 1 July 1993 and 30 June 1994; of these decisions an estimated 3,600 waited less than three months for an initial decision on their asylum application; 3,000 waited between three and six months; 4,100 waited between six and 12 months; and 500 waited longer than 12 months, while an estimated 14,600 applications were outstanding.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers have been waiting for a decision on their claim for asylum for(a) over one year, (b) over two years and (c) over six years;

  (2) who is the longest-delayed applicant for asylum; and how long has the applicant waited for a decision on his case.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on the length of time applicants have been waiting for an initial decision on their asylum application or the longest outstanding case is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum seekers detained are those who are yet to have their application refused or granted or are contesting refusal of their application (i) in 1991, (ii) in 1992, (iii) in 1993 and (iv) in 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, on 14 October 1994, 658 people detained under immigration powers had sought asylum at some stage. Of these, 177 had applications still under consideration and the remainder had had their applications refused. Of these, 386 had an appeal pending.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum seekers were initially detained(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information suggests that less than 1·5 per cent. of people who have sought asylum are detained. Information on the percentage of asylum seekers detained in a given year can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationals of the former Yugoslavia formerly resident in the area of Kosovo and of Albanian ethnic origin who had applied for political asylum in the United Kingdom and whose political asylum applications have been refused have been returned to any part of the current Federal Republic of Yugoslavia over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  During the period 1 October 1993 to 30 September 1994, no nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia/Montenegro, have been returned to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia/Montenegro. Information on the original residence or ethnic origin of asylum seekers is not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all the provisions of the resolution on manifestly unfounded applications for asylum, agreed by the European Ministers meeting on 30 November 1992
  299
  and to be implemented by 1 January 1995, have now been incorporated into national law.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The procedures contained in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and the immigration rules relating to applications for asylum that are judged to be without foundation are fully consistent with the principles contained in the resolution.

  Homicides
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of(a) male victims of homicide and (b) female victims of homicide in 1993 were killed by their current or former spouses, cohabitees or lovers.

  Mr. Maclean
  Provisional figures for 1993 show that 6 per cent. of male victims and 40 per cent. of female victims of homicide in England and Wales were killed by their current or former spouses, cohabitants or lovers.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many homicides were recorded in England and Wales in 1993; and in how many cases were the victims(a) male and (b) female.

  Mr. Maclean
  Provisional figures for 1993 show that at 5 August 1994, 606 offences were currently recorded as homicide in England and Wales, involving 375 male and 231 female victims.

  Deportation
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants were recommended for deportation in 1993 and how many were deported; how many appeals against deportation are currently pending; and how many such appeals were determined in 1993.

  Mr. Nicholas Barker
  A total of 310 court recommendations of deportation were made, and 410 persons were removed under deportation powers following such a recommendation, in 1993. These figures exclude persons issued with a notice of intention to deport because of a breach of conditions of leave to enter or remain, or because their deportation was deemed to be conducive to the public good. Data on appeals against such court recommendations are not separately available.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the questionnaire which has been distributed to the member states in the context of title VI of the European Union treaty on the conditions under which EU member states refrain from deporting aliens and what rights they enjoy and (b) the United Kingdom Government's responses.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No. These are working documents, which do not fall within the criteria for deposit in accordance with the Government's scrutiny arrangements for title VI matters.

  Dogs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 May,Official Report, column 280, if he will list the different forms of identification for dogs considered by the Government before the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
  300
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The methods of identification considered were tattooing, ear tagging, ear studs, collar tagging and microchips.

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports have been made by marriage registrars, and from which registration areas, to the Registrar-General, that marriages are suspected to be solely for immigration purposes, in each year since 1992, to the latest convenient date; and in how many of these instances information has been passed on to his Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information will be placed in the Library. During 1993 superintendent registrars reported 361 cases to the Registrar General where they suspected that a proposed marriage had been arranged for the sole purpose of evading statutory immigration controls. Of this number, information in respect of 304 was passed to the Home Office.

  So far this year, to 14 July 1994, 270 reports have been received from superintendent registrars, of which 194 have been referred to the Home Office.

  Refugees
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for refugee status are outstanding; how many individuals are covered by these applications; and what is the average length of time taken to determine an application.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  At 30 September 1994—the latest date for which the information is available—the estimated number of asylum applications outstanding is 52,760 which comprises an estimated 69,500 principal applicants and their dependants.

  The estimated average length of time between the receipt of an asylum application and the decision, for cases decided on applications for asylum received since the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Appeal Act 1993, from 26 July 1993 to 30 September 1994, was 4·7 months.

  European Union (Visas)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the proposal of the German presidency of the European Union that visa requirements be waived for third-country nationals resident in European Union states, where such persons are seeking to travel in transit or for short stays, as soon as possible and before the entry into force of the draft convention on the crossing of external borders of the European Union;

  (2) if he will now place in the Library copies of the (a) draft resolution on admissions of self-employed persons from third countries, (b) draft resolution on admission of students and (c) draft resolutions of the principles for distributing refugees among the member states of the European Union which has been submitted for consultation, which, according to the German presidency of the European Union, have been submitted in accordance with the provisions of title VI, "Co-operation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs".
  301
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  These documents are being made available to Parliament in accordance with the arrangements for keeping it informed of work being carried out under title VI of the treaty on European Union, together with explanatory notes setting out the Government's views on each of them.

  Family Reunification
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all the provisions of the resolution of harmonisation of national policies on family reunification, adopted at the European Ministers meeting of 1 June 1993 and to be implemented by 1 January 1995, have now been implemented.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The immigration rules which came into effect on 1 October are fully consistent with the principles contained in this resolution.

  Police Compensation Claims
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims have been made for compensation for wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment for each year for the past five years for which figures are available, by police authority; how many of these claims have been settled each year, by police authority; how much compensation has been paid, by police authority, each year; how many individuals are involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Wheel clamping
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he now has to bring forward measures following the publication of the consultative paper, "Wheel clamping on Private Land."

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are considering what action it would be appropriate to take in respect of wheel clamping on private land. The consultative paper referred to produced much useful information from interested parties. It did not, however, produce any consensus on how to ensure that any measure introduced to prevent or deter irresponsible and heavy-handed wheel clamping on private land does not prevent sensible measures from being taken to control genuine parking problems. We will make our conclusions known as soon as possible.

  Party Conference Costs
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the policing costs associated with the annual conferences of(a) the Liberal Democrats, (b) the Labour party and (c) the Conservative party; and who meets the costs.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the forces concerned that the latest estimated costs of policing the 1994 party conferences are:-

  £

  (a) Liberal Democrats

  (Sussex)

  3,500

  (b) Labour Party

  (Lancashire)

  90,000

  (c) Conservative Party

  (Dorset)

  2,600,000

  302
  The normal police funding arrangements apply with expenditure attracting 51 per cent. Home Office police grant.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department following the request made by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad, when Mr. Gul Nawaz, resident in the United Kingdom, is going to be interviewed in connection with inquiries being made into the application by Nasreen Akhtar, Ref: GU100/18990, to enter the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Immigration Service at Leeds Bradford airport will shortly contact Mr. Hafiz Gul Nawaz to offer him an appointment for an interview within two months.

  Mr. & Mrs. Kwabena Aidoobofour
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the honourable Member for Deptford will receive a reply to her letters of 3 February, 12 April and 31 May concerning Mr. and Mrs. Kwabena Aidoobofour.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  [holding answer 7 July 1994]: My hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote on 8 August.

  United Nations (Civil and Political Rights)
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government submitted to the United Nations their latest periodic report under the international covenant on civil and political rights.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom's fourth periodic report under the international covenant on civil and political rights was submitted to the United Nations on 7 October 1994. On the same day copies of the report were placed in the Library.

  European Union (Readmission)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which third states his Department is negotiating readmission agreements regarding the return of their nationals from the United Kingdom on(a) the basis of the principles for the conclusion of such agreements which were drawn up during the Belgian presidency of the European Union and are referred to in the agenda of the German presidency and (b) any other basis.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  None.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Students
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland students are free to accept offers of places for courses in universities in Great Britain if similar courses are available in universities in(a) Northern Ireland or (b) the Republic of Ireland; and if grants are available to Northern Ireland students enrolled in university courses in Great Britain if similar courses are available in (a) Northern Ireland or (b) the Republic of Ireland.
  303
  Mr. Ancram
  Yes. Students from Northern Ireland are free to attend courses at universities in Great Britain and are eligible for awards whether or not similar courses are available in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.

  Arts Council
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were employed by the Northern Ireland Arts Council in each of the past three years; and how many were(a) Roman Catholic and (b) Protestant in each of these three years.

  Mr Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  January 1991

  January 1992

  January 1993

  Number employed

  105

  108

  102

  Community Background:

  (a) Roman Catholic

  38

  41

  41

  (b) Protestant

  51

  51

  47

  (c) Non-determined

  16

  16

  14

  Health Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those areas which have developed joint commissioning operations for the planning and purchasing of primary and secondary health care in their area; and what are the principal organisational models used.

  Mr. Ancram
  The planning, management and delivery of health and personal social services in Northern Ireland have been integrated since 1973. There are four health and social services boards and they, together with GP fundholders, are responsible for the commissioning of primary and secondary care.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the total amount spent on official hospitality by(a) his Department and (b) his agencies for each year since 1990.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on official entertaining by my office for each year since 1990 was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  23,830

  1991–92

  40,976

  1992–93

  30,023

  1993–94

  21,793

  I have asked my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to provide information about expenditure on official entertaining by the Cabinet Office and agencies.

  Macclesfield
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to Macclesfield.
  304
  The Prime Minister
  As I have said before to my hon. Friend, I very much hope to be able to come to his constituency when my diary permits.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Prime Minister when the list of ministerial responsibilities after last summer's changes was delivered to the Vote Office.

  The Prime Minister
  The first batch of copies of the September 1994 edition of the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities" was delivered to the Vote Office on 4 October.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

  Intelligence Unit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons are attached to the intelligence unit in the Chief Whip's offices at 12 Downing street and in the House of Commons; what is the purpose of the unit; and to whom it is accountable.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no such unit.

HEALTH

  Women's Aid Federations
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much funding has been provided by her Department to(a) the Women's Aid Federation England and (b) the Welsh Women's Aid Federation in each of the past 10 years;

  (2) how much funding has been provided from central Government to Women's Aid in each of the last 10 years, listing the amount provided by each Department.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the tables.

  Table 1

  Year

  DH Funding to Women's Aid Federation (England)£

  Welsh Office Funding to Welsh Women's Aid £

  1985–86

  Nil

  *

  1986–87

  29,590

  *

  1987–88

  98,000

  *

  1988–89

  121,961

  108,526

  1989–90

  110,000

  129,693

  1990–91

  130,000

  169,658

  1991–92

  144,650

  212,901

  1992–93

  199,200

  226,742

  1993–94

  201,020

  238,687

  1994–95

  199,200

  248,752

  Figures are rounded to the nearest £.

  *Figures not readily available.

  305

  Funding for Women's Aid - From all Government Departments Table 2

  Year

  1Dept of Health £

  2Scottish Office £

  Welsh Office £

  Northern Ireland 2Office £

  Home Office £

  Department of the 3Environment £

  1985–86

  34,422

  308,017

  *

  32,049

  —

  —

  1986–87

  66,011

  424,503

  *

  33,350

  —

  —

  1987–88

  98,000

  591,622

  *

  60,633

  —

  —

  1988–89

  196,961

  627,517

  108,526

  45,669

  —

  6,439,000

  1989–90

  110,000

  894,348

  129,693

  127,617

  6,200

  2,124,000

  1990–91

  150,000

  1,228,781

  169,658

  155,031

  5,380

  1,737,000

  1991–92

  144,650

  1,318,242

  212,901

  197,009

  8,075

  5,183,000

  1992–93

  199,200

  1,220,371

  664,7422

  128,631

  10,273

  5,370,000

  1993–94

  201,020

  1,800,349

  742,3332

  215,191

  30,650

  5,809,000

  1994–95

  199,200

  1,738,111

  704,5972

  132,299

  17,000

  3,175,720

  All figures are rounded to the nearest £.

  Information for earlier years not available.

  " Includes funding for a national housing coordinator for Women's Aid Federation (England) Ltd: £17,887.

  Notes:

  1 Funding for Women's Aid Federation (England) and local child care projects. It excludes some central funding for child care projects allocated through voluntary organisations.

  2 Includes funding for national organisation and local projects.

  3 Funding for women's aid projects allocated by the Housing Corporation.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will instruct the South Thames regional health authority to publish weekly the number of occasions for the preceding week when response times of emergency ambulances of the London ambulance service exceeded 34 and 45 minutes respectively,

  Number of calls responded to within 10 minutes

  Number of calls responded to within 11-20 minutes.

  Number of calls responded to within 21-30 minutes

  April 1994

  11,822

  29 per cent.

  24,811

  60 per cent.

  3,557

  9 per cent.

  May 1994

  12,917

  29 per cent.

  26,806

  60 per cent.

  3,611

  8 per cent.

  June 1994

  11,837

  26 per cent.

  26,807

  60 per cent.

  4,523

  10 per cent.

  July 1994

  12,468

  27 per cent.

  28,024

  60 per cent.

  4,843

  10 per cent.

  August 1994

  12,883

  29 per cent.

  26,588

  60 per cent.

  3,503

  8 per cent.

  September 1994

  12,850

  30 per cent.

  26,297

  60 per cent.

  3,300

  8 per cent.

  Source:

  London Ambulance Service internal statistics

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the size of the population covered by(a) the London ambulance service and (b) each of the ambulance services covering larger populations.

  Mr. Sackville
  The estimated size of populations served by the London ambulance service and larger urban and rural services is shown in the table:

  Service

  Population

  London Ambulance Service

  6,936,400

  Urban

  Manchester

  2,601,116

  Mersey

  2,408,900

  Surrey

  1,179,400

  South Yorkshire

  1,297,884

  West Midlands

  2,619,231

  West Yorkshire

  2,128,421

  Rural

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  1,515,001

  Essex

  1,472,397

  306
  together with a numerical summary of the category of relevant causes.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of calls to the London ambulance service are answered within(a) 10 minutes, (b) between 10 and 20 minutes and (c) 20 to 30 minutes.

  Mr. Sackville
  The London ambulance service has supplied the information in the table.

  Service

  Population

  Hampshire

  1,409,803

  Kent

  1,532,457

  Lancashire

  1,398,909

  Northumbria

  1,432,931

  Nottinghamshire

  1,017,267

  Staffordshire

  1,046,853

  Two Shires

  1,187,906

  West Country

  1,921,567

  Notes:

  1. Population summaries are mid-1992 as used for 1993–94 summary KA34 information.

  2. "Larger ambulance services" taken as those serving populations of more than one million.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many maintenance depots the London ambulance service operates.

  Mr. Sackville
  Seventeen.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance men and women work for
  307
  the London ambulance service; and what is the average rate of absenteeism.

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest centrally held information is that at 30 September 1992 there were 2,010—to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents—ambulance men and women in the London ambulance service.

  According to figures supplied by the London ambulance service in August 1994, absenteeism in accident and emergency services was 8 per cent. and in patient transport 8.5 per cent.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paramedics are employed by the London ambulance service; and what was the comparable figure five years ago.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to information supplied by the London ambulance service, there are 455 paramedics in the service now, compared with only seven in 1989.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances are operated by the London ambulance service; what is their average age; and how many days the ambulances spend on average out of service.

  Mr. Sackville
  According to figures supplied by the London ambulance service there are: 306 accident and emergency ambulances, average age of six years; and 376 patient transport service vehicles, with an average age of six years. In the current year 180 new vehicles will be delivered and put into service.

  Information on average time out of service is not currently available.

  Breathing Difficulties
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received hospital treatment for acute breathing difficulties during(a) March, (b) April, (c)May, (d) June, (e) July and (f) August.

  Mr. Sackville
  Acute breathing difficulties occur as a symptom of a wide range of medical conditions. Central returns do not include numbers of hospital admissions classified by symptom. The number of hospital admissions for asthma recorded for the months requested in 1991, the latest figures available, is shown in the table.

  Finished consultant episodes, ordinary admissions and day cases, England:

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  6,086

  6,346

  6,791

  6,695

  6,782

  6,197

  Source

  Hospital Episode Statistics (estimated from 25 per cent. sample). The figures do not include numbers of attendances at out-patient or accident and emergency facilities.

  Disabled People
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give a breakdown of the 6·5 million disabled people between those(a) who suffer from impaired hearing, (b) who have defective sight, (c) who suffer from immobility and (d)those with other difficulties.

  Mr. Bowis
  The four Office of Population Censuses and Surveys surveys of disability in Great Britain, which were carried out between 1985 and 1988, found that over 308
  6·2 million adults and 360,000 children under 16 had at least one disability. Full details are contained in report 1: "The Prevalence of Disability among Adults", and report 3: "The Prevalence of Disability among Children", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Health Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those areas which have developed joint commissioning operations for the planning and purchasing of primary and secondary health care in their area; and what are the principal organisational models used.

  Mr. Malone
  Every district health authority and family health services authority is required to develop effective joint working arrangements for the management of the health care services within their area. It is for the statutory authorities concerned to determine the exact management arrangements to promote joint working, within the current legislation governing the composition and functions of those authorities, and guidance issued by the Department.

  Blood Supply
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the proposals of the National Blood Authority which include the closure of Liverpool's blood transfusion unit; what her response has been; if she will as a matter of urgency study the proposals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received representations from Members of both Houses, and from other interested parties. The National Blood Authority is undertaking a detailed consultation about its proposals. The results of the consultation will be carefully considered before decisions are made.

  Community Health Services
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) communications and (b) recommendations she has received from the North Thames regional health authority concerning the future structure and organisation of community health services in the City and east London; and on what basis and on what occasions any such conclusions were reached.

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no such communication or recommendation. Prior to 1 April 1994, representations were received from North East Thames regional health authority expressing support for a combined community and primary care trust. We have yet to reach a decision.

  Mr. Tom Pindar
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions she or her Department has had with Mr. Tom Pindar, chairman of the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care NHS Trust, following his remarks in the course of a mental health review meeting in January; and what plans she has to seek his resignation.

  Mr. Sackville
  Discussions have taken place between Mr. Pindar and the chairman of Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. I understand that Mr Pindar has apologised unreservedly for his remarks and this has been accepted by all parties. I am satisfied that he should
  309
  continue as chairman of the Scarborough and East Yorkshire Health Care National Health Service Trust.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those regions, areas and general practitioner practices which are participating in an incentive prescribing scheme; when the schemes started; for how long they are intended to run; and what arrangements she is making to set up an independent review of the results.

  Mr. Malone
  Prescribing incentive schemes were introduced on a pilot basis for non-fundholding general

  List of FHSAs Participating in the 1993–94 Nationally Approved Practice based Prescribing Incentive Scheme

  Northern

  Yorkshire

  Trent

  East Anglia

  North East Thames

  South East Thames

  Cleveland

  Humberside

  Lincolnshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Essex

  East Sussex

  Cumbria

  North Yorkshire

  Doncaster

  Norfolk

  Camden and Islington

  Bromley

  Durham

  Bradford

  Sheffield

  Suffolk

  Enfield and Haringey

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Gateshead

  Calderdale

  Barking and Havering

  Greenwich and Bexley

  South Tyneside

  Kirklees

  City and East London

  Kent

  Sunderland

  Leeds

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  Newcastle

  Wakefield

  North Tyneside

  Northumberland

  List of FHSAs participating in the 1993–94 nationally approved practice based prescribing incentive scheme

  Oxford

  South Western

  West Midlands

  Mersey

  North Western

  Berkshire

  Avon

  Coventry

  Cheshire

  Lancashire

  Buckinghamshire

  Cornwall

  Solihull

  Liverpool

  Bolton

  Northamptonshire

  Devon

  Staffordshire

  Sefton

  Bury

  Oxfordshire

  Gloucestershire

  Walsall

  St. Helens

  Manchester

  Somerset

  Wirral

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Stockport

  Tameside

  Trafford

  Wigan

WALES

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times during the 1993–94 session information requested in parliamentary questions has been refused on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Redwood
  Information requested has been refused 11 times on the grounds of commercial confidentiality during the 1993–94 Session.

  Morriston Open Heart Surgery Unit
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for the management and ownership of the Morriston open heart surgery unit at the completion of the first five-year period, in the event of contractors being appointed for the second five year 310
  practitioner practices in 11 of the former 14 regions during 1993–94. Around 2,000 practices participated in nationally approved schemes. The regions and family health services authorities which participated in these schemes are shown in the table. There were also a number of locally approved schemes about which information is not available centrally.

  The schemes are subject to annual review. Those for 1993–94 were effective in encouraging cost-effective prescribing and further nationally approved schemes are running this year in all new regions. Figures are not yet available centrally on the numbers of practices participating in this year's schemes.

  contract different from the owners of the facility for the duration of the first five years.

  Mr. Redwood
  Arrangements for the operation of the new unit following the first five years will be a matter for the Morriston Hospital NHS Trust and the commissioners of the service in negotiation with the successful contractor, whether public or private. The services provided by the unit will be free at the point of delivery to NHS patients as it will remain an NHS-controlled facility meeting NHS needs whoever is the manager.

  Medical Genetic Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with purchasing health authorities in Wales with respect to the funding of a consortium to purchase medical genetic services.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Advice on contracting mechanisms, including consortium purchasing, for specialised services was set out in Welsh Office circular
  311
  DGM(94)65. These are matters for health authorities and providers to decide.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those hospital services classified as regional services which he proposes to de-designate from 1 April 1995; what representations he has had from the chairmen of Welsh health authorities concerning the de-designation of these services; and if he will publish his assessment of the effect of de-designation subregionally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following protected former regional services are to be de-designated from 1 April 1995:

  Bone Marrow Transplantation Service

  Medical Genetics Service

  Pharmaceutical Service:

  Drugs Information Service

  Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Service

  Surgical Dressings Quality Control Service

  Poisons Information Service

  Renal Transplantation Service

  Spinal Injuries Rehabilitation Service

  Transplant Tissue Typing Service

  Welsh Hearing Institute

  It is open to any service provider or commissioner to argue against de-designation until April 1996. No such representations have been received to date from health authorities in Wales.

  Health Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the Welsh health authorities and trusts in relation to expenditure by trusts and units within the national health service in Wales on public relations consultants; under which powers such expenditure is approved by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  None. Health authorities and trusts have discretion to make their own judgments within delegated powers. I do not myself favour expenditure on such consultancy.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prevalence and use of mobile abattoirs.

  Mr. Redwood
  At present there are no mobile abattoirs in use in Wales. All abattoirs, including mobile abattoirs, need to meet the structural and hygiene standards set out in regulations and require licensing by the appropriate Agriculture Department.

  General Practitioners Training
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the funding of flexible training for qualification as general practitioners; how many places are currently funded by the grants from his Department; how many people are on the waiting list who have already completed their pre-registration year; how many women returners have entered their names on to the waiting list; what proposals 312
  he has to increase funding for the training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office has received one representation. The only scheme for training in general practice is the vocational training scheme, within which there is scope for trainees to work part-time. No figures are held centrally on the numbers undertaking vocational training for general practice whether on a full or part-time basis. There is no central waiting list. The general practice component of the vocational training scheme for full-time and part-time trainees is funded from the non cash-limited general medical services budget and paid by the family health services authority. Expenditure on trainee practitioner salaries in 1993–94 was in the order of £3.4 million.

  Part-time hospital training posts are funded from the postgraduate dean's flexible training scheme budget, which funds all part-time junior grade hospital doctors' posts. The current annual budget is £235,000 which supports 14 posts.

  At present there are no vocational training scheme trainees undertaking part-time hospital training. There are 13 women doctors waiting for placements under the flexible training scheme, three of whom are GP vocational trainees.

  I will be considering the extension of this scheme in the context of this year's public expenditure review.

  Neighbourhood Hospital
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the South Glamorgan health authority in relation to the planning and consultation exercise for a neighbourhood hospital on the site of St. David's hospital, Cowbridge Road, East Cardiff; on what date the approval in principle letter was sent to the health authority; on what date the detailed application has been requested from the authority; and on what date he expects the start of construction.

  Mr. Redwood
  These are matters for the South Glamorgan health authority. My Department advised the authority on a draft proposal for a local hospital on the site on 14 February 1994. No formal application has been submitted.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the west Wales cardiac care purchasing consortium in relation to the tendering procedure for the open heart surgery unit to be opened at Morriston hospital; what arrangements he has made for the treatment of non-standard open heart surgery cases; what departmental representation there is on the purchasing consortium; and what guarantees have been given regarding the overall activity at the centre in the initial two years.

  Mr. Redwood
  The South Wales Consortium is represented on the project board managing the competitive tendering process. The board's report and recommendations will be submitted shortly. The purchasing consortium has been operating successfully since 1993 and will work with the Morriston unit to determine overall activity. The unit will treat emergency and elective cases in line with the service specification.

  Cardiff East Sewage Works
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received the application for a derogation from the 2000 deadline under the European municipal waste water treatment directive for the completion of the Cardiff East sewage treatment works; what consultations he had with the chairman of the Wales area of the National Rivers Authority about it; and on what date he approved the derogation order.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government made clear in "Paying For Quality" that they intended to take advantage of opportunities for derogations which EC directives accord to member states. Dwr Cymru Cyf has been in discussion with my officials about the possibility of a derogation under article 8·1 of the urban waste water treatment directive to extend the period during which the Cardiff East scheme is to be completed, but no application has as yet been made to the Commission.

  Consultants (Merit Awards)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the numbers of consultants with merit awards for each of the three categories of award, employed by each Welsh health authority or trust at the latest conveniently available date.

  Mr. Redwood
  The numbers of consultants with merit awards for each Welsh health authority are as follows:

  Category of award

  Health authority

  A+

  A

  B

  C

  Clwyd

  2

  10

  20

  East Dyfed

  4

  10

  Gwent

  1

  3

  5

  24

  Gwynedd

  1

  4

  17

  Mid Glamorgan

  1

  7

  23

  Pembrokeshire

  4

  Powys

  1

  1

  6

  South Glamorgan

  11

  24

  47

  57

  West Glamorgan

  1

  13

  29

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the names of the members of the Merit Awards Assessment Committee for Wales; on what date they each commenced their period of service on the committee; and for how long a period.

  Mr. Redwood
  The membership of both the C awards committee and the higher awards committee together with their term of appointment are as follows:

  'C' Regional Awards Committee

  Term of Appointment

  Name

  From

  To

  Mr. P. R. Gregory

  Dr. Patricia Steane FRCA

  1992

  1994

  D. Harding Jones Esq. FRCS

  1992

  1994

  R. T. Maxwell Esq. FRCP

  1992

  1994

  Dr. Molly Hall FRCP

  1992

  1994

  Professor W. I. Fraser FRCPsych DPM

  1992

  1994

  C. W. Rouse Esq. FDSRCS

  1992

  1994

  Dr. G. J. Arthurs FRCA

  1993

  1995

  Dr. J. N. Horton FRCA

  1993

  1995

  Mr. W. I. Jones FRCS

  1993

  1995

  Mr. J. P. Williams FRCOG

  1993

  1995

  Dr. M. Adams FRCOG FRCR

  1993

  1995

  314

  'C' Regional Awards Committee

  Term of Appointment

  Name

  From

  To

  Dr. C. P. Williams MRCPath

  1993

  1995

  Dr. D. J. C. Davies FFCM

  1993

  1995

  Dr. G. Hughes FRCP

  1993

  1995

  Mr. R. F. Rintoul FRCS

  1993

  1995

  Dr. J. E. Cawdery FRCP

  1994

  1997

  Dr. J. Gough FRCPath

  1994

  1997

  Dr. Gareth H. Jones FRCPsych

  1994

  1997

  Dr. M. S. T. Ruttley FRCR

  1994

  1997

  Mr. J. W. R. Hombal FRCS

  1994

  1997

  Dr. G. Melville Jones FRCPath

  1994

  1997

  Dr. John H. Williams FRCR

  1994

  1997

  Dr. B. LI. Griffiths FRCP

  1994

  1997

  Dr. Neil S. Davies FRCPsych

  1994

  1997

  Mr. C. J. Davies

  1994

  1997

  Dr. Deidre Hine FFCM DPH

  Mr. K. Thomson

  1994

  1997

  Mr. A. J. Beddow

  1993

  1994

  Mr. R. Hudson

  1993

  1995

  Mr. E. M. W. Griffith CBE

  1993

  1996

  Higher Awards Committee

  Name

  Term of Appointment From

  To

  Professor G. M. Roberts FRCR DMRD

  1992

  1994

  H. Bevan-Jones Esq FRCPsych DPM

  1991

  1993

  D. D. R. Williams Esq MD MRCPsych DPM

  1991

  1993

  D. Seel Esq FDSRCS D'ORTH

  1991

  1993

  J. F. Pearson Esq FRCOG

  1991

  1993

  Professor G. H. Elder FRCPath

  1992

  1994

  Professor G. Crompton

  1992

  1994

  Professor J. Rhodes FRCP

  1992

  1994

  Dr. A. E. Edwards FRCA

  1993

  1995

  Mr. K. H. Cromplin FRCS

  1993

  1995

  Dr. D. M. Wayte FRCPath

  1993

  1995

  Mr. M. H. Wheeler FRCS

  1993

  1995

  Dr. R. S. Vaughan FRCA

  1993

  1995

  Dr. Patricia Steane

  1993

  1995

  Health Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those areas of Wales which have developed joint commissioning operations for the planning and purchasing of primary and secondary health care in their area; and if he will list the principal organisational models used.

  Mr. Redwood
  Every health authority and family health services authority is required to develop effective joint working arrangements for the management of the health care services within their area. It is for the statutory authorities concerned to determine the exact management arrangements to promote joint working, within the current legislation governing the composition and functions of those authorities, and guidance issued centrally.

  At present all authorities in Wales apart from Clwyd and Powys have formal joint commissioning arrangements. Details of the arrangements in each area are available from the authorities concerned.

