Sitting of 6 February 1995

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

    Disabled People (Access)
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on access by disabled people to transport facilities and vehicles.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): We are firmly committed to achieving fully accessible transport systems, and great progress has already been made. Hon. Members have received a copy of my mobility unit's annual review, which details many of the developments. We continue to take forward a number of initiatives to improve access to vehicles and, of course, transport infrastructure has been included in the Disability Discrimination Bill, which received its Second Reading on 24 January.
    Mr. Barnes: The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which will be before the House on Friday, applies to all means of transport, including buses and trains. The Government's alternative, however, although it applies to railway stations and bus terminals, does not apply to the
    2
    buses and trains themselves. How many people will be covered by the Government's legislation compared to the number who would be covered by the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill? Why have not the Government written on the face of the Bill that it will apply to the means of transport as well as to the stations from which people seek to move? It will be nonsense if people can turn up at railway stations, but cannot get on the trains.
    Mr. Norris: The Government take the view, I think rightly, that targeted initiatives, including specific legislation, guidelines, codes of practice and the setting of technical standards, are the best way in which to achieve workable and sustainable access improvements. Although it is, of course, always possible to set even higher standards than those to which the Government aspire, provided that one totally ignores the cost to the public purse of any possible assessment of costs and benefits, the hon. Gentleman should remember that this country boasts the best provision of disabled access for rail passengers on an inter-city system of any country in the world. He might reflect occasionally on that.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is often easier to build in proper access for the disabled when new facilities are being provided than when old ones are being converted? Does he also agree that the introduction of new systems of transport, such as the light rail proposed in Croydon, will provide not only improved transport for people but, more importantly, good and proper access for those with disabilities?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is right. We have made it a principle of new projects that they are fully accessible to the disabled. My hon. Friend is equally right in his implication that simply to require retrospective accessibility for the disabled to our transport infrastructure is high-flown words, but is extraordinarily difficult to deliver in practice because much of our infrastructure is Victorian in origin. It was built at a time when, sadly, the needs of the disabled were simply not taken into account. Realistic Governments understand that and plan a programme of change accordingly.

    Midland Line
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now make a further statement about the need for electrification of the midland line.
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Investment priorities are a matter for Railtrack in consultation with the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and the train operating companies.
    Mr. Skinner: Would it not make more sense for the Government to favour rail, especially the electrification of the midland line, rather than spend billions of pounds on motorway widening? Many projects, including the widening of the M1 between intersections 28 and 31, cost millions of pounds and many people object to them. Would it not be better to spend the money on rail and to favour rail rather than to widen parts of the M1? That would be a better investment in the end.
    Mr. Watts: The public expenditure settlement provides for investment in the coming year of about £1 billion in the railway network and about £1.8 billion in the trunk road network. In a balanced transport policy, it is clearly important to invest adequately in both modes. Railtrack is aware of the desire of local authorities and people in the area, in particular, for improvements to the midland main line and is about to embark on a study of the various options available for such developments. Railtrack will be working closely with train operators and local authorities during that study.

    Cyclists
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will outline steps taken to improve the safety of cyclists.
    Mr. Norris: Fatalities to cyclists are at their lowest since records began in 1927. We shall continue the improvement by means of education, publicity, research and advice to local authorities on cycling matters.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is it not true that the Government do not take cycling seriously, despite the fact that it is the most environment-friendly and healthy form of transport? Is the Minister aware that modern traffic conditions frequently result in the rights of cyclists as road users being totally ignored? When did he last have an invigorating ride on a bike? Will he get out of his chauffeur-driven ministerial car and experience for himself the conditions that cyclists face on the roads every day?
    Mr. Norris: I contemplated and instantly rejected a number of answers to that question. I shall confine myself to agreeing with the hon. Gentleman. Cycling has been hugely undervalued for many years. Ironically, because it was potentially dangerous, we said that we would discourage people from doing it, whereas many other countries have proved that, if one creates safe cycling conditions, one can greatly improve urban transport and encourage people to do something that is healthy for them and for the environment, so there is much in what the hon. Gentleman said. That is why we have committed £3 million to taking the cycling programme forward in
    4
    London, and why we are stressing the importance that we attach to cycling in transport policy and programme guidance.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Has my hon. Friend noticed the extraordinarily suicidal tendencies of London cyclists, who ride around with no form of illumination at night? Once upon a time, the police would have stopped such people immediately. What measures does he propose to prevent that from happening, as it is grossly unfair on motorists who have to try to avoid such cyclists?
    Mr. Norris: My right hon. Friend touches on an important point because there can be no excuse for cyclists not abiding by the principles of road safety, which are there entirely for their personal safety. They do cycling no good service. It is an extraordinary proposition that they can afford several hundred pounds for very expensive bicycles and even more expensive clothing, which is apparently de rigueur, but cannot afford a front light.

    Traffic Speed
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what he is doing to reduce the speed of traffic on urban roads.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): We are taking a wide range of measures to reduce speed-related casualties on urban roads, including speed cameras, major publicity campaigns and funding for local safety schemes.
    Mrs. Jackson: The Minister will be aware that a reduction of just 1 mph would lead to a major reduction in air pollution in our cities and cut fatalities by 7 per cent. and injuries by 5 per cent. He will also be aware that 92 per cent. of those convicted for speeding offences are men. Does he agree that what is required is a major public education programme directed at motorist aggression and the macho image of the man behind the wheel?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Or, indeed, of the woman behind the wheel. I share some of the hon. Lady's concerns and know that she has assiduously followed up her worries after a tragic accident in her constituency last year. Speed kills and the statistics of survival, especially for pedestrians struck by moving vehicles, improve considerably as speed drops. For that reason among others, I hope that she will be pleased to know that, in this country, we have 145 different areas with a speed limit of 20 mph.
    Mr. Mans: My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the huge reduction in pedestrian casualties that has resulted over the past two years from traffic calming measures. Will he ensure that his Department gives the highest possible priority to those by ensuring that local authorities carry out traffic calming measures in both urban and rural areas, because they seem to be the best way to reduce casualties and to improve the environment where people live?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know that he has taken a lot of interest in that subject, having introduced legislation on it. It is worth recording that 85 per cent. of pedestrians will die if they are struck by a vehicle travelling at 40 mph, while only 5 per cent. will die if they are struck by a vehicle travelling at 20