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the total cost of preparing each NHS trust's application in each of the financial years since the passing of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the terms of reference and reporting chain of command of(a) the Welsh Office departmental member seconded to the Grant Thornton inquiry team set up pursuant to his statement to the House of 7 July, Official Report, columns 463-67, and (b) the Grant Thornton members of that team; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Office secondee works direct to Mr. Geraint Davies, partner at Grant Thornton, and has no terms of reference and no remit distinct from those of the inquiry in which she is assisting. The arrangements for the inquiry are a matter for the agency.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what requests his legal department has received from the Grant Thornton inquiry team set up, pursuant to his statement to the House of 7 July, in relation to the status and structure of the Welsh Development Agency's joint ventures in urban regeneration with local authorities as(a) boards with executive powers and (b) consultative forums.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Prescribing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those family health services authorities where computerised recording of average proportions of generic and non-generic prescribing for each practice is carried out.

  Mr. Redwood
  Levels of generic prescribing are recorded for each practice by the prescription pricing services division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. This information is made available to every family health services authority in Wales.

  Wales Energy Project
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency in relation to the follow-up action appropriate for the Wales Energy Project completed in March 1993.

  Mr. Redwood
  None.

  Child Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what funding has been allocated to each training and enterprise council in Wales from the out-of-school child care network; how much has been committed already; and if he will list the projects to which funds have already been committed.

  Mr. Redwood
  The budget for 1994–95 for the out-of-school child care grant initiative in Wales has been allocated to training and enterprise councils as follows:316

  Gwent

  £135,054

  Mid Glamorgan

  £135,054

  South Glamorgan

  £135,054

  West Wales

  £133,395

  Powys

  £ 93,350

  North West Wales

  £ 84,150

  North East Wales

  £ 84,150

  TECs have committed funding to the following projects beginning in 1994£95:

  Gwent

  Magor and Undy After School Club

  Monmouth Holiday Club

  Northern Telecom Holiday Club

  Mid Glamorgan

  Hendredenny After School Club

  Creigau After School Club

  Bridgend College

  Menter Taf Elai (Rhydyfelin)

  Menter Taf Elai (Llanhari)

  Bridgend & District NHS Trust

  Ogmore Valley Childcare Club

  South Glamorgan

  Allensbank Primary School

  South Glamorgan Community Education Services

  Penarth Community Education Service (Before-school)

  Penarth Community Education Service (After-school)

  Barry Holiday Playcare Scheme

  Llanrumney East End Kids Club

  Whitchurch "Out of School" Association

  West Wales

  The Kid Care Club

  Llangumor School

  St. Pauls

  Melthrinfa Mair - Aberystwyth

  Powys

  School's Out - Talgarth

  Maldwyn Nursery and Family Centre - Newtown

  Kool for Kids - Llanidloes

  N W Wales

  Beach Play Club - Barmouth

  Kidz Klub - Colwyn Bay

  Bangor University Students Union

  N E Wales

  Hawarden Infants

  Clych Meithrin

  Lilliput Denbigh

  Clwyd County Council

  The total committed to these projects and other supporting development work as at 18 October 1994 is £592,490. The balance provides cover for other projects which will begin during the remainder of the financial year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Freedom Food
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if the Catering Committee will require the Refreshment Department to ensure that as far as possible
  317
  all meat and egg products served in the canteens and restaurant of the House have the RSPCA Freedom Food mark.

  Mr. Shepherd
  This is a matter for the director of catering services. I shall ask her to write to the hon. Member.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the value of the maintenance payments which have been received and held by the Child Support Agency; and for how many days on average such payments have been held;

  (2) what plans he has to improve the performance of the Child Support Agency in passing on maintenance payments it receives to parents with care;

  (3) what is the target time by which the Child Support Agency is expected to pass on maintenance payments received from parents without care responsibility to those with care;

  (4) in how many cases maintenance payments received by the Child Support Agency have not been passed on to the parent with care after seven days; and what percentage of cases this represents.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chart to Mr. Clive Betts, dated 19 October 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the length of time taken to pass maintenance payments received by the Child Support Agency to parents with care.
  To the end of July 1994, the Agency had collected about £30 million in maintenance payments arising from Child Support Agency assessments.
  Straightforward cases that generally do not involve benefit payments are likely to be processed in a matter of days. However, in cases where income support is involved benefit details have to be checked with the benefits Agency and it has taken, on average, around ten weeks to process these payments. We recognise that this is unacceptable and have already introduced improved procedures to speed up the process.
  At the end of August 1994, we estimate that there were some 9,000 cases where child maintenance had been paid to the Agency, but some or all of the maintenance had not been forwarded to either the parent with care, or the Secretary of State. To breakdown that figure to show the number over seven days old and the number involving parents with care only, would incur disproportionate cost. This total figure represented less than 4 per cent. of the total number of live cases.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social

  Year

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  21994

  No.

  7

  3

  4

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  (b) to (d) The information is in the table.

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  21994

  (b)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (c)1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (d)1

  32

  10

  20

  23

  21

  17

  31

  21

  318
  Security (1) how many parents with care have waited (a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months, (d) six months and (e) one year since the Child Support Act 1991 came into force to receive their first maintenance payment through the Child Support Agency from the date of first application; and what percentage of applications each group represents;

  (2) how many parents with care have currently been waiting (a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months, (d) six months and (e) one year to receive the first maintenance payment through the Child Support Agency from the date of first application; and what percentage of applications each group represents.

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Clive Betts, dated 19 October 1994:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security on outstanding claims for child maintenance.
  Information in the format you have requested is not available. However information is available as follows:

  Age of Cases Outstanding as at 31 August 1994

  Per cent.

  Over 13 weeks old

  403,187

  79 per cent.

  Over 26 weeks old

  346,135

  68 per cent.

  Over 52 weeks old

  Figures

  Figures

  not yet available

  not yet available

  Time taken to clear cases between 1 April and 31 August 1994

  per cent.

  40 days or less

  37

  More than 40 days and up to 100 days

  15

  More than 100 days

  48

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in respect of payments under the vaccine damage payment scheme, in each year since 1987(a) how many claims were withdrawn, (b) how many claimants were under two years of age, (c) how many claimants were disabled to less than 80 per cent. due to vaccination, (d) in how many cases claimants' disablement was not due to vaccination and (e) in how many other cases section 2 conditions were not fulfilled; and what were the reasons why claims were withdrawn.

  Mr. Hague
  (a) None prior to the vaccine damage tribunal stage. Claims withdrawn at the tribunal stage are in the table.
  319
  (e) The information is in the table.

  Disallowances under Section 2(1), VDP Act 1979

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  21994

  S.2(1)(a)(i)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  S.2(1)(a)(ii)

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  S.2(1)(a)(iii)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  S.2(1)(b)

  4

  2

  4

  2

  —

  —

  5

  —

  S.2(1)(c)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  With reference to claims withdrawn, I would refer the honourable Member to my answer at (a).

  1The figures exclude those where causation has not been fully investigated owing to the claimant's disability falling substantially short of 80 per cent.

  2Correct at 13 October 1994.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients there were of rent allowance housing benefit in(a) housing association properties and (b) other private rented properties at 31

  Recipients (thousands)

  Average weekly eligible rent

  Average weekly rent allowance

  Housing associations tenants

  Other private tenants

  Housing associations

  Other private tenants

  Housing associations tenants

  Other private tenants

  May 1992

  340

  952

  £35·54

  £43·91

  £32·24

  £40·68

  May 1993

  412

  1,068

  £39·88

  £49·86

  £35·75

  £46·80

  May 1994

  508

  1,126

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Figures are for 31 May as no counts are taken on 31 March.

  Information relates to eligible rent for Housing Benefit as actual rents paid are not available.

  Average eligible rents and average rent allowances figures apply to end of May 1992 and 1993.

  May 1994 figures are not yet available.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total housing benefit paid in respect of(a) housing association properties and (b) other private rented properties in the financial years 1992–93 and 1993–94; and what are the predicted figures for each of these for 1994–95.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is:

  Rent Allowance Expenditure in Great Britain

  £million

  1992–93

  3,257

  1993–94 estimated out-turn

  3,817

  1994–95 plans

  4,320

  Source:

  DSS Department Report 1994.tnh2 Seperate information on the amount of Housing Benefit paid to housing association tenants is not available.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to(a) all English local authorities and (b) London boroughs of disregarding war widows and war disablement pensions for the purpose of housing benefit and community charge or council tax benefit in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information relating to the cost to local authorities of their own disregard scheme, compiled from information provided by local 320
  March 1992, 31 March 1993 and 31 March 1994; what was the average rent of each of these Properties; and what was the average rent allowance being paid for each of these.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  authorities for the financial years from 1998–89 to 1992–93, has been placed in the Library.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households receive council tax rebates in each region of Scotland.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Scottish Region and Islands

  Council Tax Benefit caseloads May 1994

  Borders

  8,800

  Central

  35,800

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13,600

  Fife

  45,100

  Grampian

  33,900

  Highland1

  17,700

  Lothian

  60,800

  Strathclyde2

  322,200

  Tayside

  40,400

  Regions Total

  578,300

  Islands Councils

  5,900

  Scotland Total

  584,200

  1estimated

  2provisional (October 1994 figure)

  The information relates to bnenefit units rather than households, a benefit unit may be a couple or a single person.

  Source:

  Council Tax benefit Management Information System

  Strathclyde—provided direct by region.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of applicants awarded benefit for PD D12 chronic bronchitis and emphysema in each 10 per cent. band between 14 per cent. and 100 per cent. for the period 13 September 1993 to 13 September 1994.

  Mr. Hague
  The full information requested is not available. The available information is in the table.

  Chronic bronchitis and/or emphysema as at 11 September 1994. Awards of Benefit for PD D12.

  14–24 per cent.

  442

  25–34 per cent.

  634

  35 per cent. and over

  3,393

  NB

  A number of applications received up to 11 September 1994 are still being processed.

  Based on 100 per cent. count but subject to amendment.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of applications for benefit for PD D12 chronic bronchitis and emphysema broken down by region between 13 September 1993 and 13 September 1994.

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not available by region. The available information is shown in the table and relates to applications received by 11 September 1994.

  Applications for benefit in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema (PD D12) by area directorate

  Area

  Claims

  South

  Anglia

  25

  Chilterns

  22

  South East

  470

  West Country

  144

  Wales and Central England

  East Midlands

  5,663

  Greater Manchester

  326

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  2,252

  Merseyside

  495

  Midlands South West

  648

  Wales

  9,339

  West Mercia

  3,658

  Scotland and North

  East Scotland

  2,391

  Glasgow

  240

  North and West Yorkshire

  2,651

  North, Central and West Scotland

  1,893

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  6,491

  Tyne Tees

  7,119

  Total

  43,827

  Based on 100 per cent. count but subject to amendment.

  Prisoners (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many prisoners are currently in receipt of housing benefit; and what is the cost of this as a proportion of(a) the overall housing benefit budget and (b) the overall social security budget;
  322
  (2) if he will give figures, in real cash terms, of the predicted savings his Department will make as a result of reducing prisoners' entitlement to housing benefit from 52 weeks to 13 weeks;

  (3) how many prisoners over the last five-year period for which figures are available have had their entitlement to housing benefit renewed for a further 52 weeks following a home visit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No information is collected on the amount of housing benefit paid to prisoners, the number of prisoners in receipt of housing benefit, or the impact of home visits on prisoners' benefit. However, we estimate that there could be up to 10,000 single prisoners in receipt of housing benefit in any one year at a cost of up to £10 million.

  This represents up to 0·1 per cent. of the housing benefit budget, and up to 0·01 per cent. of the total social security budget. The majority of this cost is expected to be recouped through reducing prisoners' benefit entitlement to 13 weeks.

  Source: Prison Statistics England and Wales 1991 CM. 2157

  Chief Adjudication Officer
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the 10th annual report of the Chief Adjudication Officer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The report is being published today. The report's findings point to improvements in the quality of adjudication in the Benefits Agency, notably in the income support area. Standards within the Employment Service also showed some improvement.

  The Benefits Agency and Employment Service are committed to better standards of adjudication as illustrated by the increased emphasis on quality in agency business plans for 1994–95. Both the CAO and I look forward to progress in coming years.

  The report contains six recommendations to build on the progress which the agencies have made in improving adjudication standards.

  These recommendations are being considered and there will be a formal response in due course.

TRANSPORT

  Shipping
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many ships in 1993 flying foreign flags(a) visited United Kingdom ports, (b) were inspected and (c)were detained.

  Mr. Norris
  In 1993, 6,540 individual ships flying foreign flags visited United Kingdom ports; 2,271 were inspected and 174 were detained.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what surveys of garbage reception facilities for ships using United Kingdom ports his Department is currently funding.

  Mr. Norris
  A comprehensive survey of reception facilities at United Kingdom ports has been carried out by the Marine Safety Agency. The data from that survey are being analysed. In addition an independent research
  323
  project has been commissioned to assess the adequacy of these facilities.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to publish his proposals arising from his Department's review of taxis and private hire vehicle services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The hon. Member will be aware that in April the Transport Select Committee published volume I of its report on taxis and private hire vehicles—House of Commons Paper 239-I. We shall be replying to the Committee shortly.

  Coaches
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding the use of the outside lane of motorways by coaches; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), on 17 October,Official Report, column 103.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence he has as to the accident record involving coaches travelling in the outside lane of motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  In 1993 coaches were involved in 87 accidents on motorways resulting in 326 casualties. The lane occupied at the time is not known.

  Plutonium Nitrate
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has received from the Atomic Energy Authority on the outcome of its review of the authority's 1984 report on the radiological consequences of the release into the sea of the contents of a plutonium nitrate package.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department has received an executive summary of the review which confirms the findings of the 1984 report.

  Pelican Crossings
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review departmental advice note TA 52/87, "Design Considerations for Pelican and Zebra Crossings" to relax the minimum PV2 value necessary for the installation of a pelican crossing.

  Mr. Norris
  The numerical PV-squared criterion is purely advisory and highway authorities are free to decide whether to install pedestrian crossings on the roads for which they are responsible. The advice note emphasises the importance of taking local features into account in reaching a decision. The note is under review and we expect to replace it shortly with advice based on an examination of local factors and not relying on the numerical criterion.

  British Rail Rule Book
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the chief inspecting officer of railways concerning the introduction of multiple separate publications to replace the single 324
  volume British Rail rule book; and if he will make a statement concerning changes in the distribution of the new publications compared to that for the single volume.

  Mr. Watts
  There have been no such consultations. However, the chief inspecting officer of railways is aware that Railtrack intends to re-publish the former British Rail rule book in a new format, divided into a number of separate publications. He has no objection to this proposal and shares Railtrack's opinion that it is potentially beneficial to safety.

  Maritime False Alarms
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many false alarms have been registered in the past 12 months on the global maritime distress and safety systems; and what was the estimated cost of the false alarms.

  Mr. Norris
  During the year 1 October 1993 to 30 September 1994 HM Coastguard recorded a total of 956 false alerts within the global maritime distress and safety systems attributed to:International Maritime Satellite (INMARSAT)
  343
  Satellite Aided Position Indicating Systems (COSPAS/SARSAT)
  511
  Medium Frequency Radio Digital Selective Calling (MFDSC)
  102

  The estimated cost to the Coastguard Agency based on an average of two man hours to deal with each false alert is £17,016 for the year 1 October 1993, to 30 September 1993.

  Dumping at Sea
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many successful prosecutions have been mounted arising from the dumping of rubbish at sea in each of the last three years; and how many incidents were recorded in the same period.

  Mr. Norris
  In the past three years, there have been seven incidents of garbage dumping at sea reported to my Department's Marine Pollution Control Unit. Of these, two were referred for prosecution action. One case was found not guilty and the other is on-going. Further cases may have been brought by other authorities but records are not held centrally.

  Airports
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the development of Redhill aerodrome fits into the long-term development of airports in the south-east in the context of the RUCATSE—runway capacity in the south-east group—report.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 21 July 1994]: RUCATSE did not consider development of Redhill aerodrome as one of its options. The RUCATSE report noted that constraints could be imposed on Redhill, were a second runway to be developed at Gatwick.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change in the numbers unemployed since 1990; and to which of the factors and reforms listed in section 5.1 and annex 2, "Employment: The Challenge for the Nation", Cmnd. 9474, he ascribes the change.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are two main measures of employment used in Great Britain: the "Workforce in Employment" which is based on a survey of employers, and the labour force survey, which is a survey of households. The "Workforce in Employment" estimates of the changes in full-time employment in Great Britain since 1984 are shown in the table:

  Males

  Females

  June 1984 to June 1990

  +500,000

  +834,000

  June 1990 to June 1994

  -1,683,000

  -423,000

  June 1984 to June 1994

  -1,182,000

  +412,000

  The corresponding estimates based on the LFS are:

  Spring 1984 to Spring 1990

  +811,000

  +1,019,00

  Spring 1990 to Summer 1994

  -1,253,000

  -359,000

  Spring 1984 to Summer 1994

  -442,000

  +660,000

  Note:

  seasonally adjusted figures

  There is currently some discrepancy between the two measures, and work is being done to ascertain the reasons for the differences.

  The figures show how full-time employment moved during different stages in the economic cycle. However, a comparison of total employment at similar stages in the economic cycle is a broader indicator of Britain's recent employment record. The "Work force in employment" grew by around 1.5 million between peaks in the last cycle–1979 and 1990. This is the fastest rate of growth at least since the 1960s. The growth in the "Work force in employment" between the troughs in the last cycle–1983 to 1993—was of a similar order of magnitude. It is likely that the Government's policies, such as those in the White Paper cited above, contributed to this performance.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current level of unemployment in(a) the Liverpool, Riverside constituency and (b) Merseyside at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement on what measures are being taken to reduce these figures.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The table gives the unadjusted claimant unemployed in the Liverpool, Riverside constituency and the county of Merseyside for September 1986, 1993 and 1994.

  Month

  Year

  Total

  Merseyside

  September

  1986

  140,472

  September

  1993

  96,516

  September

  1994

  87,814

  Liverpool, Riverside

  September

  1986

  11,652

  September

  1993

  7,458

  September

  1994

  6,973

  326
  The Government are committed to reducing unemployment by supporting the development of a more productive and competitive economy which will create better-paid and more secure jobs in the labour market.

  Unemployed People
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the implications of the delay in negotiations with the European Union on existing training and support available to unemployed people.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I regret that the Commission's failure to begin negotiations on the United Kingdom's objective 3 plan until the end of April led to serious problems for some training providers. I am pleased to say that thereafter negotiations on the United Kingdom's single programming document for objective 3, which accounts for most of the support for training unemployed people available from the Community, were undertaken intensively, and the document was formally agreed by the Commission at the beginning of August. Since then, the Department has been able to move quickly. Applications for European social fund grant in 1994 have now for the most part been approved, and the advances so far claimed have been paid. First priority in this process has been given to dealing with vulnerable projects from the voluntary sector.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in how many cases at industrial tribunals each Government Department has been represented in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I regret that the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the non-departmental public bodies to which his Department makes appointments in the Greater London area, together with the total annual budget for each body and the number of appointments made or renewed in each of the last five years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In the Greater London area, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is responsible for the appointment of lay members to the London (north) regional office of industrial tribunals and the London (south) regional office of industrial tribunals; and of chairmen and members to the London north and London south committees for the employment of people with disabilities.

  It is not possible to breakdown the budget for these non-departmental public bodies. National figures for the industrial tribunals and CEPDs are available for the 1992–93 financial year in "Public Bodies 1993", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Appointments and re-appointments to the industrial tribunals are made every three years, the last two such exercises having been carried out in 1989 and 1992. In 1989, a total of 46 new appointments and 277 re-appointments were made to industrial tribunals within the jurisdiction of the London (north) and London (south)

  327
  regional offices. In 1992, there were 109 new appointments and 219 re-appointments.

  The two London CEPDs each have an independent chairman and 13 members. The committees are reconstituted every three years when all appointments are considered afresh. The last reconstitution exercise was completed in March 1994. Running records of appointments including replacement members are not kept centrally and regional records do not go back as far as five years.

  Soccer Players
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permit applications for professional soccer players have been made in each of the last 10 years; and how many granted in each year, specifying the nationality of the applicant in each case.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of work permit applications, including those for extensions to existing permits, received by the Department for professional soccer players in each of the years for which this information is available is set out in the table. Information about the number of permits granted to professional soccer players and their nationality is not available.

  Year

  Number Of Applications

  1989

  9

  1990

  23

  1991

  32

  1992

  30

  1993

  35

  1994

  122

  1To date.

  National Insurance Credits
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of persons who are currently in receipt of class 1 national insurance credits only, during unemployment, in each unemployment benefit office in Greater Manchester.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M.E.G. Fogden to Mr. Terry Lewis, dated 20 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the total number of persons, who are currently in receipt of Class 1 National Insurance credits only, during unemployment, in each unemployment benefit office in Greater Manchester.
  The information you have requested is not fully available. However the attached table gives the number of persons within each office in Greater Manchester, who were registered as unemployed and receiving neither unemployment benefit nor Income Support on 12 May. The vast majority, but not all, of these persons will have been receiving Class 1 National Insurance credits only. More recent data can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  328

  Table to show the number of persons not in receipt of unemployment benefit nor income support, during unemployment, in each benefit office in Greater Manchester on Thursday 12 May 1994

  Office

  Number (See note below)

  Altrincham

  509

  Hyde

  325

  Marple

  142

  Stockport A

  330

  Wythenshawe

  299

  Stockport B

  332

  Stockport C

  309

  Rusholme

  190

  Rochdale

  490

  Ashton-in-Makerfield

  157

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  261

  Atherton & Tyldesley

  160

  Bolton A

  200

  Bury A

  422

  Bolton B

  284

  Bolton C

  268

  Denton

  187

  Eccles

  187

  Failsworth

  256

  Didsbury

  365

  Stretford B

  527

  Farnworth

  127

  Heywood

  211

  Horwich

  123

  Irlam

  71

  Leigh

  318

  Levenshulme

  239

  Little Borough

  102

  Middleton

  155

  Newton Heath

  304

  Oldham B

  700

  Swinton

  172

  Prestwich

  335

  Radcliffe

  115

  Manchester C

  179

  Salford A

  347

  Hindley

  109

  Worsley

  198

  West Houghton

  90

  Wigan A

  585

  Wigan B

  257

  Note:

  The vast majority of these persons will have been in receipt of a Class 1 National Insurance credit at the time.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total number of persons nationally who are currently in receipt of class 1 national insurance credits only, during unemployment.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Terry Lewis, dated 20 October 1994:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the total number of persons, nationally, who are currently in receipt of Class 1 National Insurance credits only, during unemployment.
  The information you have requested is not fully available. However, the number of persons nationally, who were registered as unemployed and receiving neither unemployment benefit nor

  329
  Income Support on 12 May was 281,318. The vast majority, but not all, of these persons, would have been receiving Class 1 National Insurance credits only. More recent data can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  It must be noted that of these persons, 47,598 were yet to have their unemployment benefit entitlement established.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Training Projects
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the European Community objective 3 training allocations and amounts of assistance to be given to projects in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole.

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 18 October 1994]: European social fund grants for objective 3 are allocated to projects through sector managers, operating at. Great Britain level, though in some sectors separate allocations for Scotland have been made at the outset.

  Since the process of considering and approving applications for 1994 is still going on it is impossible as yet to give figures for the overall levels of assistance under objective 3 which will go to projects in Scotland as a whole or to projects in Strathclyde or Inverclyde.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Safety
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the potential for deregulation in food safety.

  Mrs. Browning
  Our food law deregulation plan involves taking a critical look at all existing regulations. We have already said that this will not undermine proper requirements for food safety and consumer protection but there will undoubtedly be opportunities for updating or simplification.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many species are infected by bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mrs. Browning
  BSE is, by definition, a disease of cattle. Spongiform encephalopathies have also been diagnosed in other animal species in Great Britain and elsewhere and in three of them—cats, nyala and greater kudo—strain typing has indicated a possible common origin with BSE.

  Bovine Immune Deficiency Virus
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had recently on bovine immune deficiency virus.

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is undertaking into the bovine immune deficiency virus.

  Mrs. Browning
  Representations have been received from Members of this House and a farmer in Cheshire whose herd is being investigated. Studies have been commissioned at the Central Veterinary Laboratory on the 330
  inactivation of BIV in milk by pasteurisation, and further research is under way at the Institute of Animal Health.

  Beef
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the export of beef to other members of the European Union.

  Mr. Waldgrave
  The Government have worked hard to enable our beef exports to continue since the new European Union trade rules on BSE were introduced in July.

  Bovine Welfare
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the welfare of bovines.

  Mrs. Browning
  The welfare of bovines is protected on the farm by regulations and codes of recommendation made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and in transit by the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992.

  The Farm Animal Welfare Council, which advises Ministers on the welfare of all farm animals, is studying the on-farm welfare of dairy cows, and will report in due course.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has to improve the use of set-aside land.

  Mr. Jack
  As I said in my reply to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) earlier, we want to improve environmental benefits from set-aside, and to develop alternative non-food crops which can be grown on set-aside land.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what agreement has been reached with other European Union countries about the transportation of live animals.

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff).

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making in promoting the consumption of speciality foods.

  Mrs. Browning
  We fully support speciality food and drink producers in their efforts to sell more of their products at home and abroad. The Department provides help through Food From Britain for groups of these producers aimed at improving their marketing. I intend myself to take every opportunity of demonstrating my close interest in the success of this dynamic sector of the food industry whose products are of such high quality, and I shall be visiting one of the regional groups next month.

  Fur Farms
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on fur farming.

  Mrs. Browning
  Welfare conditions on fur farms are monitored regularly by the State Veterinary Service and we are seeking European Community legislation to set standards for all fur farms. Security standards for mink farms are set by the Mink Keeping Order 1992.

  Oilseed Rape
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of set-aside land for the growing of oilseed rape, with a view to its conversion into bio-diesel fuel.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of land set aside for the growing of oilseed rape with a view to its conversion into bio-diesel fuel.

  Mr. Jack
  Oilseed rape can be grown on land set aside under the arable area payments scheme, provided that it is processed into an approved non-food product. The approved non-food uses include the conversion of rapeseed oil into bio-diesel fuel.

  Dioxin Contamination
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to satisfy himself that the farms in Bolsover, north Derbyshire, are now free from dioxin contamination.

  Mrs. Browning
  When the problem of dioxin contamination was first discovered, the Ministry undertook that it would monitor dioxins in the milk from farms in the Bolsover area for as long as was necessary. Further samples of cows' milk taken this July from these farms were found to contain dioxins at levels similar to those in samples taken last year. These results indicate that the Bolsover area remains largely free from unacceptable levels of dioxins, other than from the farm previously found to be the most heavily contaminated. This finding is not unexpected as dioxins are known to be very long lived. I have placed the full details of these latest findings in the Library.

  Food Marketing
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to improve the marketing of agricultural produce domestically and abroad.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The new marketing development scheme, launched on 15 June, provides £10 million-worth of assistance over the next three years to help develop new marketing ideas. Abroad, assistance to United Kingdom exporters is given by Food From Britain. Our export promotion division also helps the industry to identify new overseas markets.

  Chemical Pollution
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce chemical pollution arising from farmlands.
  332
  Mr. Jack
  The Government operate an extensive programme of measures to control chemical pollution from farmland. Recent measures include the extension of the nitrate sensitive area scheme to protect a further 28 water sources; the proposed designation of 72 nitrate vulnerable zones in England and Wales where agricultural activities will be controlled; the issue and promotion of codes of good agricultural practice for the protection of air, soil and water from agricultural activities; a code of practice for the safe use of pesticides on farms and holdings; and a £10 million research and development programme. In addition we recently announced that in seven river catchments including Slapton Ley we will be carrying out an extensive promotion campaign to provide farm waste management plans aimed at avoiding water pollution.

  British Food
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has further to promote British food.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Food From Britain, which is partly funded by my Department, has a substantial programme of action in support of British food exporters which includes organising a strong British presence at overseas food trade fairs. My hon. Friend will be visiting the SIAL exhibition in Paris next week to demonstrate our continuing support for this export activity.

  Sugar
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met other members of the EC Council of Agriculture Ministers to discuss the future of the sugar regime.

  Mr. Jack
  The future of the sugar regime was last discussed at the December 1993 Agriculture Council. At that meeting, it was agreed that the existing regime would be reviewed before 1 July 1995. Proposals from the Commission are expected shortly.

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food how many badgers were culled at the Highgrove estate, Tetbury, in each month since November 1993; and how many of those badgers culled were infected with tuberculosis.

  Mrs. Browning
  A total of 15 badgers were culled on the Highgrove estate in a badger removal operation which started on 5 April and finished on 26 July this year. Of these, three were taken in April and 12 were taken in July. All were negative for M. bovis.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what grounds licences to kill badgers on the Highgrove estate were issued in mid-August 1994; how many badgers were killed; and how many were found to have bovine tuberculosis.

  Mrs. Browning
  A detailed epidemiological investigation by Ministry veterinary staff attributed the confirmed cattle TB herd breakdown which occurred on the Highgrove estate in November 1993, to infection by badgers. The results of the badger removal operation that followed were given in my answer to the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 20 October 1994,Official Report, column 334.
  333
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers were killed under licence in 1993 and 1994 to date; and how many were found to have bovine tuberculosis.

  Mrs. Browning
  A total of 1,094 badgers were trapped and killed in Ministry badger removal operations in 1993. Of these, 302 were positive for M. bovis. So far in 1994, a total of 1,448 badgers have been trapped and killed in Ministry badger removal operations. Of these, 257 were positive for M. bovis; 460 results are pending.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what is the cumulative total of badgers killed arising from efforts to eradicate bovine tuberculosis in British cattle since 1964.

  Mrs. Browning
  The cumulative total of badgers killed in Ministry badger removal operations since 1974, when controls began, is 15,443. It is not known how many badgers died underground when gassing was used by the Ministry as a means of badger control between 1975 and 1982.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy that viral haemorrhagic disease will not be released into the countryside as a wild rabbit control method.

  Mrs. Browning
  The deliberate introduction and spread of the virus causing viral haemorrhagic disease in rabbits is prohibited by the Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1993. The Ministry has no plans to amend this legislation.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the prevalence and use of mobile abattoirs.

  Mrs. Browning
  At present there are no mobile abattoirs in use in England. All slaughterhouses, including mobile abattoirs, must meet the structural and hygiene standards set out in the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 and have to be licensed by the appropriate Agriculture Department.

  Livestock Transport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farm animals were identified as being unfit to travel in 1993.

  Mrs. Browning
  Figures for 1993 are not available. In Great Britain between March and August 1994, the number of farm animals for export rejected by veterinary inspectors as unfit to travel was 10,867.

  Birds (Illegal Import)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the illegal import of birds from non-EU countries into the United Kingdom through other EU countries.

  Mrs. Browning
  In the absence of harmonised detailed animal health rules for the quarantine of captive birds imported into the Community from third countries, and in the light of a number of other factors including the presence of Newcastle disease in several member states, the Government decided in December 1993 to maintain,334
  temporarily, the requirement that all captive birds imported in the United Kingdom, whether directly from a third country, or from or through another member state, undergo a period of at least 35 days quarantine in approved quarantine premises. The only exception to this requirement are those birds imported from other member states which are accompanied by official veterinary certification confirming, among other things, that the birds in question have been resident in a member state for a period of least 35 days or, if imported into the Community from a third country, have undergone an equivalent period of quarantine before import into the United Kingdom.

  The Ministry is concerned about reports of illegal imports of birds from third countries into the United Kingdom via other member states which are intended to evade quarantine. Such imports pose a serious disease risk to the UK poultry industry and to the domestic captive bird population. Where information about illegal importations is sufficiently precise the Ministry's investigation branch undertakes formal investigations, in liaison with local authorities, who are responsible for the enforcement of the relevant import legislation. A number of investigations are currently under way.

  Meat and Livestock Commission Levy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he proposes to the way in which Meat and Livestock Commission levy is collected.

  Mr. Jack
  A review of the MLC was published on 1 March and included a recommendation that the levy should be collected at slaughter only. Comments on the review have now been received from the industry and my right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.

  Milk
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate has been made of the impact of Milk Marque's proposals upon(a) employment in the milk processing industry, (b) the level of imports of dairy products and (c) the level of investment by dairy companies.

  Mr. Jack
  My Department has not made any such estimates.

  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate has been made of the impact of Milk Marque's pricing regime upon(a) the price of liquid milk, (b) the price of dairy products, (c) the level of employment in the milk processing industry, (d) the level of investment in the dairy industry and (e) the output of butter and cheese.

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that the effect of Milk Marque's pricing regime might be to add up to ½p per pint to the price of milk sold for liquid consumption. This estimate takes no account of the beneficial effort of abolishing the present milk marketing board levy of over l½ p per pint on direct sales by producer/retailers. No estimates have been prepared by my Department in respect of the other matters mentioned.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department's
  335
  priorities are concerning the promotion of animal welfare; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department has the stated aim of protecting farm animals by encouraging high welfare standards. Every opportunity is taken to further this aim.

  Learning Resources
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many learning resource packs of the "Food—A Fact of Life" programme have been sold since the launch of the initiative in June 1991.

  Mrs. Browning
  Sales to date of complete packs of "Food—A Fact of Life" total 3,174. This figure includes a small number of complimentary packs presented to schools and advisers who participated in the various development trials.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many learning resource packs of the "Food—A Fact of Life" programme have been sold to schools for(a) stage 1 and (b) stage 2.

  Mrs. Browning
  Sales to date of complete packs of "Food—A Fact of Life" total(a) 2,247 for stage 1 and (b) 927 for stage 2. These figures include a small number of complimentary packs presented to schools and advisers who participated in the various development trials.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much income has been generated from the sales of learning resource packs of the "Food—A Fact of Life" programme; and how the income from these sales is to be spent.

  Mrs. Browning
  The gross receipts received from sales of packs of "Food—A Fact of Life" up to 1 October 1994 total £115,846. All this money has been reinvested in the programme.

SCOTLAND

  Nursing and Midwifery
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received opposing his plans for the provision of nursing and midwifery education in Scotland; if he will make it his policy that nursing training in the borders will not be centralised to the Lothian region; and what savings are expected to be made from the proposed arrangements.

  Average gross weekly earnings (£)1 April 1993

  All full-time employees

  Male full-time employees All

  Female full-time employees Manual

  Non-Manual

  All

  Manual

  Non-Manual

  272·1

  304·2

  245·8

  373·5

  217·5

  162·0

  23·66

  1For full-time employees on adult rates, whose pay was unaffected by absence.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of(a) Highland, (b)Borders, (c) Dumfries and Galloway, (d) Orkney, (e) Shetland and (f) Western Isles, the distribution of earnings for those earning under
  336
  Mr. Lang
  My announcement on 16 May 1994 that the management executive of the NHS in Scotland would be tendering with tertiary education for the provision of pre-registration nursing and midwifery education and training has been generally welcomed. Representations received have related to concerns about the future locality of this training and the implications for staff in the existing colleges of nursing and midwifery. The future locality of the training currently delivered at the Scottish Borders college of nursing and midwifery and, indeed, the numbers of its staff to transfer to the education sector, cannot be predicted since this must await the outcome of the tendering process which is now due to be completed in July 1995. Even where future training is to be delivered in centres different from the current provision, the management executive will ensure that a good geographical spread of clinical placements—that is the practical element of the courses—still exists for each branch of training of nursing. Since the contracts will not be awarded solely on cost grounds, the contracting process is unlikely to result in substantial savings, but I believe that costs can be contained within the existing provision.

  Dementia
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he plans to take to improve arrangements for consultation between health boards and local authorities for future provision of long-stay care for people with dementia.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Secretary of State has no immediate plans to adjust the firmly established procedures that currently exist between health boards and local authorities for co-operation in the planning and delivery of services for all vulnerable client groups.

  Earnings
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of(a) Highland, (b) Borders, (c) Dumfries and Galloway, (d) Orkney, (e) Shetland and (f) Western Isles, the earnings of full-time workers on adult rates of pay broken down by (i) male manual, (ii) male non-manual, (iii) all males, (iv) female manual, (v) female non-manual, (vi) all females and (vii) all workers.

  Mr Stewart
  The information requested, taken from the 1993 "New Earnings Survey", is given in the table:

  £120, (ii) £150 and (iii) £160; what is (x) the point below which 10 per cent. of earners fall and (y) the point which 10 per cent. of earners exceed, broken down by (i) male manual, (ii) male non-manual, (iii) all males, (iv) female manual, (v) female non-manual, (vi) all females

  337
  and (vii) all workers in total and by the standard industrial classifications.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested, taken from the 1993 "New Earnings Survey", is given in the table.

  All employees1 April 1993

  Percentage of employees with average gross weekly earnings

  Lowest decile

  Highest decile

  <£120

  <£150

  <£160

  £

  £

  Divisions 0-9 (all employees)

  male

  manual

  4·0

  10·1

  15·

  149·8

  349·5

  non-manual

  6·5

  10·9

  13·7

  147·3

  553·5

  all

  5·2

  10·5

  14·5

  148·8

  488·0

  female

  manual

  64·3

  77·9

  81·4

  —

  203·3

  non-manual

  25·9

  39·1

  42·9

  62·0

  371·0

  all

  39·3

  52·6

  56·3

  48·3

  320·4

  all employees

  21·5

  30·7

  34·5

  67·2

  432·4

  Division 4 (Other manufacturing industries)

  male

  manual

  —

  8·9

  12·5

  151·8

  230·0

  Division 5 (Construction)

  male

  manual

  —

  —

  13·0

  156·9

  365·0

  all

  —

  —

  10·6

  158·2

  402·2

  all employees

  4·2

  8·5

  15·5

  151·7

  383·2

  Division 6 (Distribution, hotels and catering; repairs)

  male

  all

  6·1

  19·4

  25·5

  130·8

  367·0

  all employees

  37·4

  54·6

  58·8

  55·5

  284·2

  Division 7 (Transport and Communication)

  male

  manual

  5·8

  11·5

  13·5

  137·7

  316·7

  Division 9 (Other Services)

  female

  non-manual

  14·7

  19·0

  23·4

  86·9

  404·2

  all

  35·7

  40·4

  44·1

  —

  389·6

  all employees

  28·7

  33·1

  36·2

  48·1

  439·1

  1All employees on adult rates, whose pay was unaffected by absence.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of(a) Highland, (b) Borders, (c) Dumfries and Galloway, (d) Orkney, (e) Shetland and (f) Western Isles, the distribution of gross hourly earnings for female part-time workers, giving the percentage of female part-time workers with hourly earnings less than (i) £3, (ii) £3.20, (iii) £3.60, (iv) £4, (v) £4.20, (x) in total and (y) broken down by the standard industrial classifications.

  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested is not available. No category met the reliability criteria of the "New Earnings Survey"—sample of at least 50 and a standard error no higher than 5 per cent.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of(a) Highland, (b) Borders, (c) Dumfries and Galloway, (d) Orkney, (e) Shetland and (f) Western Isles, the figures for female part-time workers (i) average gross weekly earnings, (ii) average weekly hours, (iii) average gross hourly earnings, (iv) median gross hourly earnings (v) lowest decile of gross hourly earnings and (vi) the highest decile of gross hourly earnings (x) in total
  338
  Categories requested that are not present have not met the reliability criteria—sample of at least 50 and a standard error no higher than 5 per cent.

  and (y) broken down by the standard industrial classifications.

  Mr. Stewart
  The average gross weekly earnings of female part-time employees on adult rates, whose pay was unaffected by absence, at April 1993 was £85·70. The remaining categories did not meet the reliability criteria of the "New Earnings Survey"—sample of at least 50 and a standard error no higher than 5 per cent.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of(a) Highland, (b) Borders, (c) Dumfries and Galloway, (d) Orkney, (e) Shetland and (f) Western Isles (i) average earnings, (ii) median earnings, (iii) average hours including overtime and (iv) overtime hours, broken down by the standard industrial classifications into (x) males, (y) females and (z) all workers;

  (2) if he will list, for the combined regions and islands areas of (a) Highland, (b) Borders, (c) Dumfries and Galloway, (d) Orkney, (e) Shetland and (f) Western Isles (i) average earnings, (ii) median earnings, (iii) average hours including overtime and (iv) overtime hours.
  339
  Mr. Stewart
  The information requested, taken from the 1993 "New Earnings Survey", is given in the table. Categories requested that are not present have not met the

  All employees1 April 1993

  Average earnings(£)

  Median earnings(£)

  Ave hours per week including overtime

  Ave hours overtime per week

  Divisions 0-9 (all employees)

  male

  296·2

  265·5

  41·3

  3·5

  female

  165·9

  142·6

  30·9

  0·8

  all

  233·8

  203·6

  36·5

  2·2

  Division 5 (Construction)

  male

  255·8

  236·9

  45·6

  6·9

  all

  245·6

  233·7

  44·4

  6·5

  Division 6 (Distribution, hotels and catering; repairs)

  male

  228·1

  207·4

  41·3

  2·2

  all

  161·9

  138·7

  34·5

  1·3

  Division 9 (Other services)

  female

  189·5

  181·9

  29·3

  0·6

  all

  225·5

  199·1

  21·2

  1·0

  1All employees on adult rates, whose pay was unaffected by absence.

  Barlinnie Special Unit
  Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the special unit at Barlinnie was set up; what is its cost to date; and how many convicts have been referred to date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E.W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E.W. Frizzell to Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, dated 20 October 1994:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the Barlinnie Special Unit. You asked when the Unit was set up; what is its cost to date; and how many convicts have been referred to date.
  The Barlinnie Special Unit was opened on 5 February 1973 and, to date, 36 prisoners have been located there.
  Until recently all the Unit's costs were incorporated with those of Barlinnie Prison and cannot be identified separately, and even now, some cost, for example on repairs, food and medical services, are not differentiated from the main prison. However,you may be interested to know that the Unit's staffing costs, which represent the largest part of the costs of any penal establishment in the last 3 years were £303,000 in 1991–92, £331,000 in 1992–93 and £383,000 in 1993–94.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 amongst visually impaired people.

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has spent a total of £26,000 in the last three years in the production of public information material in Braille and on audio tape. Details of the availability of this material are publicised through the Scottish Braille Press at no cost to my Department.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate which departmental publications are 340
  reliability criteria—sample of at least 50 and a standard error no higher than 5 per cent.

  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. Lang
  The following Scottish Office publications are currently available both in Braille and tape:

  The Patient's Charter in Scotland

  The Parent's Charter in Scotland

  The Justice Charter for Scotland

  The Tenant's Charter in Scotland

  Council Tax — A Guide to the New Tax for Local Government in Scotland

  "A Parents' Guide to Special Educational Needs" is also available in Braille.

  Details of this material are publicised by the Scottish Braille Press, in liaison with the Scottish Office, through information releases to individual users and related organisations.

  Sheep
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the numbers and causes of death of sheep in Scotland(a) at the latest available date, (b) 10 years ago and (c) 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally.

  Waste Management
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the appropriateness of the Waste Management Licensing (Fees and Charges) Regulations in respect of small local disposal regimes in remoter rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  Since the consultation paper on fees and charges for waste management licensing was published in August 1992 representations have been received from 11 individuals and organisations about fees
  341
  and charges for small rural landfill sites. I also met the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) in July last year in connection with such sites in Berwickshire.

  In setting fees and charges for licences the Government fixed a concessionary subsistence charge level of £650 per annum for the smallest sites which take inert waste.

  Mountain Rescue
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has received a report from the Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland in respect of the project funded by his Department earlier this year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hector Monro
  Yes. The report was released on 6 May at the mountain safety seminar in Dunblane, which I addressed. Its findings are being studied carefully by all parties involved with mountain safety, including the Scottish Mountain Safety Group. The proceedings of the Dunblane seminar will be published within the next month or so.

  In light of the issues raised in the report and discussed at the seminar, a number of initiatives have been undertaken, including the installation of information and warning signs at the start of routes and the development of a new training course on navigational skills. Consideration is also being given to the introduction of warning posts at particularly dangerous areas on certain routes, to the potential benefits of electronic aids and to possible areas for further research.

  Health Care
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those areas which have developed joint commissioning operations for the planning and purchasing of primary and secondary health care in their area; and what are the principal organisational models used.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland, health boards are, and always have been, responsible for both primary — family health services —and secondary —hospital and community health services. In their new, enhanced role as purchasers of health services they have retained responsibility for commissioning both types of service. There has therefore been no need to develop joint commissioning operations as in England.

  Gourock Ropeworks
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he had held with Historic Scotland and the Renfrewshire Enterprise Company concerning the Gourock ropeworks of Port Glasgow; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 October 1994]: Historic Scotland is an executive agency with the Scottish Office and reports to my right hon. Friend on built heritage matters. Historic Scotland has remained in close touch with Inverclyde district council, the relevant planning authority, since the company which owned the Gourock ropeworks building went into receivership earlier this year. Historic Scotland has therefore been aware of the interest by a housing company in converting the listed building to residential use.
  342
  Mr right hon. Friend has not had any recent discussions with Renfrewshire Enterprise on the future of the ropeworks building. However, Renfrewshire Enterprise has an interest in the future of the building because of its prominent location within the enterprise zone. Renfrewshire Enterprise is providing funds to the housing company for a feasibility study.

  I understand that the study has been completed and the conclusions are that, while the building is suited for conversion and redevelopment for residential accommodation, and such a scheme would be practical and a worthwhile re-use of this important category. A listed building, a substantial funding gap remains. It will be for each of the agencies involved to consider whether it would be appropriate for them to make a contribution.

  I understand that Inverclyde district council officials are to arrange a meeting of all concerned.

  Historic Buildings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many buildings listed as of historical importance were cleared of such listing and demolished in each of the past 10 years in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many buildings of historical importance were renovated and at what cost in each of the past five years in (a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; how many of these were industrial buildings; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) how many buildings listed as being of special architectural or historical importance are located in (a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; how many of these have been or are the subject of grant aid from Historic Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 October 1994]: The subjects of the questions relate to matters undertaken by Historic Scotland. I have asked its director and chief executive, Mr Graeme Munro, to write to the hon. Member.

  The reply will appear in the Official Report and a copy will be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Letter from Graeme N. Munro to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 20 October 1994
  You have tabled four Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland for written answer on 18 October. Three of your Questions relate to operational matters undertaken by Historic Scotland and I have been asked to provide the information you are seeking. The terms of this letter will be reproduced in the Official Report and a copy of it will also be deposited in the Library of the House.
  I shall answer each Question in the order in which it appears on the Order paper.
  Question: How many buildings listed as of historical importance were cleared of such listing and demolished in each of the past 10 years in (a) Inverclyde, (b)Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole?
  The decision by the Secretary of State to list a building is a
  recognition by him that the building satisfies the criteria for listing as being of special architectural or historic interest. A building does not lose the architectural or historic qualities which justified listing in the first place because someone wishes to alter or demolish it. Once a building is listed, formal consideration of works affecting its character, including demolition, is subject to listed building control

  343
  requirements established by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. Government policy on the demolition of listed buildings makes plain the practical considerations involved for a planning authority (and the Secretary of State) in assessing the case made by an applicant for the demolition of a listed building.
  Planning authorities are required to notify to Historic Scotland, prior to the issue of consent, all non-delegated listed building and conservation area consent applications which they have resolved to approve, including all demolitions of listed buildings and of unlisted buildings within conservation areas. However, information is not readily available in the form in which you have requested it. Annex

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  3

  3

  5

  1

  4

  10

  6

  8

  8

  5

  of which the number of demolition applications granted consent were:

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  1

  1

  In that period no demolition applications in Inverclyde District were called in for the Secretary of State's decision. However, it is more than likely that of the 140 notified cases in Inverclyde some were for demolition.
  Deletions from statutory lists do occur as part of the maintenance of the lists. Deletions are required for a number of reasons, for example, fire, loss of original character for whatever reason, and demolition for public safety reasons.
  Over the last 5 years, 3 deletions were required from the Inverclyde District list, 53 from the Strathclyde lists and 172 across Scotland.
  Question: How many buildings of historical importance were renovated and at what cost in each of the past five years in (a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; how many of these were industrial buildings?
  Question: How many buildings listed as being of special architectural or historical importance are located in (a) Inverclyde,

  Listed Building Consent Statistics 1984–1993—annex A

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Total

  Inverclyde

  10

  12

  20

  15

  21

  11

  17

  11

  8

  15

  140

  Strathclyde

  560

  621

  433

  456

  494

  586

  636

  627

  640

  572

  5,625

  Scotland

  1,724

  1,925

  1,800

  2,022

  1,782

  1,943

  1,989

  1,995

  2,092

  2,189

  19,461

  Annex B

  Inverclyde

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1989–90

  Number of buildings which have been the subject of grant

  2

  37

  165

  Value of grants awarded

  £10,000

  £2,719,550

  £8,800,482

  Number of the buildings that were industrial buildings

  NIL

  1

  2

  1990–91

  Number of buildings which have been the subject of grant

  NIL

  55

  165

  Value of grants awarded

  NIL

  £4,451,900

  £11,349,704

  Number of the buildings that were industrial buildings

  NIL

  1

  4

  1991–92

  Number of buildings which have been the subject of grant

  NIL

  38

  149

  Value of grants awarded

  NIL

  £4,440,734

  £12,308,216

  Number of the buildings that were industrial buildings

  NIL

  NIL

  6

  1992–93

  Number of buildings which have been the subject of grant

  1

  46

  158

  Value of grants awarded

  £39,100

  £3,142,127

  £9,825,848

  Number of the buildings that were industrial buildings

  NIL

  NIL

  2

  344
  A shows—for Scotland, for Strathclyde and for Inverclyde—the annual totals of all categories of notified applications.
  What the annual figures do not reveal is what happened to the notified applications. Historic Scotland aims to clear 95 per cent. of all notified applications within the statutory initial 28 day period for consideration. Of the remaining 5 per cent. extended for further consideration, most are cleared through negotiation and agreement. Only a small number of cases each year are called in for the Secretary of State's own decision, and of these a number over the 10 year period have been in respect of demolition. The number of cases called in for decision over the period was:
  (b) Strathclyde and (c) as a whole; how many of these have been or are the subject of grant aid from Historic Scotland?
  Again, we cannot answer these Questions precisely as asked but there are currently a total of 236 buildings in Inverclyde listed as being of special architectural or historic interest, 7,610 in Strathclyde and 40,654 in Scotland as a whole. We do not record particular types of listed buildings.
  Annex B shows for each of the last five financial years the number of buildings of outstanding architectural or historic interest (or buildings in outstanding conservation areas) which have received grant for repairs under the historic buildings repair grant scheme administered by Historic Scotland. The Annex provides this information for Inverclyde, Strathclyde and Scotland; it shows the value of the grants awarded and the number of buildings which can be categorised as industrial.
  I hope this information is helpful.
  345

  Annex B

  Inverclyde

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1993–94

  Number of buildings which have been the subject of grant

  4

  61

  202

  Value of grants awarded

  £399,100

  £6,587,564

  £14,613,653

  Number of the buildings that were industrial buildings

  NIL

  2

  5

DEFENCE

  Equal Treatment Directive
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps(a) he has taken and (b) he intends to take to ensure that the armed forces comply with the equal treatment directive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The armed forces are aware of the provisions of the equal treatment directive and are continuing to develop policies accordingly. It is the Government's intention to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in relation to its application to the armed forces as soon as a legislative opportunity arises.

  Public Information
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (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. Soames
  While my Department's publications are not normally provided in alternative formats for visually impaired people, we would be happy to arrange for this on individual request. The overall cost to my Department is therefore low and could not be identified separately.

  Queen Victoria School
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pupils attended the Queen Victoria school, Dunblane, in the summer term; and if he will give details of the ranks held by the parents serving in HM forces.

  Mr. Soames
  These matters are for the Queen Victoria school under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brian Raine to Dr John Marek, dated 20 October 1994:
  I have been asked to reply to your Question about the number of pupils attending Queen Victoria School in the Summer Term 1994 and Ranks held by parents serving in HM Forces.
  346
  The number of pupils who attended Queen Victoria School in the Summer Term 1994 was 250.
  The parents of pupils are drawn from all three Services and the ranks held by them range from Private soldier to Major (or other Service equivalents). The majority of parents who are still serving, fall in the rank of Sergeant to Warrant Officer which are the ranks that regular servicemen or women would expect to achieve with children of an age eligible to attend the School. Children of Officers have only this year become eligible to attend the School in line with the practice at the Duke of York's Royal Military School, Dover.
  I hope this answers your question satisfactorily but if there is anything on which you wish me to elaborate please do not hesitate to contact me.

  Party Conferences
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the costs to his Department arising from the annual conference of(a) the Liberal Democrats, (b) the Labour party and (c) the Conservative party.

  Mr. Soames
  In response to requests from the respective regional police authorities for each conference a small number of specialist military personnel were deployed to assist the police in searching the conference areas for explosive devices and on standby for potential bomb disposal tasks. No readily identifiable additional costs to the defence budget arose from these operations.

  In addition, staff from private offices visited Bournemouth in order to deal with departmental work. Travel, subsistence and communication costs were incurred on defence votes.

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woolwich
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich will be transferred or sold to Greenwich Healthcare Trust for national health service use;

  (2) what offers he has received for the purchase of the Queen Elizabeth military hospital, Woolwich.

  Mr. Soames
  To date, my Department has received one offer for the purchase of Queen Elizabeth military hospital, from the Greenwich Healthcare Trust. As I said in my answer to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 19 October,Official Report, column 252, 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.

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

Youth Training
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, further to the answer of Viscount Goschen on 8th February 1994 (Official Report, col. 1497–1499) and the answer of the Viscount St. Davids on 20th July 1994 (Official Report, col. 232–235), they have any plans to improve the information available to them on 16 and 17 year-olds not in education, youth training or employment throughout the United Kingdom.
Lord Ingle wood: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the Labour Force Survey provides regular and reliable information on the labour market and education status of 16 and 17 year-olds.
Earl Russell: My Lords, are not the Government rather easily satisfied? Is the Minister aware that the two previous questions to which I refer in today's Question show that the Government are in considerable ignorance of the existence of Large numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds who are not in education, youth training or full-time employment? Further, are the Government aware that if they are not concerned about the matter, most of the rest of us are?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl is perhaps being a trifle unfair to say that we are ignorant. The Government are aware of many sources of information relating to the kind of matters to which he refers. I mention especially the work provided for the Government by the heads of the Careers Service offices which is made available and about which additional information can be provided to your Lordships upon request. I understand that in the contracts currently being made with the Careers Service it will be stipulated that such information should be made public.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what happens to young people who fall through the net and who are not in full-time education, in training or in employment? Does the Minister understand that this is not simply a statistical exercise? We are worried about what happens to such young people. We are concerned that young people are sleeping rough and that young girls are also living on the streets. How can the situation be monitored unless there is reliable statistical information? What are the Government doing about it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is true to say that throughout the House there is considerable concern about the young people to whom the noble Baroness referred. The Government are currently working on a cross-departmental basis to try to look further into the
322
problem to ascertain what further steps might be taken As I said, the information derived from the Labour Force Survey, which, after all, is carried out on the ILO methodology, is the starting point for the Government's analysis of the state of affairs. Moreover, as I also pointed out, there is further information available to the Government, and to others, to enable them to look further and more deeply into the matter. I should not like to pre-empt any findings that may emerge from any work that the Government could be undertaking at present.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when the matter was discussed previously during Question Time, as the noble Lord will remember, I referred to the problems which existed in South Wales. On that occasion, the noble Lord's predecessor undertook to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Wales. Can the noble Lord tell the House the result of those negotiations?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, points out, that undertaking was given. As I said, a cross-departmental investigation is being carried out to ascertain the best way forward and the steps that can be advanced to try to improve the present state of affairs.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that on the last occasion the matter was debated in the House it was pointed out that if the kind of job that a boy wanted was not available in the area where he lived, consideration would be given to his being—I was about to say transported, but perhaps not—given the chance to move to another town where there was the opportunity for him to follow what he wanted to do? That is what the French do. Moreover, I understood from the department that the matter was being looked into. Is that the case?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for posing that question. I do not believe that even the Government's critics have suggested that we transport people. It is true that TECs can contract across their boundaries for various forms of training if that is appropriate and if it is not provided in the area of the TEC involved. I gather that that is still the practice.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister take account of his own situation as distinct from that of other young boys in the country who, having failed to obtain employment, experience great difficulty in even transferring to another area or finding a job? Having been defeated during the recent European elections, the noble Lord now finds himself as a government Minister answering Questions at the Dispatch Box. Can I give the Minister a list of at least 1 million young boys in this country who would gladly change places with him?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as regards the first personal point that the noble Lord made, I am fully aware of the fortunate position in which I find myself. I have always endeavoured to bear that in mind when considering these matters. If the noble Lord, or any noble Lord, has particular examples of where the

323
Government have not met the guarantee that is given to 16 and 17 year-olds, I very much hope that they will draw them to the department's attention, and also to the attention of the TECs concerned, in order that that can be remedied as soon as possible.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, does the Minister accept that young people in the categories described in the Question are disproportionately represented among the figures for juvenile crime and substance abuse, and that this is therefore a matter of the greatest importance to society as a whole as well as to the young people concerned? Does he also accept that voluntary organisations, and particularly the budding Foyer movement, have an important role to play in making contact with such young people?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. This is a matter which is of wide general concern to society as well as obviously to the individuals concerned. As regards assistance, I am sure that the Government and everyone else will agree that this is a matter for all interested parties. Collectively we can achieve a great deal more than we can individually.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are thinking of community service for some of these young people who perhaps cannot find a job or a place at the moment? I understood that that was being favourably looked on in government circles and I hope that it is being followed up. Can the Minister tell us anything about it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as regards 16 and 17 year-olds, a commitment has been given to provide youth training. That is the way in which the Government believe it is appropriate to proceed in the case of the 16 and 17 year-olds.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that local authorities are encouraged to make access facilities available for youth movements and youth groups who could help many of these young people, even if they are not in full-time training during the day?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. That is obviously a good suggestion. We will do all that we can to try to ensure that that occurs.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the citizens advice bureaux continue to receive visits from large numbers of young people who are registered for youth training but fail to receive youth training places? Can the Minister say what help the Government plan to help those whose needs are not being met?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is obviously part of the Government's purpose, as well as part of their commitment, to ensure that the youth training places are made available. As at the end of September, only 1,601 people had applied for youth training places who had not received them. As a proportion of the total of just over 1.3 million 16 and 17 year-olds in the country, it is a small proportion. I return to the reply I gave earlier; namely, that where any noble Lord has an example of
324
the system going wrong, I hope that he will draw it to the attention of the people concerned, including the department, because that is the best and the quickest way to resolve the difficulty, which, thanks to the endeavours of the Government, is being reduced all the time.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given that this Question is on the narrow issue of the availability to the Government of information, is my noble friend aware that most of us are astonished by the amount of information he has on the subject? That information goes far beyond the Question on the Order Paper and it shows that the Government are particularly well informed.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have already said that we are very concerned about this matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I ask for clarification of the Minister's reply to my first supplementary question? He said that the information was available on numbers of 16 and 17 year-olds not in education, employment or youth training. If that is so, why, in the two previous cases to which I have drawn attention in the Question, did the Government give me Written Answers stating that it was not available?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Question. I have endeavoured to discover what the position is and to give the information as I understand it. As the noble Earl will recall from the earlier questions, the information has become available only quite recently.

Wandsworth Borough Council: Housing Policy
3.17 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What change has occurred since 20th July (when they answered a question on this subject) to cause them to withdraw consent to certain sales of council housing by Wandsworth Borough Council.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, no consent has been withdrawn specifically from Wandsworth Borough Council. On 12th September 1994 the general consents, issued in 1981, under which local authorities in England may voluntarily sell housing for owner occupation were replaced by fresh consents.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry to say that on this occasion I do not think that the Minister has answered the Question. I asked what had caused the Government to change their mind because, as stated in a previous edition of Hansard of July, the Government were forcefully in favour of this situation. I made the point that, according to the figures issued in an Institute of Housing magazine of July, some £5 million had been lost in rent by Wandsworth since the introduction of this policy in 1990. If the Government have withdrawn

325
permission now, there must be something wrong. Should not the district auditor be brought in to determine whether the law has been broken?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I said that the consents had been replaced by other consents. It is up to the local council if it feels that it should suspend its sates schemes. It will be for individual local authorities to consider whether they need to make any changes to their sales schemes in order to conform with the new consents.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is some feeling that Wandsworth is following in the steps of Westminster in arranging its housing affairs so as to preserve its political existence? Will the Minister see that this matter is looked into by the district auditor?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if there are any objectors to the policy of the local council, then it is right that the district auditor should be involved, but it is a matter for the district auditor.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the granting of consents to the sale of council houses—I was a Minister when the first one was introduced—has been beneficial to the inhabitants of Wandsworth, whose citizens have constantly re-elected a Conservative council in that borough?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords. I believe that the council tax payers are best placed to judge the situation. In municipal elections earlier this year they showed that they were well pleased with the council's overall performance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, on a matter of information, is it not the case that there has been a new notice from the Department of the Environment specifically revoking the previous government consents under which Wandsworth operated its priority group sales scheme, voluntary sales to sitting tenants and sales on the open market? If that is the case, and I believe it to be the case, how can the Minister justify the first reply to the Question on 20th July that the policies and decisions of Wandsworth Borough Council are a matter for council tax payers? The Government have intervened.
Can the noble Viscount confirm that my understanding is right? Secondly, are the council tax payers in charge in Wandsworth, or are the Government?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thought that I had made clear that the consents which have been issued since 1952 and were updated in 1981 needed technical update. They were all withdrawn and replaced by new consents to every local authority, not only Wandsworth,
326
on 12th September. It is up to the councillors to decide whether the policy that the council is following is the right one.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, in that case why is a Wandsworth "spokesperson"—a word which I do not like—quoted in the journal which my noble friend mentioned as saying:
"Our way of doing things surely meets the objectives of the government better than the one the DoE is proposing"?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the council has made representations to the DoE, and obviously we are considering them. As I have already indicated, the council thought it appropriate at the moment to suspend its sales scheme. It is up to the council to make certain that any sales will be compatible with the authority's statutory duties to other people in housing need.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is this not obviously a matter which should be considered by the district auditor?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, of course the district auditor would be involved if there were any objectors.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, in contrast to what my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney said, it was not Wandsworth which was studying what Westminster did in this disgraceful affair but Westminster which sent officials to Wandsworth to see how it could be done?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is way outside the scope of this Question.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that in the article which was printed in Inside Housing, the magazine of the Institute of Housing, on 23rd September it is stated clearly that:
"Wandsworth LBC has been forced to abandon its priority group sales scheme by the DoE because people who do not live in the borough are buying homes which could be sold to tenants under the right to buy"?
Is that not the reason why the scheme has been stopped? Why does the Minister not admit it instead of skirting round the question?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, many councils use general consents to make these voluntary sales, including Camden, Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, and many other urban areas.

Education Funding Councils
3.34 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the education funding councils are supporting adult non-vocational courses adequately.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords. The further education funding councils are responsible for securing the provision of many courses which are not vocational, including basic skills and academic courses. The Higher Education Funding Council for England is continuing to provide funding for "liberal adult education". It is local

327
education authorities which have the duty of securing adequate provision for all further education other than that secured by the further education funding councils, and they are funded for that purpose.
Baroness David: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his first appearance to answer a Question at the Dispatch Box. Is he aware that there have been substantial cuts—in the region of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. in many places—in the provision of non-vocational courses? There are very strong feelings of outrage among a great many people who are feeling the loss of these courses. The quantities of letters I have received and copies of letters to the Secretary of State bear this out.
Is the noble Lord further aware that local management of schools means that schools now have to charge for the letting out of rooms for adult education courses, which used not to happen and is a further burden on LEAs which have to provide funding? I understand that one authority—Hounslow—has had to pay £100,000 in hiring charges. Also, schools may not have space available in the daytime for courses which particularly suit the elderly and some refugees and ethnic minorities, some of whom cannot get out in the evening. Can the noble Lord please persuade the Secretary of State if possible to make a little more money available to LEAs, which may wish to spend more but do not have the money, so that they can provide these courses which are of infinite value to a great many people, not only for themselves but also as a possible means of progressing from non-vocational to vocational education?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for her kind words. We very much share her opinion of non-vocational adult education. It is a very important part of our educational provision, and that is why we fund LEAs to provide it. We believe that there is a substantial move by adults to pursue courses which end with a qualification and which therefore might be termed vocational. That is one of the main reasons why there appears to be a drop in the take up of non-vocational courses. I point out to the noble Baroness that there has been a substantial rise in the total number of adults pursuing educational courses. That is something which we welcome.
So far as concerns the particular examples which the noble Baroness mentioned, I should be very grateful if she would provide me with the information so that I can take them up.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not rather a good thing that we seem to be able to provide some more money for schools in the form of rent and more adult education? It is unusual for a Tory Government to be able to claim some successes. They should be congratulated.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord on his well-deserved appointment to the Front Bench. However, I am sad that
328
he has been given such an evasive answer on this important matter. That remark comes right from the heart, I assure him.
When are the Government going to take this matter seriously? It is at the centre of adult education and leads to a whole variety of educational courses, as the Minister will know, including university degree courses. Perhaps most important of all is the fact that it stimulates people who would normally not take any educational course of any kind at any time. Does he not agree that this is the best value for money that we have in adult education?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, again I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. Yes, we do regard this as a very important part of educational provision, but we are placing emphasis on courses which result in a qualification and which can offer people who take them something at the end of the day. Many of those courses share most of the characteristics of what used to be called non-vocational courses and the fact that people prefer to take those courses is to be welcomed.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord does not realise what a lifeline adult education courses are to many people: people who do not want and for whom there is no point in seeking a qualification; people who look after other infirm people and get out one afternoon a week and would go mad if they could not do so; older people who are at last able to pursue interests which they have wanted to pursue all the time they were working but were not able to do so. Does the noble Lord accept that there is a large section of the community whose social needs are met not through taking vocational courses leading to a qualification which they will never use but who are pursuing interests and ideas they have not had the opportunity to explore earlier?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, in substance I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. Adult education courses are extremely important. They continue in large numbers. They are supported by LEAs. The LEAs will continue to be funded by the Government in order to support them. I pointed out to the House that the appearance of decline in that area is principally due to people choosing to take vocational courses rather than purely leisure courses.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many in the House welcome what he said about the importance of the adult vocational courses and the importance to individuals to be able to train and retrain for the jobs available in a rapidly changing world? Does he agree that it ill becomes speakers on the Opposition Benches to complain about what is happening today unless they propose to spend a great deal more money in that area? We should all like to see more courses. However, if one is realistic and responsible one must look at the costs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. Yes, of course, we place particular emphasis on vocational qualifications. However, I

329
emphasise that we: continue to fund LEAs to provide non-vocational courses. We have no intention of reducing or ceasing that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of us in this House have learned from experience that the distinction between the non-vocational and vocational is not always easy to make?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I entirely agree. I believe that that is why many adults are able to move to courses which are "vocational" without in effect changing what they are studying.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Government advise the House when they will start to abide by their philosophy? Is it right that the Government have for the past 15 years said, in effect, that they are not in a position to back winners and losers? Is the Minister aware of the person who undertook a flower arranging course—I believe that such a course is considered to be non-vocational—who went on to found an international business in a very entrepreneurial manner? Surely it is that kind of activity which the Government should support and not relegate to the second division.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we do not regard such courses as a second division; and we continue to support such activity.
Lord Judd: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will also accept my best wishes for his future in his new role after his long and assiduous apprenticeship on the past two Education Bills. Will the Minister take the opportunity to clarify the situation? We need vocational education for a strong economy. Does the Minister agree that we need a strong economy so that we can have a decent, civilised society? Does he also agree that in a decent, civilised society education can be an important end in itself and that adult education has a distinguished record in this country in contributing to the quality of our lives? Will the Minister give us a categoric assurance that adult non-vocational education will not slip to second place but will remain as high a priority as vocational education?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am particularly grateful for the noble Lord's welcome to me at this Dispatch Box. I have listened to him with great pleasure over several years.
Yes, I am happy to state that adult non-vocational education will remain a high priority with us.
Baroness David: My Lords, finally, if the Minister believes that the LEAs have enough funding, perhaps I may read one sentence from one of the many letters that I have received. It states:
"I believe that every pound saved on adult education will end up being spent, probably twice over, on health and social services".
I believe that to be true.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we do not seek to save money on adult education. Indeed we are spending more on it every year.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Reports
3.35 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Motion covers two reports from the Procedure Committee, the first of which was made by the committee as long ago as 23rd May. The delay in bringing the report before the House relates to the main item in it, namely the report of a sub-committee on the procedures to be adopted for scrutinising deregulation orders made under the special procedures laid down in Part I of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. The Motion has been delayed while the Committee and Report stages of that Bill have been taken, and I am glad to be able to say that the sub-committee's recommendation for a change in the Bill—namely that there should be a 60-day period for scrutiny of proposed orders—has been adopted by means of an amendment agreed to in Committee.
The other recommendations made by the sub-committee are based on the assumption that Chapter I of the Bill will pass into law. Briefly, it is proposed that in the first instance the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee should take on the task of scrutinising proposed orders and that the same committee should take on the functions of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in relation to final drafts of such orders. It would be open to any noble Lord to table a Motion in respect of the report of the committee on a draft order. Such a Motion would be taken immediately before the Minister's Motion to approve the draft order and the two Motions would be debated together. If the outcome were a resolution of the House to the effect that the order should not be approved, the Motion to approve the order would not be moved.
I should like to express the Procedure Committee's warm thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his fellow members of the sub-committee for their expeditious but thorough completion of their task. I hope that the House will agree that the sub-committee's recommendations, which have been endorsed by the Procedure Committee, provide a good framework for enabling the House to exercise effective scrutiny of and control over orders proposed to be made under this novel procedure. The other recommendations contained in the committee's two reports are much more limited and I shall touch on them as briefly as possible.
The committee has recommended that three procedures which have operated experimentally should be made permanent. First, there is the procedure for postponing business without notice. This was introduced as long ago as 1985 and has been used only twice. Its main use is on those rare occasions when the dinner hour is reached before the House has reached the business which was planned to have been interrupted. On such an occasion the new procedure is undoubtedly useful, and so the committee has recommended that it be made permanent.

331
Secondly, the committee recommends that the arrangement whereby Unstarred Questions may be taken in dinner breaks should be made permanent. The procedure has proved valuable in providing an additional opportunity for Unstarred Questions to be taken, when otherwise the House might simply have adjourned during pleasure, and the time limit of one hour has been respected.
Thirdly, the committee recommends that the arrangement whereby the fourth Starred Question each Thursday is a topical question, chosen by ballot on the previous Tuesday, should be made permanent. This procedure too has worked satisfactorily, although it did not in fact occur today.
In three areas the committee has recommended no change. First, the committee considered a proposal for an Early Day Motion procedure along the lines of that which exists in another place. The committee concluded that such a procedure was less appropriate in this House, where points of view are customarily expressed in debate rather than in the terms of Motions.
Secondly, the committee considered a proposal for a restriction on references to members of the European Parliament along the lines of the restriction on references to Members of another place. In the absence of any similar restriction in other Parliaments, and of any restriction in the European Parliament on references to other Parliaments, the committee concluded that it would be inappropriate to introduce any formal restriction.
Thirdly, the committee considered a proposal for modifying the procedure governing the presentation of public petitions to the House. In another place petitions are referred to the relevant government department, while in this House no action is taken after the petition has been presented to the House. The committee noted that it was open to the noble Lord presenting a petition to send a copy to the relevant department where appropriate and recommend no change.
The committee has also considered the problem which may arise when a Commons Private Member's Bill is before this House and it appears that any amendment made to it may prevent the Bill being enacted because of lack of time in another place. The committee was informed of arrangements to ensure that there was adequate time for Bills to be amended by this House before the last opportunity for consideration in another place. These arrangements seem to have worked as there has been no difficulty this Session.
The committee has concluded that a vote cast in a Division by a noble Lord who has not taken the oath should be treated as invalid and that such a noble Lord should be excluded from the record of those attending the House. The committee has recommended that Standing Order 67, governing the laying of statutory instruments, should be amended so that they may no longer be laid on a Saturday. This would bring the House into line with another place.
Finally, the committee has reviewed the operation of the Special Standing Committee on the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and made some
332
observations and recommendations, including a proposal that in future such a committee, which is in no way a Standing Committee, should be termed a "Special Public Bill Committee".
I commend the Motion to your Lordships.
Moved, That the second and third reports from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Papers 58 and 81).—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following are the reports referred to:

Second Report
ORDERED TO REPORT:
1. DEREGULATION AND CONTRACTING OUT BILL
The Committee referred to a sub-committee the question of the procedures which the House should adopt for making use of the additional opportunity for scrutiny of proposed orders made under Chapter I of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill in the event of the relevant provisions being enacted.
The Committee has received the report of the sub-committee, which is printed as an Annex to this Report. The Leader of the House has informed the Committee of the tabling of a Government amendment, at report stage in the House of Commons, providing for the 40-day scrutiny period laid down in the Bill as introduced to be extended to 60 days when a committee of either House reports that there are special reasons why it will be unable to complete its consideration within the 40-day period. This does not affect the sub-committee's recommendation (xi) that the period should be 60 days in all cases.
The Committee endorses the recommendations in the report, subject to the assumption that Chapter I of the Bill will pass into law.
2. POSTPONEMENT OF BUSINESS WITHOUT NOTICE
In its First Report, Session 1984–85, the Committee proposed the introduction on an experimental basis of a procedure for postponing an item of business on the Order Paper without notice until later the same day. The procedure was for the item of business to be called on by the Clerk and then, in the absence of any dissentient voice, for a member of the Government to move that it be postponed to later the same day. Thus the Lord moving the motion would use the formula "My Lords, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move …".
In its Second Report, Session 1987–88, the Committee returned to the matter and recommended that the experiment should continue.
The procedure has since been used once, on 29 March 1990, when it worked smoothly. While it is not expected to be needed often, it is likely to be helpful to the House on those occasions when it is used. The Committee accordingly recommends that the procedure be made permanent, by means of the following amendments to Standing Orders:
Standing Order 37
At beginning insert "Except as provided in Standing Order No. 40(3),".
Standing Order 40
At end insert:
"(3) Business may, on motion, be postponed to later the same day without notice: provided that the question shall not be put on any such motion if a single Lord objects."
3. EARLY DAY MOTIONS
The Committee has considered whether a procedure should be introduced in this House along the lines of the "Early Day Motion" procedure in the House of Commons.
That procedure provides an opportunity for members to draw attention to an issue by tabling a motion, normally with no intention of holding a debate on it, and to demonstrate support

333
for a point of view by adding names. In Session 1992–93 (a long Session) there were 2,574 Early Day Motions tabled. The total cost to public funds of printing and publishing Early Day Motions during 1993 has been estimated by Her Majesty's Stationery Office to have been £2,290,000.
There are two reasons why the use of such a procedure is less appropriate in this House than in the House of Commons. First, in this House any member may speak to any motion so that points of view are customarily expressed in debate rather than in the terms of motions, which are normally motions for papers or motions to "take note". As the Committee stated in its First Report, Session 1985–86, "the unwritten convention of the House has long been that the wording of such motions should be, so far as possible, short and couched in terms avoiding provocative or tendentious phraseology. The character of such motions has not been understood to inhibit Lords from advancing controversial points of view in the course of debate." In the House of Commons, however, the time of the House, and opportunities for speaking, are more tightly controlled, and the Early Day motion provides back-benchers with a means of expressing a point of view which they might otherwise have no opportunity to express.
Secondly, members of the House of Commons have the responsibility of representing their constituents, and Early Day Motions provide a means of raising constituency issues. Members of this House have no similar responsibility.
For these reasons, and bearing in mind the cost and practical difficulties of introducing such a procedure, the Committee does not recommend the introduction of Early Day Motions in this House.
4 REFERENCES TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
The Committee has considered whether there should be any restriction on references in the House to the European Parliament. At present there are restrictions on references to the House of Commons and its members but none in relation to the European Parliament.
It appears that no other Parliament has any such restriction, nor does the European Parliament have any restriction on references to other Parliaments. The Committee has accordingly concluded that it would be inappropriate to introduce any formal restriction.
5. AMENDMENTS TO COMMONS PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS
The Committee has considered the problem which may arise when a Commons private member's bill is before this House and it appears that any amendment made to it may prevent the bill being enacted because of lack of time for the amendment to be considered in the House of Commons.
The problem arises because consideration of private members' bills in the House of Commons is normally limited to certain Fridays, and it is necessary for bills to be returned to the Commons before the last such Friday in a session if Lords amendments are to be considered. The Leader of the House has informed the Committee that at his request the Leader of the House of Commons has agreed that the last Friday for private members' bills this session will be 15 July. This is as late as possible before the summer recess and is eight weeks after the previous such Friday on 20 May. This means that there will be adequate time, without any breach of the normal minimum intervals between stages, for any bill passed by the House of Commons by 20 May to complete all its stages in this House in time for amendments to be considered on 15 July.
The Committee is grateful to the Leader of the House for his action in dealing with this matter. The Committee would remind Lords who take charge of Commons private members' bills of the need to avoid delay in taking the second reading and subsequent stages so that, in the event of amendments being agreed to, the bills can be returned to the Commons in time. The Public Bill Office is available to offer procedural advice to such Lords in order to ensure that undue delay does not arise inadvertently.
The Committee attaches importance to this House having the opportunity to act as a revising chamber in relation to Commons private members' bills and deprecates amendments being resisted
334
on the ground that their acceptance will prevent the bill in question from being enacted. Provided that there is no undue delay, there should be sufficient time to return bills to the Commons in time for amendments to be considered.
6. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO TAKE THE OATH
Under the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866 it is a statutory offence for a Lord to vote or sit during any debate without having taken the oath. The Committee has considered the question whether failure to take the oath invalidates anything done by the Lord concerned.
A select committee considered this matter in 1907 but recommended only "that before the opening of a new Parliament a circular be sent to every Peer, calling attention to the grave consequences of sitting or voting in the House without having taken the Oath, and that a similar circular be sent at the beginning of every Session to Peers who are on the list of those Peers who have not taken the Oath." Since then it appears to have been the practice, in those few cases where Lords have voted without taking the oath, to allow the vote to stand and the attendance to be recorded in the Journals.
The Committee has been advised that there is a good case in law for treating votes cast in such circumstances as invalid. Earlier Acts which were replaced by the 1866 Act would have invalidated a vote as well as imposing a penalty, and the 1866 Act, in re-enacting the penalty, must implicitly have re-affirmed that voting or sitting before taking the oath is unlawful. On that basis the argument that a vote before taking the oath is invalid remains. Support for this view is provided by the preamble to the 1866 Act, which recites only that it is expedient that one uniform oath should be taken by members of both Houses on taking their seats in every Parliament.
The Committee has accordingly concluded that Lords who attend the House without having taken the oath should not be recorded in the attendance lists in the Journals, and that votes cast by such Lords in divisions should be treated as invalid.
7. LAYING OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS ON SATURDAYS
Standing Order 67 makes provision for statutory instruments to be laid before the House at times when it is not sitting. The hours when they may be deposited include Saturdays, between eleven and one o'clock. There is no corresponding arrangement in the House of Commons, and it appears that no statutory instrument has been laid on a Saturday for some years. A member of staff continues, however, to attend the House on Saturday mornings. The Clerk of the Parliaments has recommended that this should cease.
In cases of urgency, the proviso to section 4(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 allows for statutory instruments to come into operation before they are laid. Moreover, at a time of national emergency, the House would doubtless be recalled anyway, and papers may be laid at any time when the House is sitting.
Standing Order 67(2) is at present in the following terms:
"(2) For the purposes of this Order, a Statutory Instrument may be deposited on any day except a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday, between Eleven and One of the clock on a Saturday or Eleven and Five of the clock on any other weekday."
The Committee recommends that it be amended to read as follows:
"(2) For the purposes of this Order, a Statutory Instrument may be deposited on any day except a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday, between Eleven and Five of the clock."
ANNEX: REPORT FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE ON DEREGULATION ORDERS
Introduction

(a) The Procedure Committee appointed us just before Easter, with the following task: assuming that Chapter I of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill ("the Bill") is passed in more or less its current form, to recommend what special procedures the House might adopt for Orders under Clause 1 ("Deregulation Orders").

(b) We make no comment as to the merits of the Bill; they will be considered by the House, with assistance from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It would however be naive to deny that this report has a political angle: whether the House is content to grant to Ministers the powers set out in Chapter I may depend partly on how far the procedures proposed are seen to safeguard the balance of power between Parliament and the executive.

(c) We have received assistance in writing from the Leader of the House, Lord Rippon of Hexham (Chairman of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee), the late Bob Cryer MP (Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, whose tragic death occurred during our inquiry) and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments itself, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the Clerk of the Parliaments, Counsel to the Chairman of Committees and the Clerk to the European Communities Committee. We also sought contributions from the Leaders of the Opposition parties, and from Lords at large. We have held discussions with the Leader of the House, Lord Rippon and the Clerk of the Parliaments; and we have noted the report and evidence of the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons on Parliamentary Scrutiny of Deregulation Orders (HC 238), and the Government's response presented on 9th May. We are grateful to all those who have assisted us with our inquiry.

(d) We note that the Labour Peers support the decision of the Labour Party in the House of Commons not to give evidence to the Commons Procedure Committee on Deregulation Orders, on the ground that the Bill was inherently objectionable; and that the participation of a Labour Lord in this inquiry does not represent any change in that position, but only a wish to ensure that, if the Bill is passed, all possible procedural safeguards will be provided.

Deregulation Orders
(e) Deregulation Orders will be a special class of affirmative instrument. They may be made by any Minister, to amend or repeal any enactment of primary legislation with a view to removing or reducing any "burden", if the Minister is of the opinion that this can be done "without removing any necessary protection".
(f) "Burden" is defined in Clause 1(5) as including a restriction, requirement, condition, fee or sanction. The DTI identified for us four categories of burden: requirements for licensing, requirements to submit information, prescribed fees or time limits, and prescribed administrative procedures. "Necessary protection" is deliberately undefined (Commons Standing Committee F Hansard, 15th February, col. 26).
(g) The Bill sets certain limits on the scope of Deregulation Orders. They may not be used in respect of Northern Ireland legislation or Acts passed in future Sessions. There are restrictions on the extent to which they may create or vary criminal offences, criminal sanctions and powers of entry.
(h) The Bill also imposes special procedures on a Minister minded to make a Deregulation Order. First, he must consult representatives of affected interests. He must then lay before Parliament a document, containing the proposed text of the Order, and setting out the burden, the necessary protection (if any) and how it is to be preserved, the anticipated cost savings and other benefits, and (subject to confidentiality) the course and outcome of the consultation.
(i) The Bill then provides for a "period for Parliamentary consideration" of 40 days (including weekends but not recesses or sittings for judicial business only) after the laying of the document but before the laying of the final draft Order. It further provides, in Clause 4(4):
"In preparing an order… to give effect, with or without variations, to proposals in a document laid before Parliament…, the Minister concerned shall have regard to any representations made during the period for Parliamentary consideration, and in particular, to any resolution or report of, or of any committee of, either House of Parliament with regard to the document."
(j) "Have regard to" does not mean "comply with". In Standing Committee in the Commons, the Government undertook to table an amendment to require the Minister to produce with the final draft a statement of any changes arising from the 40-day period (Hansard 24th February, col. 232 & 241); but he could fulfil the requirement to have regard without making any changes at all.
(k) When the 40 days are up, the Minister will be free to lay a final draft Order, for approval by resolution of both Houses. Neither Commons Financial Privilege nor the Parliament Acts would apply to Deregulation Orders, any more than to other delegated legislation; the powers of the two Houses in respect of such orders will therefore be theoretically equal.
(l) The provisions for a period for parliamentary consideration of a preliminary draft, and for the Minister to have regard to any outcome of that consideration, are unprecedented and form the basis of this report.
(m) What procedures are appropriate will depend partly on how the Government use their proposed powers. The DTI regard deregulation as "a continuing process", which may last for years, and have already published 57 proposals for Deregulation Orders, representing 30–35 Orders of between one and ten pages each (Commons Procedure Committee QQ 135, 150). The Government have undertaken "to set up a Whitehall mechanism to … ensure that the Committees are not asked to consider too many proposals at any time" (Government proposals for parliamentary scrutiny, paragraph 6), and to "ensure that sufficient information is provided to the Deregulation Committee to enable it to plan its programme of work" (Government response to Commons Procedure Committee, paragraph 7). Ministers have said that they do not intend to use Deregulation orders to make sweeping or controversial changes, but rather to do the minor things which get crowded out of the primary legislative programme (e.g. Leader of the House of Commons to Commons Procedure Committee, 16th February, QQ 16–19). Brief accounts of the Orders already proposed can be found in the recent DTI publication "Deregulation: Cutting Red Tape".
Recommendations
(n) On the assumption that Chapter I of the Bill will pass into law, we recommend the following procedures in respect of Deregulation Orders:
The period for parliamentary consideration

(i) The House should refer proposals for Deregulation Orders to a Select Committee ("the Committee").

(ii) The Committee should in the first instance be the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. That Committee is in being; it is willing to take on this additional task; should this arrangement at some later stage prove unsatisfactory, the task might be transferred to a new Select Committee.

(iii) The terms of reference for the new task should be broad, leaving it to the Committee to establish a modus operandi. Proposed terms of reference are in the Appendix.

(iv) The Committee should have power to co-opt, to set up Sub-Committees and to appoint Specialist Advisers.

(v) The composition and chairmanship of the Committee should remain a matter for the Committee of Selection under SO 61.

(vi) In order that its work should not be unduly interrupted by Prorogation, the Committee should be a Sessional Committee for the purpose of SO 62.

337

(vii) As with any Select Committee under SO 63, Lords not named of the Committee or co-opted should be permitted to take part in the taking of evidence, but not in deliberation except by invitation, and not in voting.

(viii) The Committee has power under SO 64 to take evidence; it should be expected—though not instructed—to offer the Government a chance to give evidence before making an adverse report.

(ix) The Committee should be expected to develop close co-operation with the corresponding Commons Committee. It has power under SO 64A to meet concurrently or to empower a Sub-Committee to meet concurrently; it should be expected to use this power when appropriate.

(x) The House must have the option of debating the Committee's reports within the period for parliamentary consideration. It is not to be expected that this would often be done since the House would normally accept the Committee's advice, but the final word must rest with the House, not the Committee, and Clause 4(4) of the Bill explicitly allows for a resolution of the House within the period.

(xi) The Bill should be amended to provide 60 days for parliamentary consideration rather than 40. In cases where evidence is called for, 40 days will not be enough, especially if the House is to have an opportunity to debate the report; and Deregulation orders by their nature are unlikely to be urgent The Commons Procedure Committee recommended an optional extension to 60 days by order of the Leader of that House on application from the Committee, and the Government have accepted that recommendation "in principle". We recommend instead a general extension to 60 days: this will be easier to put into the Bill and more straightforward to operate.

After the prescribed period
(xii) Final drafts of Deregulation Orders should be referred to the Committee for a further report.
(xiii) For economy of effort, final draft Deregulation Orders should be excluded from the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; the JCSI's functions in respect of such Orders should be given instead to the Committee which should have the assistance of Counsel currently afforded to the Joint Committee. (The House of Commons Procedure Committee has recommended similar action, and the Joint Committee has agreed; the Government "is minded to accept the recommendation". As it happens, Counsel who currently advises the Joint Committee on affirmative instruments already also advises the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.) SO 69 should be amended to provide that no motion to approve a final draft Deregulation order may be moved until the Committee has reported on it.
(xiv) It should be open to any Lord to table a motion in respect of the report of the Committee on the draft Order. Such a motion should be placed on the Notice Paper immediately before the Minister's motion to approve the draft Order (this would require amendment of SO 38), and would be amendable; the two motions should be debated together. If the outcome were a resolution of the House to the effect that the Order should not be approved, the motion to approve the Order should not be moved, though without prejudice to the right of the Minister to bring his proposals back before the House in the form of a Bill.
Review
(xv) The Procedure Committee should review the new procedure after a year.
APPENDIX: TERMS OF REFERENCE
To consider any proposal for an Order laid under section 3(3) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and to report whether it should proceed as proposed, or with variations or not at all;
To consider any draft Order laid under section 1(4) of the Act and to report whether any motion to approve it should be agreed to;
And to perform in respect of such an Order the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Third Report
ORDERED TO REPORT:
1.SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
The Leader of the House laid before the Committee the report of the Group appointed by him to "consider the practices and procedures of the House in so far as they affect sittings of the House". The Committee took note with approval of his intention to arrange for the report to be printed and published with a view to the holding of a debate in the spillover period after the summer recess after which the Committee will consider the report in detail together with the views of the House expressed on it in the debate.
2. THE SPECIAL STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
The Committee has considered a report on the experimental Special Standing Committee on the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.].
In its First Report, Session 1992–93, the Committee endorsed the view of the Government that two or three Bills might be considered in this way, with the Committee thereafter assessing the results of the experiment. The Committee will accordingly make a full report when one or two more Bills have been dealt with in this way. At this stage the Committee makes the following observations and recommendations:

(1) The procedure has already proved a valuable addition to the scrutiny function of the House.

(2) The relevant Department should be invited to produce with each Bill a summary of consultation undertaken, with an indication of representations received and changes made.

(3) The twenty-eight day period within which the Committee may take evidence should in future run from the date on which the Committee is appointed instead of from the Second Reading of the Bill and should be extended in the case of any adjournment of the House for more than three days.

(4) Although the consideration of evidence has to be completed within the twenty-eight day period, the Committee need feel under no obligation to hasten the subsequent proceedings in the Public Bill Committee.

(5) The formal Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee should continue to be published as an appendix to the Minutes of Proceedings of the House.

(6) The name "Special Standing Committee" is misleading because such a Committee is in no way a Standing Committee. In future the term "Special Public Bill Committee" should be used.

3.UNSTARRED QUESTIONS IN DINNER BREAKS
In its Third Report, Session 1992–93, the Committee recommended that, on an experimental basis, Lords should be able to table Unstarred Questions to be asked during the one hour's dinner break.
This procedure has now been used on twelve occasions (excluding one instance when the main business was in the event concluded before the planned dinner break). The Committee believes that it has been worthwhile in creating an additional opportunity for Unstarred Questions to be asked, and recommends that the procedure be made permanent. As in relation to the experimental procedure, the Committee recommends a time limit of one hour, with 10 minutes set aside for the questioner, and 12 for the Government response.
4. TOPICAL QUESTIONS
In its Fourth Report, Session 1992–93, the Committee recommended that, for an experimental period, the fourth Starred Question each Thursday should be a Topical Question, chosen by

339
ballot on the previous Tuesday. The Committee has now reconsidered the matter in the light of experience so far and recommends that the procedure should be made permanent.
5.PUBLIC PETITIONS
The Committee has considered the procedure governing the presentation of public petitions. In the House of Commons such petitions are referred to the relevant Government Department. In this House no action is taken after the petition has been presented to the House.
The Committee recommends no change to the present procedure; it is open to the Lord presenting a petition to send a copy to the relevant Department where appropriate.
6.THE SUB JUDICE RULE
The Committee has considered whether the rule limiting reference to matters sub judice should be modified in view of the fact that the House has agreed that the practice should be similar in both Houses but has never adopted an amendment to the rule agreed to by the House of Commons in 1972.
The Committee has concluded that some revision of the rule is called for and will consider the matter further at its next meeting.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I wish to pass one or two observations on the report which was published on 23rd May, in particular on paragraph 4, headed:
"References to the European Parliament".
I see from it that:
"The Committee has considered whether there should be any restriction on references in the House to the European Parliament".
I am mildly curious as to why the committee should have considered that at all since, so far as I am aware— subject to checking the records of the House—the only person in your Lordships' House who has made any reference in detail to procedures in the European Parliament has been myself. Therefore, I must assume that someone somewhere is getting nervous about the matter. I am grateful for that because any attention paid to the proceedings of the European Parliament is tremendously welcome to me. I welcome the extra publicity that has been given to the matter by the committee.
I am a little curious about the reasons that the committee arrived at the conclusion in paragraph 4 that:
"It appears that no other Parliament has any such restriction, nor does the European Parliament have any restriction on references to other Parliaments. The Committee has accordingly concluded that it would be inappropriate".
The noble Lord himself said that in the absence of any such measures in other parliaments the committee decided not to take any action. Are we to assume from that that, were other parliaments in the European Community to adopt some restrictions on references in their parliaments to the proceedings of the European Parliament, the Government would then reconsider the matter? I sincerely hope that I may receive the reply that the whole matter will be considered on its merits.
I am glad about that conclusion in view of the observations of the Prime Minister on the relevance and status of the European Parliament. If I may say so, it was expressed in almost more explosive terms than those in which I myself ventured to address the House. The Prime Minister does not consider it to be a
340
parliament at all comparable with our own Parliament. I sincerely hope that that view will continue to prevail and that, notwithstanding any provocation that I myself may give to your Lordships by unflattering references to the proceedings of the European Parliament, the matter will not be raised again.
Partly as a result of that, I now pass to Early Day Motions. I am a little puzzled by the reasons that are given for not following the procedure of the Commons in the matter. The first and predominant point is that Her Majesty's Stationery Office has notified us that the costs of the procedure in the other place have been £2¼ million. I am a little dubious, if I may say so as a professional accountant, about the way in which Her Majesty's Stationery Office arrived at those extraordinary estimates at the request of the Government. Personally speaking, taking a look, as I do from time to time, at the printed proceedings of the other place, including Early Day Motions, I query whether this small amount of printing every day on the limited number of Order Papers that are available for circulation will amount to that sum. I therefore invite your Lordships to disregard that consideration as one which should take precedence over the convenience of Parliament as a whole.
My next point is on the remark that:
"As the Committee stated in its First Report, Session 1985–86, 'the unwritten convention of the House has long been that the wording of such motions should be, so far as possible, short and couched in terms avoiding provocative or tendentious phraseology'".
My experience in trying to get Motions on the Order Paper in this place has regrettably been that unless the motion is completely bromide it does not stand a hope in hell of getting on the Order Paper, let alone being provocative or tendentious. I do not think that the House should pass this by lightly. Why should not a Member of your Lordships' House who believes quite sincerely in what he says put down a Motion which is controversial but not necessarily provocative or tendentious? Those words have been interpreted, if I may say so, by the officials of the House —for whom I have the utmost personal regard—as that Motions must not be controversial. I think that that ought to be reconsidered by this Select Committee of your Lordships' House, or if not that committee by the House as a whole.
The report continues:
"Secondly, members of the House of Commons have the responsibility of representing their constituents, and Early Day Motions provide a means of raising constituency issues. Members of this House have no similar responsibility".
Of course, no one would expect any Member of your Lordships' House—notable people as noble Lords are— to put Motions on the Order Paper congratulating Manchester United on its victory over whatever team it happens to have been playing the previous night. Such matters have appeared on the Order Paper in another place. In other words, the very absence—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry but the noble Lord is misinformed. The match was a draw: two all.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, that is a perfect illustration of the point I was seeking, however inadequately, to make.
One does not expect any Member of this House to put down a Notice of Motion which is frivolous or represents a constituency interest—as is correctly stated in the report, we have no constituencies.
However, I think it would be permissible for the House to allow a serious Motion to be put down by any Member of this House covering a matter of policy or substance and of course excluding the vast number that would otherwise be presented in relation to constituency matters. We ought to take another look at this question before we come to any final decision. The Order Paper might occasionally be enlivened by the appearance of, let us say, perhaps 10 Notices of Motion on serious matters of a controversial nature, not of a bromide nature, to take not; of some issue or other.
Finally, perhaps I may use this occasion to bring a further matter to the attention of the House. There is apparently a rule, confirmed by the Companion to the Standing Orders, which mentions the practice of rotating members of various sub-committees or Select Committees, particularly in my case the European Select Committee. Apparently, according to the Companion to the Standing Orders, that means a rotation every three years. I should like to know when that received the official sanction of this House because in the Standing Orders themselves, as distinct from the Companion, there is no reference to that rotation.
I am well aware that many Members may perhaps grow jaded or become uninterested and bored in respect of the proceedings of the committees to which they belong. But there are quite a number of members of all shapes and sizes, ages and sexes, who do take a very great interest in the committees upon which they serve and whose continued presence there would very much add to the effectiveness of those committees rather than their being shoved off after a period of three years.
Therefore, the first question that I have to ask the chairman is: where is that stipulation incorporated in the Standing Orders themselves as distinct from the Companion? If it is not in the Standing Orders, what validity has it? And secondly, are they really so stuck on this that they are not prepared to be flexible and take the maximum amount of advantage of the skills in various fields which are the characteristic of practically every Member of this House?
3.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Lord Chairman will reply to the very pertinent points which have just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I want to express some unhappiness about these two reports of the Procedure Committee because they do not seem to touch on the really important issues that affect the proceedings of this House. One of those is of course whether we should resume sittings on Fridays as a regular practice, thereby diminishing the need for very late sittings on other days
342
of the week. The second is the problem of what length of speeches should be permitted in a time-limited debate when a subject is chosen which is of great interest and which therefore attracts a very large number of speakers.
I appreciate that certainly we shall have an opportunity of discussing the second point on 2nd November, when, as I understand it, we shall debate the extremely interesting report submitted by my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham and his colleagues. However, it seems to me unfortunate that the Procedure Committee in both its second and third reports should pass these subjects by entirely without comment. If I may say so with respect, it does suggest that the Procedure Committee is not wholly geared up in its understanding of the needs of this House. I am left, I am afraid, with the uneasy suspicion that it is probably more geared up in regard to the needs of the usual channels and of making things easy for the management of the House. That may be an unworthy suspicion but the way that the committee has conducted itself over these reports certainly gives some grounds for holding it.
As a result of the Committee's failure to deal particularly with the two major issues to which I have just referred, there are only a number of quite small matters on which it has reported on which I wish to comment. First, why abolish the right to put in a statutory instrument on a Saturday? It is a right that has been exercised for a considerable number of years, and there may well be occasions, particularly perhaps towards the end of a Session at a time like the present, when it may be very convenient. Why abolish it? There is no reason or argument given for doing so.
Then the committee is a little unsteady over the suggestion that there should be a 60-day period of notice in respect of these instruments. I am sure that in all cases the maximum should be 60 days. One might have expected the Procedure Committee to have recommended that firmly.
I should also like to ask my noble friend for an interpretation: when there is a period of 60 days permitted for the tabling of these instruments, do those 60 days count in respect of days during the Recess or do they apply only when Parliament is sitting? That is important. There are some occasions, particularly during the long Recess in the summer, when the House is up for 60 days. Therefore theoretically, if non-sitting days are to be included, one such order could be tabled at a time when there was no opportunity of taking any action at all in respect of it. I am sure that there is a clear answer to this but it is not set out in any of the documents that I have seen. I would therefore be particularly grateful if my noble friend would deal with that point.
The main issues will arise from the debate on 2nd November. I hope that my noble friend the Lord Chairman will indicate that the Government will approach that debate with an open mind. Some of us feel extremely strongly about both the provision for a Friday sitting and a provision for securing that, if important subjects are selected for a time-limited debate, there should be at least 10 minutes of time during which individual speakers would be able to address the House.

343
I do not, of course, ask my noble friend to accept either of those proposals in advance. But I do ask for an indication that the Government will listen to the arguments, will read the very considerably skilful drafting of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, and will be prepared to give it very serious consideration; and that they will also give serious consideration to the views that noble Lords will express in the debate on 2nd November.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I promise the House faithfully that my contribution will be short, non-critical and only inquisitive. It arises on the last item of the Third Report which is headed "The Sub Judice Rule". It is only a short paragraph. Perhaps I may be permitted to read it out.
"The Committee has considered whether the rule limiting reference to matters sub judice should be modified, in view of the fact that the House has agreed that the practice should be similar in both Houses but has never adopted an amendment to the rule agreed to by the House of Commons in 1972.
The Committee has concluded that some revision of the rule is called for, and will consider the matter further at its next meeting".
The reason why I am inquisitive is that that decision may give an opportunity, if the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will be good enough to afford it to us, of knowing the thinking of the committee before it makes its decision and possibly making some comment at this session of the House. Is there any reason at all that the committee so far has considered why the rule should not be precisely the same in both Houses? Where is the difference of opinion?
4 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the admirable way in which he presented both reports. I do not intend to go into the detail of what will be a very interesting debate on the Rippon Report the week after next. Although I wish to give a broad welcome to the reports of the Select Committee, there are a number of items with which I must take issue and on which I should like to say a few more words.
First, I must mention the continual pressure that seems to be exerted by the behind-the-scenes negotiators to try to take business off the Floor of the House. I am sure that the country, as well as the House itself, feels that one of the great strengths of this Chamber is that it debates issues on the Floor of the House where every Member has the opportunity to contribute.
Another subject raised by the report is one which I am sure your Lordships will accept I cannot agree with; namely, the reports as they relate to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill and the changes to procedures that are recommended. I feel that it would be wrong for those of us who take a principled objection to the changes envisaged by the Bill to agree to procedural changes in the way in which this House deals with matters.
I should like to touch particularly on the reference to Early Day Motions. I take a slightly different view from that of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. It may
344
be quite useful to have controversial topics to debate, but I am not sure that that is a path I wish to go down further. One of the difficulties in this House is to know the strength of feeling about a subject that may be a matter for future debate and how many noble Lords from all sides of the House would wish to contribute to such a debate. I wonder whether the Select Committee could have another look at this matter, not with a view to setting up a procedure which would be the same or similar to that in the other place, but to putting in place a procedure which would be distinctive and reflect the character of this House.
I am mindful in particular of the different facets of this Chamber. The three major political parties are represented and there is a large body of Cross-Benchers. There is a high degree of expertise on all sides. For example, perhaps the No Day Named Motions could have names attached to them of Peers who wish to indicate their desire to speak on that particular subject. I am sure that it is not beyond the wit of this House to devise a procedure which is not expensive, is simple to operate and yet provides Members of the House and— dare I say it—the usual channels, with information as to those Peers who would indicate their desire to speak on a particular subject. I hope that the committee could take another look at that aspect of our affairs and maybe come back with a report in the future.
Let me make one other point. The practice that seems to be evolving of debates on a particular subject that the Procedure Committee is minded to consider is very useful. I hope that the debate on the Rippon Report will be instructive for the committee in its further deliberations of its work.
My very last point is to note that the committee has done a very good job, given the difficult fist that it has been handed by the Government. When we discuss the procedures of this House, it is important that we should arrive at a consensus which can be shared right across the Chamber and not a view which may be in the interests of one part of the House or another.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to ask whether, under the sub judice rule, the revision being considered—what it is I am not sure—is in any way concerned with the difficulties, the very real difficulties as noble Lords will remember, that arose when my noble friend Lord Ferrers, answering for the Home Office, seemed to get into a somewhat awkward position. I am trying to use totally neutral language. Is this revision related to that matter? I do not want to take up time and seek only information.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may correct what may be a misapprehension arising from something said by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. The effect of taking a matter off the Floor of the House and referring it to a committee is not to debar Members of the House from speaking. At a Public Bill Committee or a Special Public Bill Committee, every one of your Lordships is entitled to address that committee.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I want to come to the support of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, in part at least. I do not share his obsession

345
with Europe and the European Parliament, interesting though it is. I always listen to him with intense care when he speaks on those matters. I want to agree with him about the Early Day Motion. The Early Day Motion, as it exists in another place, is a means of demonstrating a body of opinion.
My noble friend was quite right when he said that he did not wish it to be an opinion about a trivial matter. If we adopt such a procedure, as I hope we shall, that procedure would have to be of such an order that it obviated triviality. We do not want the kind of thing that happens elsewhere at its worst; we want something which happens elsewhere at its best.
My noble friend Lord Monkswell came somewhat near the answer when he spoke of the No Day Named Motion, or whatever it is called. But the weakness of that is that it is merely the opinion of one Member of this House. As yet, there is no way of assessing whether that opinion or concern, as it may be, has any other adherents or supporters. There must be some way in which we can combine the procedure of the No Day Named Motion, which we already have, and the Early Day Motion of another place, provided that triviality is excluded.
In conclusion, I strongly welcome the comments on the timing of speeches mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He is absolutely right. It is surely correct that we must have timed debates; but it is surely incorrect that our timed debates are of such an order that we are obliged to speak for five, six or seven minutes only. That must be wrong. We must find a way of curbing our exuberance, but at the same time permitting a sufficient length of time for appropriate ideas to be properly presented to this House.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I wanted to speak almost entirely on what is common ground between this Motion, in so far as it relates to the deregulation procedure, and the next Motion which stands in my name. But before I do that, perhaps I can say one or two words about the Public Bill Committee procedure. Many of us feel anxiety lest it be used as an opportunity to load still more legislation on your Lordships' House involving Parliament generally. Otherwise my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman is right; any Member of your Lordships' House can address a Public Bill Committee. Nevertheless, that opportunity is taken extremely rarely.
With regard to the deregulation procedure, the first thing to say is that we are deeply in debt to the Procedure Committee. It is not the first time by any means that your Lordships have been profoundly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I suspect that it will not be the last.
The background to both debates is the advance of bureaucracy that we have seen in recent years. I refer only to one or two high spots. Perhaps the most extreme example was on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill when it was introduced into the other place. The Bill reduced the repayment to employers of the statutory sick pay from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. But it then went on to say that the Minister could, by regulation, alter that figure
346
of 80 per cent. What is more, that was subject only to the negative resolution procedure. That meant that by a Henry VIII provision the charge of, in effect, a tax on the individual citizen, and as a result of mat the charge on public funds, could be altered by a Henry VIII provision by negative resolution. In the other place the Government accepted that there should be affirmative resolution but they fought strenuously for the Henry VIII provision and it only disappeared on a Division which was carried against the Government in your Lordships' House.
That did not stand alone. There was persistently an attempt to downgrade parliamentary scrutiny by taking matters by negative resolution that should have been taken by affirmative resolution and, indeed, taking matters by subordinate legislation that should have been taken by primary legislation. So firm were your Lordships that when the Jellicoe Committee came to consider the recommendations it recommended the Scrutiny Committee, which we now have and which has been such an extraordinary success. But it was significant that of all the recommendations of the Jellicoe Committee, that was the one about which the Government expressed a reservation. We must be grateful to the Procedure Committee for having brushed aside that reservation and to the Committee of Selection for the choice it made of the Scrutiny Committee, which has been an acknowledged success.
There are two dangers in the procedure recommended in relation to deregulation. The first is that it is extremely "cumbersome"—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, then Leader of the House, in a letter to me about the matter which I surmise the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has seen. It is indeed cumbersome. There are two reasons for that.
One feels that behind the deregulation Bill there was a ministerial compromise—(he President of the Board of Trade, one suspects, wanting to move wholesale by Henry VIII provision and the Leader of the House saying that there was no chance of your Lordships agreeing to that. When one has a ministerial compromise it always tends to produce an odd result. One Minister holds that anybody shall be allowed to scratch his ears if they itch; another Minister is firmly opposed to any such practice. A Cabinet committee is then set up under the chairmanship of the Lord Privy Seal and it comes up with the compromise that right ears may be scratched provided the left hand is used.
I fear that the cumbersome proposal is partly due to that sort of background, but it is also due to something else. It was expressly designed to protect the so-called convention that your Lordships should not vote on subordinate legislation. That was said in your Lordships' House expressly by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in relation to the deregulation Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, repeated it expressly to me in the letter to which I referred.
The Government have changed their mind on that convention. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, indicated that the Government will accept the next resolution. But it is far too late to go back and ask the Procedure Committee to review the situation in the light of that change of policy. After all, the procedure was

347
thought to be workable by the other extremely brilliant members of the sub-committee of the Procedure Committee and that was endorsed by the Procedure Committee itself. From what we have seen of the Scrutiny Committee I have little doubt, speaking for myself, that it will make a workable job of it.
When the deregulation Bill was introduced it was admitted that it was an extraordinary constitutional innovation. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, roundly denounced it as a constitutional outrage. But the majority of your Lordships thought that the only way to obtain the necessary deregulation in substance—the removal of unnecessary burdens on industry and commerce—was to follow, so far as the Bill went, the Henry VIII procedure.
However, the desire was expressed that there should be three safeguards. The first, unfortunately, has gone by the way. That was the three-year term. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, introduced an amendment in Committee which the Government appeared to be looking at sympathetically but which, unfortunately, was dismissed at the Report stage. That has gone. The second safeguard was that there should be an alternative scrutiny of the procedures under the deregulation Bill. That we have got, that we are considering and that we welcome. The third safeguard was that your Lordships should have finally the power to reject any subordinate legislation submitted for your consideration. That has now, I understand, been conceded and is the subject of the next Resolution.
I conclude as I began by saying how indebted we are to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees for the way he has introduced these reports and for the work of his committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his sub-committee.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, what a fascinating hors-d'oeuvre ready for the entrèe that is to follow. I should like to say a few words about Early Day Motions, a subject introduced to this discussion by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Early Day Motions in the days when he was in another place were somewhat different. When I came to the other place in 1970 there were a very limited number of Early Day Motions. They grew like paper clips until the other place had to bring in a change so as to provide that after a certain time the Early Day Motion was not printed day after day. That produced some kind of improvement.
As for saying that Early Day Motions represented the views of those people who signed them, I fear that that was not the case. One could wander around the tea room in the other place, put a piece of paper in front of a colleague and he would sign it without reading it— rather like the petitions one sees in the streets of our country for and against abortion or licensing. People will sign something put in front of their faces. It does not matter what it is.
348
I would caution very strongly against any kind of introduction of an Early Day Motion procedure in your Lordships' House. The Procedure Committee has got it absolutely right and I think that the less we have to do with the idea the better.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I had hoped to speak for only one minute flat but in the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said I may have to take two or three minutes.
My first point concerns topical Questions. I see that the committee recommends that the procedure should be made permanent. I am not at all sure that that decision should be taken at this stage. I have noticed that on a number of Thursdays we have been reduced to only three Questions. Because we have been reduced to only three Questions people who may have wished to table a standard Question, if I may so call it, have been denied that opportunity. Today noble Lords will have noticed that there were only three Questions on the Order Paper. I do hope that we have a little more experience before a final decision is made and the procedure is made permanent.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that I had the honour to be a member of the sub-committee which recommended the provisions that should be applied to the deregulation Bill. I am extremely glad that the Procedure Committee was able to accept our recommendations. But I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that our recommendations in no way undermine the right of any Member of this House to vote against an order. I have to tell him that I and other members of the sub-committee were absolutely clear in our minds that, although we were making a recommendation that instead of amending an order the House might wish to make a comment on the order for the Government to consider, in no way did any member of that committee accept that that would be taking away the right of Members of this House to vote against an order. I hope that that has made the matter absolutely clear to him and to your Lordships and perhaps I may tell the House that I would never agree to such a procedure.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as a member of the committee perhaps I may intervene. I do so not to take over the job of the Lord Chairman who has to reply to the debate but to make only two or three points.
I have come to the conclusion that Early Day Motions would not fit in very easily with the procedures of the House. I listened to what my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington had to say about paragraph 3. I read it as he was talking. I listened to my noble friend and read it again. I have to say that my reading of paragraph 3 is somewhat different from my noble friend's reading of paragraph 3. As I understand it, paragraph 3 is saying that because Motions in this House are generally expressed in wide terms people can say virtually anything they like. In the House of Commons the opportunities for saying anything you like on the Floor of the House are much more limited and therefore the

349
opportunities to express your views if you are a Member of this House are correspondingly greater. That is how I read it. If I am wrong, perhaps the Lord Chairman can tell me. But that is one of the arguments against the Early Day Motion.
Again on the Early Day Motion argument, the point that impressed me most of all was the cost of £2,290,000. If we were talking about tuppence-ha'penny and Members of this House having an opportunity to express a view cheaply, so be it. But to engage in massive expenditure of that kind merely to allow expressions of view to be gathered, which is quite often the effect of an Early Day Motion, would not be justified. On the other hand, I listened to what my noble friend Lord Monkswell had to say and his suggestion about no day named Motions is well worth considering. If Members of this House could put their names to a no day named Motion in order to express an opinion on that Motion that would perhaps achieve some of the objectives of having an Early Day Motion procedure but without having some of the greater difficulties attached to it. So I hope that the Procedure Committee will consider that.
I thought it was a little ungracious of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington to castigate the committee for doing something of which he obviously clearly approved; namely, that there should be no restriction on the way in which people in this House refer to the European Parliament. I noticed that this issue was coming up before the Procedure Committee. I was not quite sure why it came up—presumably because someone wanted to raise it. But I should have thought that the result would be something of which he and the House as a whole would certainly approve. I hope that the fact that he approves of something the Procedure Committee has done will not prove a massive argument on his part for wishing to vote against it.
The main issue before us this afternoon is what we should do about deregulation orders. I wish to make two general points and one specific one. If the Bill goes through there has to be some kind of procedure for dealing with what the Government wish to try to achieve. The issue for the House this afternoon is whether the procedure set out in this report is, broadly speaking, sensible. I had a good look at it and came to the conclusion that the House needs a mechanism for dealing with the deregulation Bill. It also seemed to me that this procedure is, on the whole, as reasonable as one can get.
However, I have one point of detail. At page 6(viii) the report states:
"The Committee has power under Standing Order 64 to take evidence; it should be expected—although not instructed —to offer the Government a chance to give evidence before making an adverse report".
I am not suggesting that the converse should apply totally; namely, that the Opposition should be expected to appear whenever the committee makes a positive report. But if there is a major issue being discussed in front of the committee in which the Government are going to be given an opportunity to make representations as to the kind of report which the committee produces, there should be some way or other
350
in which the views of the Opposition can also be fed into the committee at the same time otherwise one gets a certain imbalance. That is not an argument against the whole structure but it is a point which I hope the committee will take on board and on which the Lord Chairman can perhaps smile favourably this afternoon.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, a very interesting and unexpected debate has developed during the course of the afternoon although why I use the word "unexpected", having had some; experience of your Lordships' House, I do not know.
The two reports before us today contain a number of interesting recommendations. On the whole, I commend them most warmly to your Lordships. I believe too that it would be remiss of me if I did not say how grateful I feel, and I am sure the House also feels, to the Lord Chairman of Committees, to the Chairman of the committee and the Chairman and members of the sub-committee for what I believe the House, on the whole seems to feel is a thoroughly helpful and constructive report.
With your Lordships' permission, in the main I should like to confine my remarks to the procedures for the scrutiny of deregulation orders since these represent a very substantial change in our procedures and have rightly been the subject of intense scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament.
I was astonished at the profession of surprise expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who suggested that some nameless civil servants and Government business managers might be nervous of what he said. That does not in the least surprise me in view of the noble Lord's remarks. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Finsberg on the subject of Early Day Motions in another place struck a very powerful answering chord with me. I endorse most warmly the warning that he gave on that front.
Returning to the question of deregulation and so forth, the Government recognise that the deregulation order-making power would allow a very exceptional type of secondary legislation for which special parliamentary scrutiny arrangements would be wholly appropriate. We welcome the prompt and thorough report of the Procedure Committee and we believe that the procedures that it proposes are appropriate under the circumstances.
That has enabled us to hold this debate in advance of the Third Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill next week. It is clearly sensible that your Lordships should have a clear idea of how the scrutiny procedures would operate before finishing consideration of the Bill itself.
During the various debates in this House on the deregulation order-making power, the Government have explained the need for the deregulation power and the significant safeguards we built in for the use of that power. The provisions in the Bill itself provide a statutory framework within which each House will put in place the procedures it thinks appropriate for scrutinising the proposals under this power.

351
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that I believe the whole House agrees that the Government have listened to the committee with very great care. As evidence of that we have accepted without reservation all the recommendations of your Lordships' Procedure Committee. Indeed, it is our intention that deregulation orders should, where necessary, be subject to rigorous and thorough scrutiny. We have accepted the Procedure Committee's view that a 60-day period is appropriate and we have amended the Bill accordingly. I draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter to Clause 4(3) of the Bill in which it is provided that in reckoning the period at 60 days no account shall be taken of any time in which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.
The Procedure Committee recommended that the House should refer proposals for deregulation orders to a Sessional Select Committee; in the first instance, the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. That committee would have all the usual powers of a Select Committee including the power to co-opt members, set up sub-committees and to appoint specialist advisers. We fully accept that recommendation. We believe it is entirely appropriate that there should be an opportunity for proposals to be scrutinised in detail where necessary. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee clearly commands the confidence and respect of this House. I for one see no reason why it should not take on the job. I understand that the committee is happy to increase its workload in this way and I believe that the House should be extremely grateful to it for that.
The committee would be able to scrutinise the proposal line by line if it so chooses. If it wished, it could examine witnesses and those witnesses need not be confined to those who have already been consulted. It can call for evidence from the appropriate department and consider any other representations that are made. I can assure the House that the Government will co-operate in every way with the committee and in particular will regulate the flow of proposals coming forward at any time to ensure that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee is not overwhelmed. In the light of the first batch of proposals which may be coming forward, that is perhaps an undertaking which your Lordships will appreciate.
The Procedure Committee has recommended that it should develop close co-operation with the corresponding Commons committee, using the power to meet concurrently as they feel to be appropriate. The Government agree that that will avoid duplication and will help to ensure that in most cases evidence is taken once only.
Once the inquiry has been completed the committee would then report its findings to the House, making whatever recommendations it considers appropriate. I was interested to see that the Procedure Committee stressed that, if it wished, this House could at that stage have the opportunity to debate the committee's report and let its views be known to the Government. We are very happy to agree to that suggestion although in practice I suspect that your Lordships' House would
352
wish in most cases to await the Minister's consideration of the committee's report. I reiterate to your Lordships that the Government will consider the committee's views with the utmost seriousness in deciding whether to proceed with the draft order and, if so, whether to revise it in any way.
The Procedure Committee recommended that the committee should then consider the draft order again and report on it to the House before any Motion to approve the order would be moved. Again, the Government concur that it would be appropriate to give the committee a further opportunity to consider the order in its final form.
To make that easier we amended the Bill in another place to require that when the Minister lays the final draft order he must also lay a statement setting out any changes made. For economy of effort the committee would also take on the functions of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in respect of the draft order itself.
Finally, the Procedure Committee recommended that it should be open to any noble Lord to table a Motion in respect of the report of the committee on the draft order. Such a Motion would be amendable and would be debated immediately before the Motion to approve the draft order. I can assure your Lordships unequivocally that if, on that Motion, the House resolved that the draft order as laid should not be approved, the Motion to approve the order would not be moved. The Government would reconsider and either lay a revised draft, bring forward the proposal as primary legislation instead or withdraw the proposed altogether.
In conclusion, I feel confident that the framework in the Bill, underpinning the unique scrutiny arrangements proposed by your Lordships' Procedure Committee, addresses pretty thoroughly the exceptional nature of the deregulation order-making power and, indeed, that it ensures that it will be used in an appropriate and effective manner. We have accepted the committee's recommendations without reservation and stand ready to co-operate in making the necessary changes to Standing Orders to reflect those special arrangements. I hope that the Government's views on this extremely important matter will be of some help to the House in coming to its conclusions on the committee's reports.
4.40 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in this debate and in particular — naturally—to the Lord Privy Seal who has answered every question which has been put to him on the matter of deregulation. That relieves me of the burden of so doing. I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition who has done part of my-job for me.
Perhaps I may take the individual points that were raised by noble Lords during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was concerned about the reference to Members of the European Parliament and wondered why the committee had felt that it was necessary to deal with that matter. I cannot honestly

353
remember who brought that matter before the committee, but the point was one that should be discussed; namely, that we have rules and conventions about how we treat Members of another place and it was felt that in the circumstances which now prevail it was right to consider whether we should have any rules about how to treat Members of the European Parliament. In the light of what has already been said in the report, I do not think that I need to go further into that. It seemed to us that, as nobody else minds what we say about them and they do not have to care what they say about us, we should let matters rest.
On Early Day Motions, I was deeply grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and to the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, who felt that the committee had got it right. The matter was given a great deal of consideration, but had only one supporter in the committee and he was speaking slightly half-heartedly, I think, on behalf of someone who is not a member of the committee. We came to the conclusion without any difficulty at all that Early Day Motions would serve no useful purpose. It really came down to asking ourselves, "Where would they get us?", and, "Where do they get Members of another place?". That is why we took the decision that we did, and I hope that the House will be prepared to endorse; it.
The rotation rule was the third point raised by the noble Lord. He is quite correct that it is not in the Standing Orders as such, but it is in the Companion and it is in the Companion as a result of decisions of the Procedure Committee dating from the 1970s. It is constantly reviewed. Occasionally it causes unhappiness to Peers who have a specific knowledge and who feel that it is a pity for the committee on which they serve to lose the benefit of that knowledge. Nevertheless, it has to be right to allow new blood an opportunity to serve on those committees. Obviously, that applies only to certain committees about which there is great enthusiasm. Other committees, such as the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, do not necessarily have a queue forming to do what is nowadays an extremely arduous job given that the number of statutory instruments grows like Topsy. Those are the three points which the noble Lord raised and I hope that he is satisfied with what I have been able to tell him.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, properly recognised that his main point is a subject that would be better debated on 2nd November. Therefore, I hope that he will excuse me for not making any comment on that aspect now. There will be an opportunity on 2nd November for a full discussion on the subject of the Sittings of the House. It would be wrong for me to try to pre-empt that discussion now. On his other points—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves that point, I asked whether he would give an assurance that the Government would listen to the debate on 2nd November with an open mind as to what decision should finally be taken.
Viscount Cranborne: Yes.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I feel quite certain of that, given that the Lord Privy Seal has
354
just muttered "Yes" in my ear, but it is not for me to commit the Government on the line that they will take. However, I believe that the noble Lord can rest assured that it will be all right.
The noble Lord was disappointed that the report contains no reference to the length of speeches or the timing of debates. Again, those matters will come up on 2nd November. Not every meeting of the Procedure Committee goes over the ground which has been covered so frequently at previous meetings. If that were to be the case, the meetings would go on for day after day. I know that the noble Lord feels deeply about the length of debates and the curtailment of debate, but: again that is a matter for 2nd November rattier than now.
The noble Lord was unhappy about the abolition of the laying of statutory instruments on a Saturday. As one has not been so laid for many years now, it seems rather unkind, if not extravagant, to induce an official to come in here to sit and do nothing on a Saturday when statutory instruments cannot be so laid in another place. As no useful purpose would be served, it seems unkind to compel an official of the House to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is distressed—as we all are —that we have not yet made a great deal of progress on the sub-judice rule. One of the problems— the main one, I believe—is that this House has no Speaker. Another place has a Speaker who can exercise his or her discretion as to whether a matter can be raised. This issue has now taken up quite a lot of time in the Procedure Committee and we are greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, who has taken it upon himself to try to devise a formula which would meet that different situation. I think that the noble Lord will recognise that there is a difference because of the different way in which we do things. The noble and learned Lord has put forward a preliminary' report but has asked for further time. He wishes to have consultations with other Law Lords on the matter. Apparently, the matter has been under discussion for over 20 years, so it is not a new issue. We sincerely hope that we shall move a little more briskly than that and reach a conclusion. However, those are the explanations for the delay that has come about.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for having dealt for me with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. As one would expect, the noble and learned Lord was right.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, was preoccupied with Early Day Motions and I hope that he will be satisfied with what has been said. We see the point, but we do not think that it is a good idea.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I would not expect the attitude of Members of this House towards something like an Early Day Motion to be quite the same as that of a Member in another place.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, it might well be very different indeed. It may well be that there is an opportunity which should be taken and that Peers' names could be added to a No Day Named Motion. I now give an assurance that I shall invite the Procedure Committee to consider that route. Of course, I cannot say whether the Committee will look favourably on it.

355
However, that might be a move in a direction which would appeal to the noble Lord. In my opinion, the original proposal is a non-runner.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, returning to the question of Early Day Motions, is the House to understand that the noble Lord endorsed as being applicable to this House the view that was put forward by his noble friend that Members in the Commons sign papers merely if they are shoved before them? Perhaps I may clarify the point by saying that I was assuming that all Members of your Lordships' House would diligently examine anything before signing it and would not behave as the noble Lord alleges that Members of the House of Commons behave.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, I have no experience of another place. I must also remind him that, although I have the highest possible regard for him, the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, does not qualify in our terms as my noble friend because, if the noble Lord recollects, I am a Cross-Bencher, so I cannot speak for either side.
I move on to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The Special Public Bill Committee point is exercising him. I believe that he is content with the way that things are going, but we shall take note of his observations.
The deregulation matters have already been dealt with extremely well by the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal. Therefore I need not respond to that point. I should like to endorse what he said about the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, whose work I believe is admired in every corner of the House. It has been a remarkable success, and we are deeply grateful that the committee has indicated its willingness to take on the additional burden which is now being put upon it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, was the situation to which I referred on sub judice the problem that arose when my noble friend Lord Ferrers was answering for the Home Office? Was that point considered by the Procedure Committee?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that point has been considered by the committee. The whole matter is still in the melting pot. It is one of immense complexity. As a lawyer, the noble Lord will be aware of the difficulties that we face. Every endeavour is being made, especially by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, as I have said, and I am sure that a conclusion will be reached as quickly as possible.
I repeat my gratitude to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I hope that I have answered the questions that have been put to me.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No, my Lords, the noble Lord has not. He has not answered the one that I asked about the Thursday point.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I ask forgiveness of the noble Lord. He is right. I drew attention in my opening remarks to the fact that today is Thursday and we have only three Questions down.
356
The explanation for that probably is that we have been back from a very long Summer Recess for only 10 days and people have not had the urge to put down a Question because something has cropped up that has caused that to happen. On most occasions they have been put down. If the procedure is made permanent it will not be the end of the world because it can be changed by the House at any time if it so wishes. It has worked most of the time. There have been a few occasions—I concede that there have been a few—but they have been very few. As people get to know of the procedure, it will be found to be of help to the House. I hope that the noble Lord agrees.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Subordinate Legislation: Voting Freedom
4.53 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale rose to move to resolve, That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the Motion, as your Lordships will have gathered, is to make clear that there is no convention which precludes your Lordships from voting on subsidiary legislation. I was glad to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said about the view that he has expressed in the sub-committee, and which I gather received general consent there.
I put down the Motion because it appears that there has been some attempt by members of the Executive to argue that your Lordships were inhibited in the way that I suggested. On Second Reading of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill, having referred to the Procedure Committee, whose report your Lordships have just been considering, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said:
"In this way, the House need not depart from its convention that it does not divide on secondary legislation".—[Official Report, 6/6/94; col. 956.]
What the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, wrote to me was in virtually the same words. Under those circumstances, it appeared to be necessary to resolve the matter in the way the Motion seeks.
As I understand it, a constitutional convention is a rule of practice on the part of some organ of the constitution which it regards as more or less binding, according to the length of subsistence of that practice, according to its acceptance on behalf of the organ, its general recognition by authorities, such as leading text books, and, above all, by its practical convenience. On all those criteria there is no such convention as it would seem was sought to be asserted. I should add that, although it is regarded as more or less binding, according to the criteria which I have suggested, it will never be regarded as absolutely binding as a rule of law is binding.
In the light of that, it may be convenient to compare the asserted convention with some undoubted conventions of the constitution both here and abroad. A very powerful convention was the United States

357
convention that no president should enjoy more than two terms. That dates from the very first presidency and was asserted in terms by President Jefferson very soon afterwards. It was recognised almost universally. It was powerful enough to prevent President Grant and then President Theodore Roosevelt from standing or enjoying a third term, as; they wished. But being only a convention, it did not prevent, in the exigencies of the Second World War, Franklin Roosevelt from enjoying a third term, and, indeed, entering on a fourth, which shows that even a very strong convention yields to convenience.
The second example I can give shortly. It is the convention as to resignation when a government are defeated at the polls. During the 18th century and most of the 19th century, the Government resigned only after meeting Parliament and being refused a vote of supply, or its equivalent, a vote of censure. But at the end of the last century, both Gladstone and Disraeli, after some hesitation, resigned on defeat at the polls, and that was practised by every government up to 1923. But in that year there was a hung Parliament and the Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, waited to meet Parliament. That was the convenient course for a hung Parliament. Thereafter, the former Gladstone/Disraeli practice was resumed and has gone on ever since, although I do not doubt that if we had another hung Parliament, it might well be considered convenient for the government defeated at the polls to meet Parliament and to see what happens.
The third convention I can mention very shortly; it is the Salisbury Convention. I need not go into that because it was debated at length in your Lordships' House and its parameters were canvassed on the Maastricht Bill and on the transport Bill. It was an acknowledged convention, an acknowledged limitation on the powers of your Lordships' House, and has been recognised as such. I hope that I shall not be thought impertinent if I say what a pleasure and privilege it is for us to have a scion of that famous house again leading your Lordships' House. What the noble Viscount has done in relation to this resolution bodes very well for the future of your Lordships' House.
On those criteria, how does the asserted convention measure? It has existed for only a decade or so. During the 1970s, both parties in opposition voted against statutory instruments, the last occasion being with regard to the Rhodesian sanctions. Therefore, the rule of long-subsisting practice entirely fails.
As to its acceptance, I can find no evidence of its acceptance by your Lordships who, after all, are at the receiving end. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, bears that out. Nor is it recognised by any of the authorities that I have been able to find. I have looked at Shell on the House of Lords, at Erskine May, at Griffiths and Ryle on Parliament, which had the participation of one of the Clerks of your Lordships' House. None of them mentions any such convention; nor does the leading authority on constitutional conventions—Marshall on Constitutional Conventions—mention it. On the contrary, they all
358
mention the instances on which your Lordships' House did vote against subordinate legislation. Therefore, there is no consensus there.
If more were wanted, it is really inconsistent with the terms in which subordinate legislation is enacted:
"No order shall be made … unless a draft of that order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each",
—I emphasise—
"House of Parliament".
The two Houses are co-equal in that respect. It does not refer to, "approval by the other place and rubber stamping by your Lordships' House". On the contrary, your Lordships have the full power of approval which involves disapproval too.
Also, it is inconsistent with the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. Standing Order 55, which deals with quorum, states:
"If … on a Division upon a Bill or upon any Question for the approval or disapproval of subordinate legislation",
and so on. That is quite inconsistent with there being any such convention as appears to be asserted.
In view of that, I suggest that we can proceed very rapidly to approve this Motion. I should add two other considerations: first, the increasing importance, both in scope and in substance, of subordinate legislation. Before his greatly lamented death in a road accident, Mr. Cryer, the very much admired chairman of the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, wrote to the Leaders of both Houses complaining that subordinate legislation was now going well beyond what he, in his homely phrase, called the "nuts and bolts" of legislation; in other words, putting the final and subsidiary finishing touches on a mechanism which is plainly blueprinted in the principal legislation. If the principal legislation lays down clearly the scope of the subordinate legislation, there should be no question of the sort of matters of which Mr. Cryer complained.
The second additional reason I put forward with some diffidence; that is, most unfortunately for parliamentary government, the other place is held increasingly in low esteem. Certainly it would be inconsistent with comity between the two Houses to spell that out or expatiate upon it, but your Lordships must take account of that if there is any proposal to limit your Lordships' legislative powers over subordinate legislation.
The other place seems to be increasingly under the hand of the Executive. With regard to the negative procedure, frequently the orders are not reached at all and that being so, it seems to me that for the future of parliamentary government, a burden rests on your Lordships' House to make sure that parliamentary purposes are still performed adequately, principally in regard to countervailing the power of the Executive.
Having said that and having asserted that there is no such convention as was sought to be asserted, I should add that I do not believe, if your Lordships' accept the Motion, that voting against subordinate legislation will be an everyday concern. In the 1960s and 1970s, when your Lordships on both sides voted against subordinate legislation, that happened only in relation to an average of two orders per Session. I should expect that to be very much diminished if your Lordships pass the Motion

359
because I believe that the Executive, in particular its bureaucratic aspect, will be much more cautious as to what may happen in your Lordships' House.
At the moment I can think of only three matters on which your Lordships may wish to vote against subordinate legislation. One is really contained in, as I mentioned, Mr. Cryer's advice; namely, when the subordinate legislation goes beyond nuts and bolts and trenches on policy. The second is an aspect of the latter. Noble Lords will want to be prepared—and certainly consider themselves free—to vote against subordinate legislation when the Joint Select Committee draws attention to one aspect, especially one which it finds to be an unusual or unexpected use of a delegated power.
I have an example which I believe I ought to give to your Lordships so that it will be seen that what I say is not theoretical. It occurred under the Child Support Act 1991 of unfortunate memory. That was found despite the warnings of your Lordships. Indeed, for all the warnings, it turned out most unfortunately for the citizens and, I dare add, for the Government. So great was the clamour of protest that the department rapidly brought in a modification; but it did so under a power to make transitional provision. The transitional provision was to alter some assessments which had already been made and taken legal effect under the main Act. Unsurprisingly, the Joint Select Committee referred to that as an unusual and unexpected use of the power. In fact, although dealing with the constitutional aspect, your Lordships did pass the regulations because they went some way towards mitigating the mischief which this House had anticipated when discussing the legislation.
In those circumstances, there is perhaps one more example and one which we considered during consideration of the deregulation Bill. I believe that there is a lacuna which was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, last week. He moved an amendment to close it. However, your Lordships felt that the lacuna would be closed if the House accepted the Motion on the Order Paper today.
I do not believe that approving the Motion—and I hope your Lordships will do so—will create an open invitation to the House to trammel with every subordinate instrument that is present; on the contrary, it must be quite exceptional.
Moved to resolve, That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration.—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
5.13 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for, once again, not only giving us the occasion to consider the constitutional role of your Lordships' House but also for giving us what I know the whole House feels to be the very real pleasure of hearing the clarity of his exposition in such matters.
We are indeed fortunate that the House continues to take such an interest in procedural and constitutional matters. Although the arguments may sometimes seem
360
a little abstruse to outsiders, it seems to me that it is only the interest at the level shown by your Lordships that keeps our own constitutional machinery in good working order. For that reason alone, I welcome the initiative of the noble and learned Lord. I shall do my best to set out as clearly and as concisely as I am able my own views on the issue under discussion today, both as Leader of your Lordships' House and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
At the outset, I should say that I entirely accept the Motion of the noble and learned Lord. Indeed, during the previous debate, the noble and learned Lord gave us a bit of a trailer for what I would say. I am grateful to him for exciting additional interest in my speech. The House undoubtedly has a constitutional right to vote on any subordinate legislation. I do not believe that there is any doubt about that fact. Our position in that respect certainly remains as stated by my noble friend Lord Hesketh, who was then the Government Chief Whip, in a debate on 19th May 1993, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. My noble friend said:
"The power to do so certainly exists. It would be open to your Lordships to use that power".—[Official Report, 19/5/93; col. 1811.]
Of course, I would in no way dare to disagree with my noble friend, especially on such matters.
Therefore, there is no question whatever of our opposing the Motion or, indeed, seeking to resist it. However, I should also like to remind your Lordships why the House has rarely chosen to exercise that freedom. I was most pleased to hear what the noble and learned Lord said in his concluding remarks. It seems to me that perhaps—as I had guessed—he and I are not all that far apart on the "buts" that I might introduce in the course of my remarks.
As noble Lords know better than I, this House has very broad powers; indeed, there are very few formal constraints. The manner in which the House chooses to exercise such powers is crucial. We all know that the proceedings of the House depend in large part on a foundation of agreement as to what is and what is not an appropriate course to pursue. The House could not function so effectively without such consensus—that is, without general agreement to observe the various conventions which regulate our activities. Those conventions range from the self-restraint which I know your Lordships always intend to observe in the length and frequency of speeches, to wider questions of what is procedurally or constitutionally appropriate. Moreover, it is always open to noble Lords to change their practices.
Of course, there are always exceptions, just as there clearly is an exception, as pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, over the number of terms that a president of the United States may serve. The convention in that country is clearly that no president may serve more than two terms. Indeed, that convention is still in force, despite the exceptions that the late President Roosevelt represents. Therefore, I wholly accept the example chosen by the noble and

361
learned Lord as being entirely appropriate for the purposes of today's debate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am much obliged. It was following the example of President Roosevelt in being elected for a third and, indeed, a fourth term that an amendment to the constitution of the United States was carried which formally limits the tenure of presidency to two terms.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for reminding me of that fact. Of course, that is perfectly true. But, as we all know, although it may be rather a long and cumbersome procedure, the constitution of the United States is open to amendment. Indeed, I can think of a number of occasions when that has taken place.
However, I do not wish to put too much weight on that particular piece of ice, except to say that I would counsel some caution as to the exercise of our unfettered right to vote. Most of our practices and conventions were developed for good reason and, I believe, serve the House well. They represent a great deal of accumulated wisdom which it would be rash for us to ignore.
One such convention is certainly what we are discussing today; namely, that although noble Lords have the right to do so, they do not vote directly on subordinate legislation. I know that the noble and learned Lord disputes whether that convention exists. However, in my view, there is some clear evidence to suggest that it does. If that is so, there would have to be a very powerful reason for discarding it. It does not, as someone suggested, suit the purposes of the government of the day, but is perhaps constructive for your Lordships' House as a whole. After all, this House is in large part a revising Chamber. Indeed, on re-reading the letter which my noble friend Lord Wakeham sent to the noble and learned Lord (to which the noble and learned Lord referred) I noticed that that was a point made by my predecessor.
It is up to us, and it is indeed another unfettered right which I have noticed has been exercised—very often to this Government's discomfiture—with some abandon in your Lordships' House of late, to cause another place to think again. Yet we and another place have identical powers in respect of subordinate legislation, simply to accept or reject. I would submit to your Lordships that this is a crude, inflexible power, at odds with our role as a revising Chamber. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, would agree with that, in view of what he said about the infrequency with which he anticipated this power should be used. Therefore it is clear that exercise of this crude power could result in stalemate between the two Houses with little scope for resolution.
That is why, instead of exercising the power which the House undoubtedly has, your Lordships have chosen rather to develop other means of making known your views on the subordinate legislation submitted for your consideration. The House has chosen to voice its opposition without making an outright challenge to another place, which in almost every case will have already debated the instruments before us. These other
362
means—there are many of them—have included Motions calling on the Government to make amendments to the legislation, or Motions to adjourn consideration of it. Your Lordships will be well aware, too, that time is always made available to debate a Motion or a Prayer on an instrument. The House therefore has more opportunity to debate instruments than does another place where they are usually taken in a committee and where Prayers are very rarely taken at all.
Some of your Lordships may suggest that the convention which we are discussing is a lately-grown one. Again I would draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to this. He implies that it does not exist at all and others have implied that this is a relatively recent development. However, I think I am right in saying that the only occasion since 1945 on which your Lordships; have voted down a statutory instrument was on that famous occasion on 18th June 1968. Already it was; clear that your Lordships were, at least arguably, breaking a long-standing habit—I use the word cautiously in view of the noble and learned Lord's strictures a little earlier. Indeed, the late Lord Wade, speaking for the Liberal Party, as it was then called, said,
"custom has rightly grown up that we in this House do not reject an Order".
Since 1982 there has been no Division on a Motion to approve an affirmative instrument or on a Prayer to annul a negative instrument. In the 30 years preceding that I think I am right in saying that there were only about two dozen occasions on which such a Division was called. It therefore seems to me that your Lordships have for some time regarded this as an unusual step and chosen instead to seek other ways of recording your views. I suspect again, from what the noble and learned Lord said, that if we are not to use this power often, perhaps we are not as far apart—and indeed my predecessor and he were not as far apart—as we had feared.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will give way. I express my apology for interrupting, but I think it would be of very great interest if he were able to tell us on how many of those two dozen occasions the government of the day were defeated. It is rather important to know that because sometimes there might be what one might call a maverick vote rather than a vote on which there were strong feelings across the House.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always I ought to tremble before giving way to my noble friend Lord Renton. My researches have been far too superficial to be able to answer that question, which I acknowledge is an important one, off the top of my head. I wonder whether he would allow me to answer it in writing and perhaps put a copy of the response in the Library of the House because it is an important point. I apologise for not being able to answer it off the top of my head.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, described three classes of case, of which I am glad to say he has very kindly given me notice, in which he considered it appropriate that the convention might be

363
disregarded, and the House invited to vote outright on subordinate legislation. I have already today given a clear and unequivocal undertaking that the Government would not seek to pursue any deregulation order to which the House had expressed its opposition on a Motion on a report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I would submit therefore that there would be no need for your Lordships to vote against such an order. The Government also always attach great importance to the reports of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In particular we regard with the utmost seriousness any finding that an instrument constitutes what I believe is called "unexpected or improper use" of the powers delegated by the parent Act. Again, Henry VIII clauses make me all too well aware of how rusty I am on what I believe was the statute of proclamations of 1539 which gave rise to Henry VIII clauses in this context.
The noble and learned Lord's other class of case was where the order went beyond what the late lamented Bob Cryer called the "nuts and bolts" and raised a point of policy. The provisions of the parent Act would of course be crucial here. If they did not provide for such a use of the delegated power, then the order would no doubt be reported on by the Joint Committee as being ultra vires. If at the time the power was granted by primary legislation it was thought to be inappropriately wide, I am sure it is something to which the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee would draw your Lordships' attention. It seems to me that we are fortunate in having two such thorough watchdogs. I am pleased that in view of the substantial change that the deregulation Bill represents, such watchdogs have had, if anything, their powers enhanced as a result of the debate that we had a little earlier this afternoon.
I hope I have made clear the position of Her Majesty's Government. We of course acknowledge your Lordships' power to vote on subordinate legislation, but support the constructive way in which your Lordships have shown restraint in the exercise of that power. However, I believe that there is something else we ought to be aware of, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord can follow me here too. The existence of our unfettered right is not, in my view, otiose, even if we do not use it. The very existence of the power surely gives force to the other means which your Lordships have developed for expressing your views on subordinate legislation and so causes those views to be given full consideration should any unconstitutionally-minded government even think of not doing so. As I say, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for moving his Motion today. I am also grateful to him for moving it from last week when he originally proposed to raise this question because it seems to me that our business today fits naturally together as a result, particularly in view of the business which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is about to raise in the House. We
364
do not always achieve such coherence as business managers and I particularly look forward to hearing the views of the House on this as on all other subjects.
5.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House is of course, grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for raising this important matter and for the way in which he did so; and indeed for his timing. We are also grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for taking the opportunity to express the Government's views at the beginning of the debate rather than letting the debate take its course before replying to it. I am sure that was a wise decision.
This could be a trivial debate, an interesting debate, or it could be an important debate. It would be a trivial debate if we spent any time at all on the literal wording of the Motion to resolve. It is clear that the Motion to resolve is correct and that the House has an unfettered right to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration. That, I suggest, is not the issue with which we should be concerned if we are concerned with the future procedures of this House. It would be an interesting debate, but possibly no more, if we were to spend a great deal of time considering the semantics of the word "convention". The noble Lord the Leader of the House has talked about conventions, but of course there are all sorts of levels of convention. There are conventions which find their way eventually into standing orders. There are conventions which find their way into the Companion to the Standing Orders; like, for example, the Addison Rules. There are conventions such as the Salisbury Rules which do not appear in the Companion but appear in learned texts expounding the meaning of the Companion and the ways in which this House operates. There are also conventions which have grown up without ever being written down and yet have, by virtue of their own coherence and plausibility, achieved the support of the House as a whole.
The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee referred to the convention on statutory instruments as being a weak convention. I do not know whether a weak convention is a category in itself or whether it is more or less than an understanding. I do not very much care. What is important is that we should move from this interesting, semantic discussion to consideration of the much more important issue of the need for and future of delegated legislation and what action this House should take if it is accepted that delegated legislation should continue.
Various committees which have been set up by your Lordships over the years have considered certain aspects of this question. The Donoughmore Committee of 1932 considered in detail Henry VIII provisions. That committee has had occasion to be referred to in debate on a number of occasions, mostly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, but also by other noble Lords over the years as governments have attempted to impose Henry VIII legislation.
In 1973 the Brooke Committee considered the question of negative and affirmative resolutions and attempted to make some distinction as to the occasions on which one procedure should be adopted in preference

365
to another. The Renton Report of 1975—and we are delighted to have the noble Lord in his place and among the speakers today—considered what I believe to be the much more important issue of what should be contained in clauses, what should be in schedules and what it was permissible to include in delegated legislation. The report contained a great deal more, but for our purposes today that is the important issue.
Therefore, over a considerable period there has been consideration of what it is proper for Government to seek to put into subordinate legislation. I regret that in its report last year the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee felt unable to take that consideration further. I also regret that the committee found itself agreeing with the Government that the rights or wrongs should be considered case by case in each specific context.
I should have thought that as subordinate legislation grows —and there is no doubt that that is the case, and Bob Cryer's letter confirms what we all know—there is increasing need for proper consideration and analysis, and for the establishment of rules concerning what can and should be contained in subordinate legislation. That need has grown in recent years as a result of the degree to which European legislation needs to be considered by Parliament in subordinate legislation under the European Communities Act 1972 and subsequent European legislation. The need has increased further this year in view of the special provision which has had to be made for the deregulation Bill.
Therefore, there is no doubt that delegated legislation is a feature of government which will not go away. It deserves and needs to be analysed, categorised and considered carefully by this House if we are to take our responsibilities seriously.
Then we have to look not only at the degrees of delegated legislation but at the degrees of remedy. The extreme remedy is the remedy of rejection. It has been rightly said that that remedy has been adopted only in 1968 on the Orders in Council relating to Rhodesian sanctions. I cannot avoid saying from this Dispatch Box that we only come close to such rejection because we have a House which is fundamentally non-Labour, and indeed anti-Labour. It is, in fact, Conservative in its composition, although I am always contradicted when I say that. We come close to the point of rejection—not merely moving a Motion for rejection but having rejection carried—only when there is a Labour Government. Therefore there is a real party political issue to be considered here. It would be wrong for me to approach this matter without taking the view of the next Labour Government. The next Labour Government simply cannot afford the same degree of insouciance in relation to the powers of this House to deal with delegated legislation as a government which have very nearly, unless they make huge mistakes, a built-in majority in this House. There are other remedies which we shall have to take to deal with that built-in majority, and we shall use them. In the meantime, we have to consider the position of the House as presently constituted and our responsibilities.
One of those responsibilities relates to the issue of negative and affirmative resolutions. Again, I very much regret that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee
366
agreed with the Government that there was; no finite rule as to what should be dealt with by affirmative resolution or by negative resolution. A great deal of the detailed consideration of legislation in this House in recent years has taken the form, failing other means of amendment, of debate on whether what the Government propose should be dealt with by means of negative resolution or should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Any government will always resist increasing the pressure on the House by having a larger number of affirmative resolutions.
Yet at the same time, in our business over the period of a Session we find a large number of orders arising from earlier legislation which are subject to affirmative resolution but are never challenged. For example, paralytic shellfish regulations arise every year, but I do not believe that it can be said that those are matters of the highest political significance which deserve the prolonged attention of your Lordships.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, they are to the shellfish.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suspect that the shellfish are past it by that time.
If we were systematically to remove from our statute book the requirement for earlier, unnecessary, affirmative resolutions would it not be possible for the Government to be a little more flexible in permitting subsequent affirmative resolutions? There would be no net increase in the burden on the House, and our political effectiveness would be increased.
The other issue with which we have to be concerned, and some noble Lords will be, is the power of amendment. I have heard the view expressed on all sides of the House that subordinate legislation should be capable of amendment in the same way as primary legislation. Those who have no prospect of participating in government will find that a very attractive argument. Those who do have a prospect of participating in government will never find it an attractive argument, because in effect it promotes secondary legislation to become primary legislation. We have too much legislation as it is, and to increase the amount of legislation tenfold (there are some 2,000 orders a year which might be capable of amendment) would be to destroy the effectiveness of this House, or of any legislature, as a revising body. Therefore, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I am bound to say that the House cannot expect a Labour Government to permit amendments to subordinate legislation.
There are also degrees which may be used in expressing opposition. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is very skilled in finagling those degrees. He finds new words each time he puts down a notice of Motion for saying, in effect, that while the House will not overturn regulations it will very nearly do so and the Government are dreadful if they persist regardless. On occasions his Motions have been carried and the Government have ignored them. The wording does not matter. The point is that unless one actually overturns the Motion, then expressions of disapproval are no more than just that:

367
expressions of disapproval. They are not binding on the Government. It will be interesting to see what happens on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
This House must continue to preserve the unfettered right. However, the use of that unfettered right must be a last resort. From the point of view of the House as a revising Chamber, it is far preferable that we use all our influence on the Government to control the amount and type of delegation in legislation, the extent to which Ministers are able to use that right to extend policy rather than to implement relatively minor changes in existing policies which have been approved by Parliament, and to a lesser extent the degree to which this House has the ability to express its views on that subordinate legislation. However, above all the issue is the control of delegation.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, this is the third of the important debates initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We are greatly indebted to him again.
Perhaps I may describe what I believe to be the common aim of the debates. It is not so much to define the frontier of the powers of the House (that is established by statute) but to explore the no man's land—which is the way in which I describe the significance of convention—and (in the words of the noble and learned Lord today and on previous occasions, and my understanding of the issue) to narrow that ground.
I have been disturbed by the remarks of the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal was very careful indeed in saying what I believe to have been obvious from the beginning: that the Government accepted the Motion. They never had any choice whatsoever. But he then introduced an important "however" which we all know is an indication of a change of direction. He referred to accumulated wisdom. He stated that it would be rash to ignore past views. Indeed, he reasserted the use of convention in such a way as to negative the approval of the Motion which he had indicated in advance.
I was also bothered by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He said that it was trivial to spend time on the Motion. I do not believe that it is. I believe that the content of the Motion is important, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, indicated is the case. However, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, then used what I considered—I hope that he will forgive my using this word—a slightly menacing approach to the issue of subordinate legislation: that this House cannot expect a Labour Government to permit amendments to subordinate legislation. That may be a statement of fact; we must wait and see. But the very tone in which the view was expressed suggests to me that we cannot expect any change of direction from a Labour Government. With regard to the House today,
368
and to the extent to which subordinate legislation will take the place of primary legislation, that concern will not be diminished by any change on the Front Bench.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has had the privilege, which I have not had, of serving in a Labour Government. When he was a member of a Labour Government, did he urge at any time that there should be the power to amend subordinate legislation?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I do not believe that I did because at that time, as has been stated many times in this House, subordinate legislation was not the considerable consideration that it is today. Further, I was not a Member of this House; and we are debating the procedures of this House today. I rest my point there. I simply say that it is the role of this House always to scrutinise the intentions of government and to carry out its proper role within the constitution, irrespective of the government in power.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he referred in passing to the inhibition that we all feel. There is a certain inhibition within the House: that it is not seen to be legitimate; it is not accountable. In the debate of 19th May 1993 the noble Lord, Lord Renton, stated:
"There is no great clamour for revision of the composition of your Lordships' House".—[Official Report, 19/5/93; col. 1794.]
I have to say that I rather agree with him. Although it is not for me to say, I believe that it would be a mistake for any government to make the reform of the House of Lords the centrepiece of the first parliamentary Session. There is a great case for reform of our constitution, of which reform of this House should be part. But there cannot simply be a change to the composition of the House when we have so many urgent and important problems concerning poverty, unemployment, health, education and homelessness. The idea that we should be close to the people by taking up the first Session of Parliament on reform of this House—perhaps I may speak in a personal capacity—I believe is nonsense.
Indeed, I add—the view may be unpopular—that while the rational case is overwhelming on a democratic ground, if we are to restrict or get rid of the power of the hereditary peerage, those of us who are Life Peers must also look at our position. Life Peers are the product of arbitrary decisions. That does not enable us easily to claim a distinction which the hereditary element in this House does not possess. When reform of the composition of the House arises, I hope that attention will be paid to the question of how Life Peers are chosen and not only the situation regarding hereditary Peers.
I should like to see a reform of this House which more accurately reflected the composition of the electorate as indicated at general elections. Indeed, if the House contained 33 per cent. Conservative voting Peers, 27 per cent. Labour voting Peers and 15 per cent. Liberal Democrat voting Peers, and if other parties were represented by a group of 15 per cent., it would leave 22 per cent. for the Cross Benches, who could represent those people who do not vote at general elections. I

369
leave those thoughts with your Lordships' House as a rather neat way, I believe not previously canvassed, in which the problem of composition could be solved.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Dots he suggest that future Members of the House of Lords should vote in terms of the way that their party or non-party dictates rather than from their own knowledge, wisdom and experience and from having listened to the debate?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I neither said that, thought that, nor implied it. I simply speculated on how it might be possible in a simple way to solve some of the problems of composition which I believe inhibit the House in using its powers to the full. I believe that that has to be said. In the back of the minds of us all is the extent to which there is an illegitimacy in the second Chamber which means that, whatever our powers, there must be further conventions restraining our behaviour.
I even have some reservations about the Salisbury doctrine, of which the House as a whole seems to approve—at least as it was defined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in the debate of 19th May of last year. As I understand it, it suggests that Bills foreshadowed in an election manifesto are not Bills that the House should vote against. However, people vote in general elections despite manifestos and not because of them. Some of the worst Bills in my knowledge have been those included in manifestos— and some of the better ones were those thought up by governments thereafter. So to that extent I think that I must be a distant voice.
Perhaps I may come now to the main substance of the debate. I go back to what was said in the debate on the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill on Tuesday of last week by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. It was that text that I had in mind when I heard what the noble Viscount said today. In the circumstances which were described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in the course of the debate that the Government would be accepting the Motion before them but he then continued:
"I think most parts of the House would accept that there is a convention against this House voting against subordinate legislation".—[Official Report, 11/KV94; col. 867.]
He then referred further to the convention,
"which has been respected for some time by this House".
Thus I say again that I think that the remarks of the Lord Privy Seal were hedged around in a way which at least causes me concern and takes the edge off my welcome to the approval that the Government have given to the Motion.
Perhaps I may refer briefly to two occasions concerning secondary legislation which are examples of what I think the House should be anxious about. I understand that a Statement is likely to be made in the House about the future of local government reorganisation in England. I do not know its terms, but I would not be at all surprised if the House were told that the Government had wisely, and in response to what has been said in this place, decided to abandon the larger part of that reorganisation for an indefinite period.
370
However, at the same time, we may well be told that statutory instruments will come before the House with respect to certain parts of the United Kingdom. As noble Lords will recall, we have spent a great deal of rime discussing reorganisation in Scotland and Wales on the basis of primary legislation. But is it not strange that, having discussed Scotland and Wales on the basis of primary legislation, when it comes to England we are not allowed to amend any of the proposals or seek to amend any of the proposals put before the House? That gives me cause to wonder whether in those circumstances we should exercise restraint and not be prepared to vote against subordinate legislation in the form of statutory instruments unless we are going to place consideration of England well below consideration of what is proper in Scotland and Wales.
Again, I have seen a letter which I take for granted must be public property from the then Government Chief Whip to the Chief Whip of the main Opposition party dated 7th November 1991. It states:
"We are all agreed that we disliked procedural rows on the floor of the House, and that we would stick to the understanding that notice would be given before the Whip went out each Thursday, of any intention to divide on any motion relating to subordinate legislation in the following week".
If any attempt were made from the Back Benches to divide on a Motion,
"the front benches would indicate to the House that they could not support the intention to divide in such a way".
I said that that letter causes me concern because, not only is it the custom of the House, but it is surely part of our role in debating amendments to hear what is said from the Government Front Bench. There are times when assurances are given which are accepted by those seeking to move amendments. At other times the House is called to a Division. But it now appears that the understanding between the two Front Benches is that the House should not be free to exercise its judgment about whether to vote on a statutory instrument in the light of the discussion which has taken place, or if, indeed, Back-Benchers have in mind to do so, they will be discouraged from doing so on the grounds that the previous week it had not been indicated to be the intention of Members of this House to divide.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord makes assertions about what has been agreed between the two Front Benches. I have had the opportunity of looking at that letter, but the phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, used meant, I think we are all agreed, that it was agreed with the Liberal Democrats, or whatever they were called at that time, as well as the two Front Benches.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am sure that it was agreed between the Chief Whips, although the letter was exchanged between the Government Chief Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip. I speak if need be in a personal capacity. But I have to say that I believe that all Members of this House must be wary about anything which restricts their power of scrutiny. I cannot dispute an understanding which may have been reached, but surely I have the right—I hope all Members of the House have the right—to express concern. I do so. I took it for granted that the

371
letter was in the public domain and referred to it because I think it strengthens the view that the House should be concerned about the way in which we deal with subordinate legislation.
We shall bring this debate to a conclusion later this evening. Notwithstanding what was said by the Lord Privy Seal—which was a re-statement of what I understood to be the historic, if not the conventional, position—I greatly welcome the Motion and the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as an antidote to the view expressed by the Lord Privy Seal and the view held by both Front Benches and all governments in power.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, what my position would have been in government. Those of us who have served in government have sometimes made mistakes. That is why it is good to change a government from time to time, because there is a vanity of power, an arrogance which comes from wanting to get your own way and trying to persuade Parliament against its judgment to do things which the Government would find convenient. Whether or not we have been fortunate enough to be in government, we must speak our minds. My mind is to assert the power of Parliament against the Executive, whoever that Executive may be.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, with his usual courtesy, has passed me a note saying that, alas, he has to go to an important meeting at 6 o'clock.
Perhaps I may first say that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in his interpretation of what was said by my noble friend this evening, who I thought made an open-minded speech in which he reaffirmed your Lordships' constitutional right and power to vote against subordinate legislation, if we think it right to do so. I shall give one or two reasons why I think that this power is one which we should not hesitate to use.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, mentioned a very important power which may come up in the next Session and that is on the question of orders made in relation to local government in England. To me, it is unthinkable that we should not vote against those orders if we think it right to do so.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—who, alas, is not in his place at the moment—has done an important service in raising the matter and has given rise to a debate which, so far, has been very interesting indeed and wide-ranging. He said that the practice—I do not think that one should call it a convention; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he said that we must be careful of the semantics. The word "convention" generally means something much stronger than the mere practice of restraint which your Lordships have exercised with regard to subordinate legislation and not voting on it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said that the practice had existed for only 10 years. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for 15 years and during that time, within my recollection there has certainly not been any
372
vote against subordinate legislation. The restraint therefore goes back as far as 15 years. But I hope that in future we shall exercise our constitutional responsibility to a greater extent. We are free on all primary legislation, except Finance Bills, to amend it. It is an absurd anomaly that we can ask the Government and Members of another place to think again on amendments to primary legislation but not do so, when we feel it right and necessary, on secondary legislation.
I have to tell noble Lords, having spent 34 years in another place before I came here, that on some secondary legislation, as well as the primary legislation under which it is made, we are better qualified to pass judgment than are Members of another place. On some matters there are many noble Lords who have knowledge, expertise and experience that cannot be found in another place. I think particularly of judicial matters, defence and forestry; and I feel bound to say, because of the splendid work that is done by our European Communities Committee, that there is a depth of understanding among many of your Lordships on European affairs which just does not prevail in another place. That is in itself a very strong reason why we should be prepared to vote on secondary legislation when we feel it is right to do so.
Another reason why we should be free to consider it and vote upon it is—and I speak here from experience— that when it comes to considering either a negative resolution or an affirmative resolution in another place, it is generally listed at the end of the day's business— that is, after 10 o'clock, when most Members have gone home and the House is almost empty. For that reason, the contents of the secondary legislation and whether it should be passed are largely ignored. I really feel that because we have more time to consider it, and a greater opportunity to do so, as well as, as I said, perhaps greater skill in doing so, then we should use that power.
Reference has already been made to two important recent developments which I believe increase the need to use that power when we think it right. There is the question of the Scrutiny Committee alerting us to the use of Henry VIII clauses in primary legislation at an early stage when Bills have just come before the House. Now another situation will arise under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill: we are bound to have orders put before us which will require very careful consideration because they will amend primary legislation. We may be against those orders; we may think that they are wrong in principle and that they raise fresh questions of policy—it is not just a question of "the nuts and bolts", as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly said, that arise when we consider secondary legislation; it can and does raise questions of policy from time to time. I mentioned a third reason earlier in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank; namely, the question of local government reform in England. Those are three strong reasons.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, tempted me to follow up what he was saying by going into a further discussion on the Constitution. But I would just say this: thank goodness we do not have a written constitution! We have an ever-changing Constitution. We let it evolve.

373
We are not rash and quick to change it. But when new circumstances arise that require us to change it, then we do not hesitate to do so after careful consideration. We are now in a situation when we should evolve in the way that is suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
Finally, I feel bound to say—it was hinted at by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal—that, when we do vote against subordinate legislation, I am quite confident in my own mind that your Lordships will do so responsibly. I hope and believe that people will not regard it as just part of the Party game. That is not how we operate in this House—thank goodness! The Government will be fortified when they win a vote in favour of subordinate legislation. Therefore I would not have thought that they would object very strongly to a vote, if they are fairly confident that it is right. It is only if, across the House, there is a strong feeling that the Government and the House of Commons should be asked to think again that we should on quite rare occasions vote against it.
Those are my reasons. Before I sit down—I did say that was the final point and it was certainly my main point—perhaps I may just refer to a kind reference that was made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about the committee of which I had the honour to be chairman. I am glad to say that another member of that committee is about to follow me at once; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I have not in recent weeks or even months discussed this matter with him, but I am sure he will bear me out when I say that we were very careful to advise Parliament as to what should go into clauses, and advised that the broad intentions of Parliament should be clearly stated in Bills, whether or not there had to be detail in the legislation. We suggested that the detail should go largely into schedules.
It is now many years since the committee sat; but when we were sitting, we had not reached the stage in the evolution of our parliamentary affairs that we have now reached, so we did not make any particular reference to the question of what should go into statutory instruments. We were certainly against Henry VIII clauses; that was pretty clear. But taking it in the broad, I believe that we now have to resolve in our own minds that we have a constitutional power to use and when necessary, we should not hesitate to use it—and no government need be afraid.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Renton, under whose chairmanship I sat on the committee that bears his name and which reached unanimous conclusions under his guidance. I am very glad to acknowledge that that was so. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on only one of the points that he made; namely, that he hoped that in future the House would resort more frequently than it has in the past to direct opposition to subordinate legislation issuing from the Government. I shall explain why I think so and give one particular reason.
374
Before so doing, I want to say that, like so many other Members of this House, I am very happy indeed to accede to the Motion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He has done the House a service to emphasise that we are not in fact constrained except by—I shall not say "convention"—the practice of the House and what I shall call general political caution or the exigencies of politics from doing so, except as a last resort. To that extent I am in entire agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
I take the same view as the noble Viscount the Lord Privy Seal, the Leader of the House, whose speech I thought admirably and impartially reflected the practice of the House in this regard. That practice goes back a very long period of time. It should not lightly be disregarded.
I come to the particular point that I wish to make. If the House votes successfully against an order, whether it be an affirmative or negative instrument, it puts an unnatural constraint on the Government. By the "Same question same Session" rule, they cannot reintroduce the same Motion after it has been rejected without breaching that fundamental parliamentary rule. Perhaps I may quote from Erskine May as to what that rule is:
"A Motion or Amendment may not be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current Session".
As I said, that is a fundamental rule.
It would be absurd if one House or the other voted against the Second Reading of a Bill and the Government came back the next day and voted for it. It stands to reason that that is something which we must respect. If we vote against subordinate legislation, whether it is affirmative or negative, we put the Government into a very difficult situation. Either they have to amend it, in which case they can bring in an amending order because that is not the same question, or they can be obstinate and lose their business for the Session, which is a very serious matter for the Government, depending on the importance of the subordinate legislation.
In my opinion, no government of whatever complexion would be prepared to lose their business for the remainder of the Session. So they find themselves in the position of having to breach the "Same question same Session" rule. We should not put the Government into that position.
The locus classicus is the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations) (Sanctions) Order 1968. That was an order of the highest importance. It was a matter on which the Government had committed themselves; namely, to implement the United Nations sanctions order. They could not conceivably have let it slide for the remainder of the Session; nor could they amend it. They had only one alternative, which was to table a Motion which rescinded the previous order. In doing so, they broke the "Same question same Session" rule.
I submit that we do not want to tamper with the fundamental proceedings of Parliament in this way and should not do so except in extreme emergencies and as a last resort. I certainly believe that it is a position that the House should be entitled to take as a last resort but

375
not otherwise. I myself cannot believe that, on reflection, anybody would wish to place the Government in a straitjacket of that kind. It cannot be right that they should lose their business for a Session in subordinate legislation whereas they cannot lose their business, all things being equal, in main legislation.
For that reason alone I suggest that the convention or practice of the House, whatever we may agree to call it, should be scrupulously observed. For instance, the Motion by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to be discussed later this evening should be preferred to the Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The one is acceptable to our way of proceeding and the other is not. I hope that, if there is to be a Division, it will be on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
As to what should happen in the future, that convention or practice has stood the test of time. On many occasions it has allowed proper debate on an expression of opinion which does not wreck the subordinate legislation and in many cases it has averted a clash between the two Houses. Political consideration was quite rightly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Without that note of realism, this debate would have been floating in the air. He brought us down to the ground and it really matters.
In order to preserve comity—that is a word used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale— between the two Houses, we should endeavour to uphold this convention. It is a very elastic convention. Each Motion falling short of absolute reversal of the Government's proposal can be tailored to the occasion, as has been done. It has been a kind of safeguard or letting-off of steam, which has allowed expression of opinion without fear of confrontation between the two Houses and between this House and the Government.
For that reason I very much hope that a Motion directly opposing subordinate legislation should be eschewed except as a last resort.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. He brings very wise counsel to your Lordships' House. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this subject and giving us the opportunity to debate it. We have the opportunity to state the rules as they pertain today. It gives us the opportunity to reflect on the origins and history of those rules and on the current situation and allows us to give some advice as to what might happen in the future.
It may be useful to reflect on the basis of why we are here at all. We are all summoned to give our advice to Her Majesty on the arduous affairs of state. I paraphrase the Writ of Summons. I am sure we all recognise what it means. We give that advice individually, as individual Members speaking our minds, and we also give it collectively, either through our Front Bench spokesmen or by going through the Division Lobbies and standing on one side of the Question or the other.
376
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is right. This House does have the right to divide on statutory instruments, which effectively, is what we are talking about. But what is the purpose of that? Over the years in the development of our parliamentary system there have been shifts of power; first, from the divine right of kings to the land and property of feudal barons; and, more recently, from effectively the House of Lords to the House of Commons. That reflects the value our current society places on the importance of each and every individual member of society through the democratic process of elections to the House of Commons.
Our situation is rather like that of a family and I suggest that it is wrong for us, as the elders of the family, to seek to dictate to our younger family members. But we have a duty to provide wise advice. While we retain the right to provide our advice in the strongest terms—by dividing the House and trooping through the Lobbies as I mentioned earlier—surely it is far better, and our advice will be taken much more seriously, if it is uttered softly with no hint of threat.
When I came into this House I wanted my individual advice on the Prevention of Terrorism Act to be heard; I felt strongly as an individual that the Act was wrong and ought not to be renewed. I felt that the way to achieve that was to cause a Division in this House against the renewal of the Act. But year after year when I tried to cause a Division I did not even find a seconder. It is curious to think that when someone in your Lordships' Chamber asserted the right to divide the House and give Members the opportunity to vote on the issue—some Members were in favour of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and did not want to vote against it— those Members of your Lordships' House (younger, dare I say?) who could see the evils of the Act felt that it was more important to abide by the convention that we do not divide. I suppose over the years I have listened to the counsels of my colleagues and now realise that my advice may be better received by reasoned argument than by shouting, screaming, forcing Divisions and trooping through the Lobbies.
We would do well to ponder that point. Our advice is important. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned the whole range of qualities that individual Members of this House bring to it—the expertise, the knowledge, the background, the understanding. It would be a pity if that expertise and advice were denied the Government because it was offered in the wrong way.
Other factors come into this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was right when he referred to the contribution made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He injected into the debate an important note of political realism. It is worth reflecting on why we have subordinate legislation; why we have these statutory instruments—the 2,000 a year that come before both Houses of Parliament. One reason is because progressive governments who want to change things are faced with a conservative House of Lords and that conservative House of Lords has sought over the years to deny progress; to prevent governments moving society forward and reflecting the needs of modern society.

377
Parliament has therefore evolved a mechanism of enabling legislation. We give power to Ministers and circumscribe that power around by statutory instrument. We say in legislation that a Minister may do something subject to affirmative resolution or negative procedure. But the reason for those powers being used in that way is because of the conservatism of this House. We must be careful in the way that we use our powers. We must not persuade Members of the House of Commons and the Government of the day that was democratically elected to say that we cannot cope with the conservative element within our legislature that is holding us back, preventing the progress that our people need and therefore to take the powers that we have away from us. I would counsel therefore that we should seek to use our ability to advise the Government of the day rather than dictate to it.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is always interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I must say that I liked much of what he said. He was saying that as we stay longer in this place we learn more about how we can contribute effectively. I agree with him strongly on that. I certainly have experienced that. But then he came on to the fact that the Conservatives, as he saw it, were stopping all progress and I do not believe that that is at all right. It is nothing to do with the debate, but the amount of progress we have made over the past 10 or 15 years has been staggering. It may not be progress he wants.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords,—
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I shall not give way because we all want to get on with the debate. I strongly support the Motion and thank the mover for tabling and moving it. Much has been said about how important it is. Indeed, I am most reassured by the reaction of my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal that there is no question of the freedom to vote being taken away from your Lordships.
I should like to spend a few minutes following up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, regarding the need to study how secondary legislation should be handled in the future. I have no quarrel with how affirmative orders are handled as such. I have no quarrel with the majority of the negative orders laid and no quarrel with the need for Peers to be ever more vigilant over not missing any that should be prayed against. Indeed, I have no quarrel with the time being given to me, at appropriate times of day, whenever I wish to pray against an order so as to publicise my disquiet at it. I just hope that that situation continues into the foreseeable future.
My problem—I believe it is "our" problem—is that secondary legislation is constantly increasing, and that trend could be incompatible with the steps that may be taken to reduce the formal activities of both Houses of Parliament. My concern with secondary legislation therefore is not so much how it is handled, but the fact that we cannot amend it. Sometimes Ministers are helpful and circulate draft orders before they are laid. They may make some amendments as a result of
378
subsequent suggestions and then lay another order. That is most helpful. But the initiative is with the Government.
As my noble friend Lord Renton suggested, in the report to the House that we have been debating and in HL Paper 83 which we shall be debating later, there are the beginnings of a suggestion as to how we may incorporate amending secondary legislation in the arrangements for the procedures that are to be introduced by the deregulation orders, as discussed on the Motion earlier today. Perhaps the procedures for informal committees off the Floor of the House, as outlined in paragraphs 8 to 17 of HL Paper 83, are going in the direction of making it possible for the relevant legislation to which they refer being handled off the Floor of the House but with the right of all Peers, if they so wish, to attend. Suitably adapted, one or both of those procedures might be changed and adopted for affirmative orders whenever requested by any Lord. If there is no request for handling in that special way, there is no point in wasting the time to do it. Very nearly all of the negative orders go through without question and the affirmative ones go through very readily. If that works with affirmative orders, we could consider a similar approach for those negative orders against which noble Lords wish to pray.
I strongly believe that changes of this nature should be gradual and experimented with first, and should always safeguard the basic rights of all noble Lords to debate all the matters that come formally before the House, whether in the Chamber or whether in committee rooms outside. If those safeguards are incorporated we could come to an arrangement by which we could have amendments, when needed, to secondary legislation without waiting for Ministers to be kind enough to give us draft orders in advance.
I hope that there will be such progress through these various committees. I am heartened by their looking at these matters. In the meantime, I trust that the House will accept the Motion.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, your Lordships have indulged in a long session in introspective self-examination this afternoon and I do not propose to prolong that except for a very brief comment indeed. I should state, at the outset, that I do not speak as a member of either the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or your Lordships' Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation but in a wholly private capacity, so to speak. I join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and congratulating him on moving this Motion today. We all know that he is a vigilant guardian and a protector of the rights of Parliament and, if I may say so, in particular, the rights of your Lordships' House. He has brought to our attention on countless occasions the importance of this House properly examining and handling subordinate legislation. We are all grateful to him for his assiduous attention to this subject.

379
I really have nothing additional to add to the comments made by previous noble Lords on this subject. I wholeheartedly support the Motion moved by my noble and learned friend. Your Lordships should continue to be ever vigilant in the examination of delegated legislation and have no hesitation in properly exercising your powers in that respect. But, equally, I also believe, in agreement with my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton, that in the interests of good and also efficient government we should do so with a suitable degree of discretion and restraint. If we were not to exercise an appropriate duty of care your Lordships' reputation in this respect would be badly diminished. This House has been for a great many years, and continues to be, a bulwark against the exercise of excessive political authority. We need only look above us in this Chamber at the statues of 16 Peers and two Archbishops who prevailed upon King John to sign the Magna Carta, to realise how long this has been going on and to reinforce our determination to keep on doing our job in a prudent manner.
6.37 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I put down my name to speak to this Motion under a misapprehension that the procedure of the House would in practice prevent it from voting on deregulation orders under the terms of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. I only read the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, published on 23rd May, just before the debate and realised that I was out of date. I am satisfied—I hope I am right to be satisfied—by the remarks of the Lord Privy Seal today that this House will have both the right and, equally important, the means to be able to debate and vote on deregulation orders. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for moving the Motion as I support it absolutely.
On the powers and composition of the House, I should like to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who is not in his place at the moment. I do not know the facts and figures but I think that the House of Lords has given much more trouble to Conservative Governments, especially recently, than ever it has to Labour Governments.
6.39 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for introducing this Motion. If it is true, as I think it is, that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, the vigilance of the noble and learned Lord is one of those for which we have most cause to be grateful. We have also heard two speeches of quite exceptional quality, from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, each of them putting, I think as well as it can be done, the case on either side of the Motion.
My case for supporting this Motion is, in its essence, very simple. Parliament makes the law: regulations have the force of law. Therefore we must have the right to consent to regulation. The right to consent must include
380
the right to dissent. We do not want to have a formula like the famous conge d'èlive issued by King Henry II to the Dean and Chapter of Winchester: "We order you to hold a free election. Nevertheless, we order you not to elect anyone save Richard, our Clerk Arch-deacon of Poitiers". That is not what we in this House understand by consent.
I was most grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his recognition that the power exists. So with that recognition we are now debating the wisdom of exercising that power and it is to that point that I shall address my remarks.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that the convention we are discussing has stood the test of time. Even during the short time that I have been here—which, in the history of this House, is a very short time indeed—I have seen time wasting away some of the props of that convention. When I first arrived here I used to be told, usually by the Department of Social Security, that regulation was for minor matters.
Conventions are interlocking things. I had been going to say that convention was a two-way street, but I believe that that is a gross understatement. I believe that in fact convention is a roundabout and one person neglecting the rule of the road can make the whole lot break down.
The big change here, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, agrees, is the increasing press of business. It is that increasing press of business even more than the arrogance of power which is making governments use regulation for matters which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as minor. If I were to make a list of 100 measures introduced since I have been here to which I have found it most difficult to consent, I believe that something like 20 per cent. of those would turn out to be matters which have been introduced by regulation. If I were to make a list of the 10 measures to which I have found it most difficult to consent, at least one of those has been introduced by regulation.
When regulation is used for matters of major political controversy of this sort it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain a convention that we consent to these things without voting on them. I too should like to join in the welcome to the Lord Privy Seal who is, I believe, the fifth member of his family to hold this position. I should like to draw his attention to a remark made in this House in 1610 by Robert Cecil, the first Earl of Salisbury and also the first Viscount Cranborne: "When the King extendeth his uttermost authority he loseth his power".
So, as regulation comes to be used for more and more important matters, any convention of not voting against it becomes more difficult to observe. I listened with great care, and a large measure of agreement, to what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said about the use of the Motion to Resolve which, after all, is a procedure which I hope to use in a few minutes. That has the very great advantage that it need not preclude the reintroduction of the business in an amended form during that Session. I give that very great weight but again we are on a roundabout.
I would find the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, more persuasive if the Government had taken any action in response to the Motion which he

381
himself moved and carried in this Chamber on 6th July 1992 about a premium for those in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That was an important issue. Since I am making a critical remark I should like to say that, on the other hand, I want to express great gratitude to Mr. Alistair Burt for the care and courtesy with which he has listened to arguments on this matter. He is a Minister of great quality. But in the last resort care and courtesy is not a substitute for actual change and of that we have, as yet, had none.
That is the sort of thing which makes the use of the convention of the Motion to Resolve rather more difficult than it need otherwise have been. Were that not to be the case, I should be very glad indeed. I do not know what it is going to be. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal said that the power to vote down a regulation was a crude power. I agree with him and I regret it. But that is in the nature of the concept of regulation itself. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, may say, I do not believe that it is just the attitude of a future Labour Government that stands between this House and amending regulations. It is, as my noble friend Lord Tordoff put it, talking to me earlier this afternoon, the nature of the beast.
It is of the essence of a regulation to be unamendable. So if one believes that a regulation should be amended, it is essential that discussion should begin in private and confidentially well before the regulation reaches the Floor of the House. Here again I am back with the point that convention is at roundabout. If we are not to vote down regulations, then it must be possible to discuss the chance of changing such regulations many weeks before that actually occurs on the Floor of the Chamber. There would have to be give and take on that.
The other point is that we are concerned about the acceptability of what we do in the world outside. The ultimate nightmare of another place for many years when it voted taxes, has been that "they will not pay in the country what we give". Similarly, it should be a nightmare here that some day they may not accept the laws that we pass. Respect for the law is not as strong as it was. I regret that. When we think of respect for the law we should understand that in this country there is an indissoluble association between voting and consent and it is quite right mat there should be. So if a major, controversial piece of policy is introduced here in a form which we feel we cannot vote on, then it is harder for the world outside to consent to it. That is a very great pity and it is a conclusion which all of us should seek to avoid.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, told us that we are not going to get away with doing this sort of thing under a Labour Government. He reminded me a little of John Lilburn in 1646 saying, "My Lords, when you unhorsed the King you intended only that you should mount us and ride us in his stead". I say to the noble Lord that there is one remedy available to any government which cannot get their business through this House. That remedy is the creation of Peers. If a Government of which the noble Lord is a member does not use that remedy, then that is their responsibility and not ours. I hope that I shall not need to say that again.
382
The question of reintroduction in the same Session was one on which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, had a great deal to say. What exactly is a reintroduction and what is an introduction of a slightly different measure, is a point on which there is room for debate. I would hope very strongly that in cases such as the Southern Rhodesia Sanctions Order, where there is clearly urgency, there would on all hands be flexibility in interpreting the rules.
I understand the concern, especially of the Whips, that the power to vote down orders makes business intolerably slow to get through. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and for very much the same reasons, I do not think that that would happen. Since. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have once or twice been suspected—unjustly, I hope—of wasting the time of the House. That is a very painful suspicion. This is a place which depends on the relationship between us. If one is doing something which the House feels to be unacceptable, one does not increase one's effectiveness—and anyone with any sense at all knows that. That has been the quality of this House for many centuries. I do not think that it is going to change, so I do not think that we need to worry too much about restraint. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal talked about restraint. I cannot help but be reminded of Roy Campbell's On Some South African Novelists:
"You praise the firm restraint with which they write— I am with you there, of course: They use the snaffle and the curb all right, But where's the bloody horse?"
I hope that we will not live to have that said of this House.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful for the way in which this Motion has been received and for the contributions that have been made to this debate. I think that it is now clear that there was an attempt to assert a convention that your Lordships would not vote against subordinate legislation. I gave only two examples of that. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, gave others, including something that was said only last week by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I must say that when I heard the noble Lord say what he did I thought that his brief had probably been pre-cooked because it was already out of date by the concession which the Lord Privy Seal has made.
It would be impossible—indeed, it would be impertinent—to refer to all the matters that have been raised in this debate, but I know that your Lordships would wish me to put on the record our pleasure at the return to your Lordships' debates of my noble friend Lord Henderson of Brompton after his indisposition. Perhaps I should include the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, in that. I knew that the noble Lord could not stay until the end of the debate even if he were to speak in it, but then I heard that he was unable to attend because he had injured himself severely while gardening. There came to my mind the fact that the noble Lord had disregarded Hilaire Belloc's words:
"It is the business of the wealthy man To give employment to the artisan".

383
If the noble Lord was gardening, he was taking the bread out of somebody else's mouth and it serves him right if he was injured.
There are only one or two points to which I should like to refer briefly. The first is that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers; namely, local government orders. I found it difficult to gainsay what the noble Lord said. It may be that local government orders ought to be added to the three categories that were identified as those where your Lordships would be justified in voting against a statutory instrument.
The second is the point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and other noble Lords; namely, affirmative and negative resolutions. Affirmative resolutions are undoubtedly a far better and more effective method of parliamentary scrutiny of subordinate legislation. On the other hand, they take up time every time that they are laid because a debate must then take place. I thought that the noble Lord was right in suggesting that we ought not to prostitute, so to speak, the affirmative resolution procedure unless it is really justified. There is also this to be said: the Scrutiny Committee has been extremely discriminating on the subject of affirmative and negative resolutions. Its discussion with departments carefully probed the basis on which a department claims that something is a proper area for parliamentary scrutiny. The Scrutiny Committee signals by bold type where it thinks that the department in question has gone too far. I venture to suggest that a practice is now developing which is very valuable.
The other point is amendability. I venture to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that that is a breaking point. I cannot conceive of any government submitting to their subordinate legislation being amended because, as the noble Lord said, in effect, it means promoting subordinate legislation to the status of primary legislation.
In opening the debate, I should have drawn attention to the alternative technique which the noble Earl has developed and which is exemplified by the next Motion on the Order Paper; namely, presenting an argument for amendment. That seems very valuable. An alternative was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone; namely, that we could use more widely the scrutiny procedure which has been worked out in relation to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill. That seems well worth exploring.
Finally, although the matter of the composition of the House has been raised, it goes well beyond the scope of this debate. However, I venture to suggest with all respect that in a debate where such notable contributions have been made by the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, we should not dismiss too readily the political and constitutional intuition that seems to be developed by a political culture that is handed down from generation to generation. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Income-related Benefits
7 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That this House takes note of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee (Cm. 2609), and calls on Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 and to lay amended regulations which neither penalise British subjects returning to their own country, nor infringe European law.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry to take up your Lordships' time once again. I have said that the body of legislation is increasing and is being used for more and more important matters. I am sorry that it has to be me who brings that to your Lordships' attention.
The regulations to which I am calling our attention originate from a speech by the Secretary of State at the Conservative Party Conference in 1993 directed to the phenomenon of what has come to be known as benefit tourism —people from other countries within the European Union coming here and taking advantage of the benefit system, in effect, it is alleged, to have a free holiday. The language of that speech is something that it is not necessary for me to touch upon now; but I will say that it is agreed that the content needs to be taken seriously. If such a thing is taking place, we are prepared to agree that it is a mischief and that appropriate steps, if possible, should be taken to relieve it. But the tests that those steps should pass are that they should be practically workable and should not create a mischief worse than that which they prevent.
The difficulty which immediately faced the Government when they contemplated taking action to implement the Secretary of State's speech was the basic principle of European law: that we cannot introduce a measure that legally discriminates among the countries of the European Union. So whatever was done to French and German nationals would have to be done also to British nationals. That produced an original set of proposals which were referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which recommended, most unusually, that they be not proceeded with. That is a strong recommendation.
The Social Security Advisory Committee made three major criticisms: first, on the application to the Irish, upon which the Government have changed their mind, and I congratulate them on doing so; secondly, on refugees, upon which the Government have also changed their mind, and I congratulate them on doing so. But because of that principle of European law the Government felt themselves quite unable to retreat on the application of the proposal to British nationals.
The proposals are intended to introduce a test of habitual residence for eligibility for all the main means-tested benefit. income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. Habitual residence is a difficult concept in law. There are a great many tests to be applied, and some of them are tests of intention. Well, everyone who has tried to test intention in court knows that it can be tricky, and if one has to test it by several different tests which may provide contrary indications it becomes even more complicated.

385
We just do not know—and this, I believe, the Government do not dispute—whether British subjects who have been many years abroad, when they come home, perhaps in misfortune, perhaps having lost their jobs, will be found to be habitually resident and eligible for benefit or whether they will be found to be resident somewhere else and therefore not eligible for benefit.
So there is a major uncertainty in the heart of the system, and it is even worse than that, because it is not necessary in law that one should be habitually resident anywhere. I think that everyone has an entitlement to one country which they can call their own, where they can go back and feel that they are entitled to relief, help and support in an emergency. But if you are found to be habitually resident nowhere, you do not have that right anywhere. You are put in a position like a stateless person where you are sent, like the Flying Dutchman, around the world for ever and ever —and, incidentally, the KLM captain who christened his plane "The Flying Dutchman", I think, did not know what he had done.
I should like to ask the Minister, granted that there is a mischief here, why it was not possible to proceed by the use of the actively-seeking-work test, because it seems to me that that would have met the mischief fairly exactly, the mischief being that people were claiming benefit here who were not seeking work in this country. So if the appropriate remedy already existed, as I believe it did, why not use it?
This is not the first time that this type of proposal has been introduced in Parliament. It was introduced as an amendment to the Social Security Bill 1986 by Mr. Roy Galley, when it was defeated in Committee in another place by 23 votes to two, the other vote in favour being that of Mr. Harvey Proctor. The Minister on that occasion happened to be Mr. John Major, who said that the Government had considered such a proposal but that they had modified it;
"That is to say, we dropped it".
He said that if put into effect the proposal was capable of being extremely cumbersome and an administrative nightmare. He said that it would affect many British subjects who had a valid and understandable expectation that they would receive assistance from our social security system and who might have been excluded from that test. He further said:
"Upon reflection, we decided that it would be too rigid and too cumbersome and … would have enormously disproportionate administrative costs".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 27/2/86; col. 536.]
That is a point that the Government might well bear in mind.
British subjects, for good or ill—I think more often for good—have for a long time had a habit of travelling about the globe and involving themselves in business in other countries. That is likely to become more frequent because in the global market which is now developing, and in an increasingly deregulated labour market, it is increasingly likely that many people will be employed— perhaps by British companies—working abroad on contracts which last for several years and may be out of a job at the end of it.
386
The CBI has authorised me to say that, if the regulations should make it harder to achieve the mobility of labour which that demands, it would be extremely worried. I cannot see how it could be otherwise. If you are going to work for many years abroad, losing contacts, in a job which may not be permanent, I cannot see how you can regard that as tempting unless you know that there is behind you a home to which you can return and where you can rely on support. It will also affect people who marry foreigners, as many do, and who find that they are unable to come back.
Let us take, for example, a case which has arisen since the regulations came in: a woman of 63 has returned from the United States. Her marriage has broken up. She is suffering from a terminal illness. She cannot afford American health care and she no longer wishes to live in the country she associates with her estranged husband. She returned to Britain. She was found not to be habitually resident and was refused income support. That is an injustice. It is an injustice which under the regulations might have happened to any of your Lordships' sisters.
The regulations may also work unjustly for members of ethnic minorities who often belong to extended families, divided between different countries. Let us take for example a case that I remember my noble friend Lady Seear telling me about: a woman born in this country who was brought up by her grandmother in Nigeria. When she came back to this country it was a toss up as to whether she was going to be found to be habitually resident.
Let us take the effect of the regulations upon children taken abroad by their parents in circumstances for which they can take no responsibility who try to return to their own country looking for jobs and are found ineligible for benefit. I was telephoned a few hours ago by someone in that position. His step-father took him to New Zealand when he was 10. The family has now ceased to be employed in New Zealand and has come home. He wants income support while he looks for work. He has two job interviews next week, so he is looking for work. He has been found not to be habitually resident and therefore ineligible for benefit. Those cases are an injustice. The injustice will extend to certain professions which habitually travel around the world— aid workers and missionaries—and perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to the effect of the regulations on members of the Armed Forces.
Also there is considerable ambiguity in the regulations as to whether they will apply only to the claimant or whether they will apply also to the claimant's partner and children. All those are mischiefs. I do not usually shout about my attachment to my own country. Between friends, I hope that that is unnecessary. But it does not mean that that attachment is any less intense. A sense of having one's own country and a home to which one can return, to be entitled, as one's passport says, to the protection of Her Britannic Majesty, is something of very great importance. If we are seeing that devalued, as I believe we are, under these regulations, I regret that very deeply indeed.

387
We have a mischief created by the regulations and we have a mischief which was to be avoided by the regulations. Therefore, we must address the question of priorities. That necessarily raises the scale of the problem.
Officials of the Department of Social Security have told me many times that the department would never introduce a policy based on anecdotal evidence. It ought to have made the Gilbertian qualification because this is the second time that I know it to have done so. The department told the Social Security Advisory Committee that it had no idea of the number of people involved in the mischief that it wished to remedy. But it said that Home Office figures "suggested" that it might be about 5,000. That is a very shaky foundation on which to rest policy.
In 1986 Mr. Major was slightly more certain about it. He said that "the problem is minute". I am inclined to the view that Mr. Major was right.
What will happen to those people who return to what they believe to be their own country? They cannot obtain work instantly and yet they will receive no benefit. The likeliest outcome is that they will do what they did before the benefit system existed: they will beg. That is not something that I wish to see and it is not something which the Prime Minister wants to see. What are we going to do to the people who have no means of support because of it?
I quote again from Mr. Major in 1986:
"What is clear from all our habits and history is that when people are in desperate need it has never been the fashion in this country— nor would it be the wish of my hon Friends—not to provide assistance that is sorely needed". —[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 27/2/86; col. 537.]
In the light of those words, I ask the Minister whether he will consider in urgent cases in need of relief making income support available to people caught by that trap or whether he will, even at this late stage, consider withdrawing the regulations altogether. There is a possibility that they might be struck down by the European Court and it would be much better to withdraw them ourselves before that happened. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House takes note of the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee (Cm. 2609), and calls on Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 and to lay amended regulations which neither penalise British subjects returning to their own country, nor infringe European law.—(Earl Russell.)
7.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House is very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for bringing to its attention what we feel to be a serious injustice. His speech has covered extremely comprehensively matters in hand and he has our full support from these Benches.
The noble Earl referred to the speech of Mr. Peter Lilley at the Conservative Party conference in 1993. I would only say that the juvenile xenophobia of that speech has unfortunately clouded discussion of a serious
388
issue which should receive proper consideration. From these Benches we share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the regulations that we are discussing do not deal with the problem in an effective, just and efficient way.
The noble Earl has covered the ground well, so I can be brief. As he said, we know that the Social Security Advisory Committee has recommended that in their present form the regulations should not have been laid. He referred to the words of Mr. John Major when he was speaking as Social Security Minister in the other place on 27th February 1986. I should like to quote some other sentences from the same speech which the noble Earl did not quote. Mr. Major said:
"We dropped the proposal because we decided that a blanket test would be too rigid, too cumbersome, and perhaps too unfair for the purposes we had in mind … It could have excluded people such as refugees, British citizens returning from abroad, United Kingdom citizens on work contracts returning home, and missionaries who may have had a long connection with this country but who have been abroad for a long time".
As the noble Earl said, Mr. Major went on to say:
"There is also a practical problem. The administrative burden of establishing status alone would be onerous, and if we refined the blanket test to exempt certain groups or in the light of our international commitments, it could become an administrative nightmare".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 27/2/86; col. 537.]
We have heard from Prisoners Abroad, which is a reputable charity. It has pointed out that the regulations are likely to cause considerable difficulties for a number of British ex-offenders who have returned from overseas having been released from detention. It goes on to say that the people for whom it cares are a particularly disadvantaged group. All are British nationals with British passports, but they face being denied benefit because they are regarded as not being habitually resident in the UK.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal in terms with the very powerful legal arguments which have been produced about this matter. The arguments are: the decision of the Secretary of State in this matter is unlawful because Regulation 4 of the Income-related Benefits Scheme (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994 discriminate on the grounds of nationality, which is contrary to Article 6 of the EC Treaty; applicants have a right to an injunction to require the Secretary of State to afford to them the same facilities for free movement as are afforded to Irish nationals; decisions of the Secretary of State in this matter are in breach of natural justice; applicants have a right to damages for failure to implement Article 6 of the EC Treaty or, in the alternative, for breach of statutory duty.
Those arguments flow from considerations of natural justice, UK law and European law. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will not just brush them aside. Only today I received a letter addressed to my honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Frank Dobson, MP, from the Kentish Town Citizens Advice Bureau. It quotes from a reply which that bureau received from the Glasgow Benefits Centre about the habitual residence test. In the single month of September of this year 934 habitual residence test interviews took place in one

389
district with the following results: of the UK nationals, 143 passed and 130 failed; of the European Economic Area nationals, 77 passed and 141 failed; of the other nationals, 76 passed and 367 failed.
It points out that local officers have been given no extra staffing to administer the new rules. In view of the fact that there wen; 934 cases in one month alone, does the Minister think it is satisfactory that no extra staff have been made available to deal with that?
The letter states—and it is extremely worrying—that,
"we understand that new instructions were issued last week that officers should interview all people who have entered the U.K. in the last 5 years including people previously treated as not affected, such as E.C. workers and people with exceptional leave to remain".
I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with that when he replies.
The letter also quotes the Glasgow Benefits Centre as saying that asylum seekers will also be given a "less wide-ranging interview". There is anxiety that people who are already going through the process of having their asylum application determined by the Home Office should have to be interviewed also about their always extremely distressing circumstances by other staff. The letter adds that it is extremely concerned that the new test: legitimises and institutionalises racism in the delivery of benefits.
Why have the Government changed their stance from that adopted by Mr. Major in 1986? If the Government insist on having their way in this matter, Mr. Peter Lilley may find, as Mr. Michael Howard has found, that making policy at the Conservative Party conference represents a singular lack of duty on the part of the Minister of the Crown. My party is as anxious as any other to prevent abuse of the benefits system. However, unlike the Government, we have an equal anxiety to prevent injustice.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish (The Minister of State, Department of Social Security): My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the regulations and the problem that they address. While I may not be entirely able to convince the two speakers who have spoken, I hope that I shall be able to explain to them what lies behind the regulations and, perhaps, allay some of their fears.
I shall begin by pointing out that the problem with which we are faced is, to a certain extent, of our own making. Our benefits system is extremely accessible, and we have spent much effort in making it so. The rules are the same wherever one goes and are applied consistently. We have made it our business to simplify and to make the system transparent. We have no wish to put up barriers to our benefits.
Our desire to be straightforward has, unfortunately, led to some abuses which have been rather graphically described in press reports. For example—and this will perhaps explain to noble Lords the background to the regulations—I have with me an extract from the magazine Time Out of March 16th this year. It gives a number of examples under its headline "Continental
390
Drift". At the risk of boring your Lordships, I should just like to read out the quote from Frederic, a 28 year-old Frenchman, who is described in the article as,
"the stuff of which Peter Lilley's nightmares are made".
To be fair, I think that I should read the whole quote from Frederic:
"I have been working since the age of 14. I have no training whatsoever and came to Britain in July 1993 to learn English and find a job. I am fed up with doing short-term dead-end work. I am on Income Support—£44 per week—and get my rent—£48 per week—paid by Housing Benefit. I also work on the side to get enough to make a decent living. I know it is absolutely illegal. Not only that but I also get French unemployment and housing benefit. It takes a lot of concentration to do both systems at the same time. I am now a specialist and it is almost a full-time activity".
The article continues to say that Frederic is well aware of the argument going on about "benefit tourism" and frauds committed by British nationals. He also says:
"I am well placed to compare both systems: the British system is far easier to defraud".
That is an example of why we have arrived at the present position. However, it is not only the press that have given such examples. I also have with me a copy of an article from a Spanish magazine called Tribuna of 25th July. The article is of course in Spanish, but I shall spare your Lordships my Spanish which just about rises to a,
"Gin and tonic, por favor!"
Translated, the headline of the article reads:
"Youth: A summer holiday with money, but without working".
It also has a subtitle which reads, "In England"—the Spanish have obviously not heard of Scotland—
"thousands of Spaniards are pretending to be poor in order to scrounge a living".
The article goes on to describe the many and varied ways in which young Spaniards and nationals from other European Community states cheat the British taxpayer through abuse of the income support and housing benefit system. For example, while large numbers of students at language schools learning English—
Earl Russell: My Lords, has the Department of Social Security finally abandoned its objections to anecdotal evidence?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am attempting to give the background to what goes on. In fact, we have evidence from our benefit offices as regards what happens and I shall deal with that in a moment.
As I was saying, there are large numbers of students at language schools, many of whom unscrupulously take advantage of the safety net which we provide for people in this country. Moreover, the article to which I referred also advises potential claimants of the pitfalls to avoid when claiming such benefits. There is mention of young Luis from Madrid who says:
"It was just like living on 'Lucky Street', a madhouse, everyone having a good time all day long and without any financial problems".
I am perfectly sure—indeed, I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, conceded the fact—that that cannot be right. It is an abuse of our social security system. We need to protect the British taxpayer from paying

391
income-related benefits to all-comers—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will agree with that— especially when citizens of our own country would get fairly short shrift if they tried to carry out the same sort of operation elsewhere in Europe. I am sure that we are all at one in that respect.
The story elsewhere in Europe is quite different. The rights to safety net benefits, if they exist at all, often depend on holding a residence permit. Not unreasonably, one has to have lived and, in most cases, paid taxes in the country before one can claim benefits. Moreover, residence permits are normally granted only if one does not claim benefit. I suspect that that is pretty much a catch-22 situation. For example, in Luxembourg a residence permit cannot be obtained if one goes there looking for a job and social assistance is given only after one has been holding a permit for 10 years. Incidentally, one has to be over 30 years of age.
Similarly in France, getting a dole-out from the state depends on having a permit. The authorities there are not as strict as those in Luxembourg, because you can get a temporary permit after three years. The list is long and there are two countries which stand out as having very open systems; namely, ourselves and the Republic of Ireland. I hope that I have persuaded noble Lords that, so far as concerns the European scene, we are in many ways coming into line with the sort of rules and regulations, though not exactly, which apply in other countries.
I turn now to the regulations which are being prayed against this evening. The noble Earl is concentrating our attention on a particular issue involved in the regulations. The regulations provide that a person who is not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland has a nil applicable amount for the purposes of income support and is not entitled to council tax benefit and housing benefit. The noble Earl was kind enough to say that the Government had taken on board the point about the Republic of Ireland.
The regulations also make other exceptions. The main ones are as follows: EEA nationals who have the right to reside in the UK because of their "worker" status must have done significant work in the United Kingdom before claiming; people recognised as refugees under the United Nations Convention on Refugees by the immigration authorities—and I trust that that assists the noble Earl; people given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom by the immigration authorities; and a person given limited leave to be in the UK by the immigration authorities whose funds from abroad have been temporarily interrupted. The regulations also provide protection for existing claimants.
The test itself is one that is fairly well known in European circles: the habitual residence test to determine entitlement to some government services; for example, education grants. Case-law is well established: a person's place of residence is where he has his centre of interest.
The adjudication authorities will be responsible for determining where that centre of interest is. They will want to know, for instance, where a person's stable
392
employment has been and where are his ties, such as a family or a house; why has he come to the UK, how long has he been here, and his intentions; does he have a genuine commitment to living and working here, or are his established links and commitment to some other place?
All claimants need to be habitually resident, although in practice only those who come to the UK and claim benefit within five years of arrival will be tested. They will normally be asked to attend an interview to establish whether they are habitually resident in this country, or, if they are claiming because of their worker's rights, whether that work has been genuine and effective. Any decision to refuse benefit remains subject to appeal through the existing channels.
The noble Earl asked me a number of specific questions with which I shall try to deal briefly. Both the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a little play of some of the quotes from a speech made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when he was the junior Social Security Minister in 1986.I believe it is fair to say that the test referred to in that debate was, in fact, a test of immediate past residence and was very much tougher than the measures proposed in the regulations before us. Indeed, the Social Security Advisory Committee concluded that the 12 months' past residence test proposed in 1986 bears no resemblance to the new test. That conclusion is set out in paragraph 22 of the report.
The number of people involved has increased greatly since 1986. The chances are that with increased mobility around the world that figure could continue to increase. The noble Earl mentioned the figure of 5,000, which is the Home Office estimate. Evidence from our district offices shows that this problem is growing, and with the expansion of the EEA I think it is important that we have similar regulations in place to those in place in our fellow member states to prevent this kind of thing.
I do not believe the regulations are ambiguous. They apply only to the person claiming the benefit and I am satisfied that they are clear in that respect. That is also made perfectly clear in the guidance issued to local social security offices and local authorities, and our monitoring has revealed nothing to date to cause us concern in that regard. The noble Earl of course concentrated on the problem of returning UK nationals and quite rightly identified the difficulty we have, because of the impact of European law, in differentiating between fellow members of the European Union, and the European Economic Area in fact, and other people. We have to be on all fours, so to speak, or else we will fall foul of our obligations under the European Union.
These new regulations which we are discussing will change the arrangements for returning British citizens; there is little doubt about that. British citizens coming to the UK for the first time, and those returning home after residing abroad, will be affected. I think I indicated the way the regulations would operate and how that means that any British citizen who has come here to live within five years of claiming will have to show that he is habitually resident in order to be entitled to the benefits. As I said a few moments ago, I am afraid that

393
the provision whereby the regulations could be changed so as not to penalise returning British citizens would conflict with European legislation and that is one of the reasons why we have to broaden it to encompass everyone who is coming into this country from overseas. I believe the noble Earl accepts that.
The noble Earl asked me about Armed Forces personnel. I find it hard to answer this question because if a member of the Armed Forces is returning home from a tour of duty, I do not believe he will be eligible for income support because he will be in remunerative work. Therefore, I do not think that situation will occur and the question is a totally fictitious one. Members of the Armed Forces would not be eligible for income support for entirely different reasons; but perhaps the noble Earl has a more fertile imagination—
Earl Russell: My Lords, did the noble Lord see the cartoon in the Independent recently showing the troops in Bosnia ducking as planes flew over them and saying, "Here come the P45s"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government do not make policy as a result of cartoons, even cartoons in the Independent.
Noble Lords: It was in Time Out!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it was not a cartoon in Time Out; it was an article. I must take the noble Earl on a little. If he listened, as I am sure he did, to the point I made about the tests (I shall come to employment in a minute), he would appreciate that the fact that Armed Forces personnel were employed by the British Government would quite clearly mean they would pass the test with—dare I say it?—flying colours.
People have also been concerned about charity and voluntary workers. These people, like Armed Forces personnel, and indeed other people who work abroad for United Kingdom firms can, I believe, be swept up in the one answer. These people would remain liable for national insurance contributions, as are many workers who are posted abroad. This means that they should pay Class 1 contributions for the first 52 weeks of absence and then can pay either Class 2 or Class 3 contributions voluntarily in order to protect their pension position. A worker who has paid 52 weeks Class 1 contributions and who becomes unemployed or sick on return to the UK will be treated as having paid Class 1 contributions throughout his absence abroad and will therefore become entitled to unemployment or sickness benefit. Thus these people are protected.
Youngsters who, for example, give their services as volunteer development workers and people who go to work in a developing country for a voluntary organisation should pay Class 1 contributions for the first 52 weeks of absence if their earnings exceed the lower earnings limit which is currently £57 per week. If they are less, or the workers remain abroad after 52 weeks, they can pay voluntary Class 2 contributions which are set at a special low rate, currently £3.19 a week. If they pay these contributions, they protect their entitlement to all contributory benefits on return to the United Kingdom. This provision was introduced in 1986
394
following requests from individuals and in particular from the voluntary organisation, Voluntary Service Overseas.
We have been monitoring the cases of returning British citizens found by the adjudication authorities not to be habitually resident for income support purposes. I can tell your Lordships that in the first month of the test 144 cases have been identified and this compares to 790 cases found to be habitually resident. I can assure your Lordships that none of them were businessmen returning from short-term contracts, none of them were former members of the Armed Forces or charity workers or people who had been away caring for sick relatives or the like. These people were strangers to this country and were certainly strangers to the Pay-As-You-Earn system, the tax system or the national insurance system. They are people who were born in Commonwealth countries of British parents some 20 or more years ago and who have not set foot in this country until now. They are people who left this country many years ago to make a new life in another country and who now return because the economic climate in that country has deteriorated. They are people who have settled elsewhere, have married citizens of that country and who come here either for medical treatment or for the birth of their child.
Some of these people were taken abroad when quite young and have grown up in another society and who now come here many years later to further their education, visit relatives, or because they allege their marriage has broken down. I shall give your Lordships a few examples. I could detain your Lordships for some time with examples of these cases. I have not picked my examples deliberately but rather quite at random. There is the case of a man aged 23 who was taken abroad to the Yemen by his parents when he was under two years of age who is now making his first visit since then to the United Kingdom. He has failed the habitual residence test. There is the case of a woman aged 17 who has been given a one-way ticket to the UK by her parents. She was born and brought up in Nigeria, has not worked here and has made no arrangements as to what she was to do when she arrived here.
There is the case of a man aged 19 who has spent the past 11 years with his parents in Australia. He arrived in the UK in June 1993 and by October had received an 18 month prison sentence. Surprisingly his parents want him to return home; but clearly he does not pass the habitual residence test. There is the case of a woman aged 23 who spent 17 years in Pakistan before coming to the UK in 1989. She was here for a couple of years before leaving for Pakistan again where she married. She is now pregnant and has returned to avail herself of the NHS before returning to her husband in Pakistan. These are just a few examples of the claims that have been made for income support and have been refused on the grounds that the claimants have not passed the habitual residence test.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think he said that in the first month there were 1,100 cases that were tested. I have the figures from just one district which show that Glasgow alone had 934 cases in one month. It could be

395
that the figures I have were not collected on the same basis as those of the noble Lord but it certainly seems rather odd.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suspect that we are talking about two different sets of figures. I am talking about the cases of returning British citizens. I do not have the figure to hand which would include the kind of people who were mentioned in the Time Out article for example. I am concentrating on the point which I believe has caused noble Lords concern, and that is returning British citizens. Of course there may be teething troubles and that is why we are monitoring the cases which have been turned down for the habitual residence qualification. We accept that this is a new test, that it is complex and that in some cases it could be difficult to operate. We are taking care to monitor what happens.
Of course I understand that claimants who have come to this country will be extremely disappointed that they no longer have unrestricted access to these income-related benefits and find that they have to support themselves from their own financial resources. Although we have introduced the new test we have not removed the appeal procedure and the appeal system. The right of an appeal to an independent tribunal for people who are dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's decision is still there. The right to take one's case on a point of law to the Social Security Commissioner is still there. I know this right of appeal is being exercised by some people who the adjudication officer has decided are not habitually resident. A similar right of appeal exists in relation to housing benefit.
We cannot go back to where we were. I do not believe that further stories like those appearing in Time Out and foreign newspapers are acceptable to the British taxpayer. We as a Government—and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated agreement—are committed to reducing abuse of the benefit system. I think that all Members of the House will agree with that objective.
Nor, as I have already indicated and as I believe the noble Earl accepts, can we construct the regulations differently. Our European obligations require us to face up to our responsibilities for equal treatment. To nod through returning UK nationals, no matter how tenuous their links with this country may be, but to apply the residence test to other European Community nationals who come here to look for work would put us in breach of those obligations and would lead to an early challenge through the courts.
I can guarantee to noble Lords who are concerned that we shall continue to monitor the policy. Case law will develop, and we shall monitor that too. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the regulations will disrupt as little as possible all those whose centre of interest does indeed lie in this country and to whom we should all be quite happy to see income support and housing benefit paid.
396
I commend the regulations to the House as a means of preventing a small but annoying abuse of our income support system in this country.
7.40 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have no wish to take issue with the Minister personally. He delivered his response very well, but it was not a reply to the argument of the Motion. Since the arguments of the Social Security Advisory Committee have been available to the Government for a good many weeks they cannot plead ignorance of the likely lines of attack.
When the Minister said that he was going to explain the situation I had an uncomfortable double take of a story of my great grandfather, which turned out, I fear, to be all too apt. My great grandfather was once at a reception and was chatting to the Duchess of A when he suddenly leapt out of his seat and rushed across the room and began to talk to the Duchess of B. His wife said to him afterwards, "Look, Johnny, why did you get out of your seat and rush across from the Duchess of A and begin to talk to the Duchess of B?". "Did I? Oh yes, I remember. It was too hot where the Duchess of A was sitting". "I hope you explained that to the Duchess of A". "What? Explain? No. But I explained to the Duchess of B".
It is in that sense that the Minister has explained the regulations to the House. He has given us a vast body of anecdotal evidence which is directed to a point which is not at issue. It has never been argued that if these things are taking place they are an abuse. He has not addressed the point of the scale of the phenomenon. He has not addressed the point of whether the problem could be tackled under existing powers. In particular, he has not said why it is not possible to use the actively seeking work regulations. Most crucially, he has not addressed the question of priorities which is at the heart of the debate.
The Minister says that there may be teething troubles and there may be adaptation. There cannot be too much adaptation, because if the Government enforce the regulations on British nationals in a more lenient manner than on European Union nationals they infringe European law and the regulations fall.
The Minister tried to make out that the people he mentioned had nothing to do with this country. He cited the case of a person who was taken abroad at the age of three and brought back a good many years later. That is a situation in which I have been myself. I would take it most amiss if it were argued that therefore I had no connection with this country. My father had a six-month contract in America which expired in September 1939. In the autumn of 1939 transporting elderly civilians was not the top priority for such merchant shipping as we had available. There will be other cases which will be caught in that situation.

397
I believe that this is a fundamental failure in our obligation to give protection to British subjects. I believe that the Minister altogether failed to address that point. Therefore I commend the Motion to the House.
7.44 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 64.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Airedale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Avebury, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Meston, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Foot, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Gladwyn, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Tordoff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

398

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Inglewood, L.

Annaly, L.

Kimball, L

Arran, E.[Teller.]

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord

Butterworth, L.

Chancellor.]

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnock, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Northbrook, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cox, B.

Pender, L.

Prentice, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Deedes, L.

Renton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Seccombe, B.

Elphinstone, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Feversham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Finsberg, L.

Stewartby, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Swinton, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Tebbit, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Torrington, V.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
House adjourned at seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  BLOOD DONATION: AGE LIMIT
  BLOOD DONATION: AGE LIMIT
  MR. ERNEST SAUNDERS: LITIGATION
  MR. ERNEST SAUNDERS: LITIGATION
  HEROIN AND COCAINE SEIZURES: STATISTICS
  HEROIN AND COCAINE SEIZURES: STATISTICS
  DEFENCE DIVERSIFICATION: FINANCE
  DEFENCE DIVERSIFICATION: FINANCE
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL AND MEETING 4th-5th OCTOBER
  ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL AND MEETING 4th-5th OCTOBER
  HAMPSHIRE COUNTRY LANES: RIGHTS OF WAY
  HAMPSHIRE COUNTRY LANES: RIGHTS OF WAY
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCIES: DRAFT LEGISLATION
  ENVIRONMENT AGENCIES: DRAFT LEGISLATION
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES: REPORT
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES: REPORT
  N.I. HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES: INSPECTIONS
  N.I. HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES: INSPECTIONS
  N.I. SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY: REVIEW
  N.I. SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY: REVIEW