    5
    mph, so there is a considerable safety issue involved, and traffic calming measures can play an important part. My hon. Friend will welcome the fact that, over the three-year public expenditure survey period, we shall increase the money made available for local safety schemes.
    Mr. Tyler: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the statistics are even worse in the case of one of the most lethal threats on our roads—a heavy lorry travelling at excessive speed in urban areas, particularly if it is overloaded or has not been regularly maintained? Does he acknowledge that the inspection procedures need to be tightened up rather than relaxed? Will he now agree to meet a deputation from the all-party campaign called BRAKES—the campaign for safer lorries?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. Gentleman in which we bandy about figures on the most dangerous form of excessive speed on the roads. Heavy lorries can be extremely dangerous but so can motor cyclists who weave in and out of the traffic in central London. We all recognise the problem and the whole House is coming together to try to find ways to deal with it. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for local transport and road safety has already agreed to meet the deputation.

    Airfields
    Mr. Robert Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that there should be no new airfield on a green field site in the south-east.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Lord Parkinson said in 1990 that a major new airport on a virgin site in the south-east was unlikely to be realistic or acceptable. I agree with that view. Regional planning guidance holds Oxfordshire to be an area of restricted development, and it is hard to see how such a proposal could be consistent with that guidance.
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome his reaffirmation of long-standing Government policy restricting growth in Oxfordshire. Will he confirm that, as it is a private proposal that is not sponsored by the Government, the developers will have no access to compulsory purchase powers?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I confirm that the proposal is not sponsored by the Government. The Government do not sponsor airport proposals. My hon. Friend is right to say that the promoters which are not statutory bodies do not have compulsory purchase powers.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Secretary of State make a statement to the House on his press release last week in which he announced an intensification in the use of Heathrow airport? Are not the Government craven in their support for BAA—[Interruption.] Oh yes, they are. Does that not have clear ramifications for airports in the south-east? BAA, which the Government privatised, monopolises the three London airports. Stansted airport is underused and BAA is trying to get an extra terminal at Heathrow. The Secretary of State is supporting it by supporting the concept of doubling the number of aircraft coming into Heathrow. Did he not issue a press release so
    6
    as not to embarrass the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and other hon. Members with constituencies in and around Heathrow airport?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better for getting that off his chest. Last week, I answered a written question in considerable detail. I thought that it was quite a good answer, as did most people who bothered to read it, unlike the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Patten: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, although his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) was extremely helpful, it leaves a question mark over the possibility of a green field international airport in Oxfordshire or any other part of south-eastern or southern England? Would not the answer be for my right hon. Friend to freshen up the noble Lord Parkinson's guidance with a fresh announcement that makes it clear that he rules out the possibility of such an airport in southern or south-eastern England?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I understand clearly the worry that my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have expressed, and indeed experienced, about that issue. Subject to the legal advice that I have received, I have been as robust as I am permitted to be.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not absurd to encourage more and more traffic into Heathrow and to talk about the expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick when, for example, Stansted airport, which is a great airport, is underused? Obviously we need more ministerial direction and discussion with the airlines to encourage them there. If we cannot use incentives, perhaps the Minister can use something approaching a big stick.
    Dr. Mawhinney: There are those who value the importance of Heathrow and Gatwick, and the economic contribution that they make to the country. We got rid of traffic distribution rules some time ago but, subject to that, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that more use could be made of Stansted.

    Channel Tunnel Rail Link
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to specify conditions and limitations in relation to specific types of subsidies which will be available under clauses 30 and 31 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
    Mr. Watts: The level and nature of public sector support for the channel tunnel rail link will be determined by the outcome of the competition now under way to select the private sector promoter for the project.
    Mr. Shaw: Can my hon. Friend confirm that it is not the intention of the Government that clauses 30 and 31 should be used as a means of subsidising the channel tunnel, and that it is the Government's intention that the ferry industry and the channel tunnel should remain in fair competition with one another?
    Mr. Watts: I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety that there should be fair competition between ferries and international rail services. I hope that I can give him the reassurance that he requires. European passenger services will be privatised as part of the competition for the CTRL.

    7
    We have no intention of subsidising the private sector operation of international rail services, and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill contains no powers to do so.
    Mr. Madden: Whatever the subsidies are for the channel tunnel, does the Minister agree that many people were gobsmacked to discover at the weekend that, last month, the Secretary of State for Transport had cut the security division at the department responsible for security on the channel tunnel, airports and ports of entry throughout the country, especially at a time when the threat of international terrorism remains? What on earth is the Secretary of State thinking about by sanctioning such a disastrous cut?
    Mr. Watts: No reductions are being made in any front-line security services in respect of any transport mode. I believe that much of the media coverage at the weekend, especially that on television, was visually misleading, in that it showed Metropolitan police officers and security staff checking baggage at airports. They are not employed by my Department; they are not part of Transec.
    In the Department, we are considering improving the efficiency of the administration and the guidance and oversight of security measures at airports and other transport facilities. There is absolutely no impact on front-line security, which is one of our highest priorities.

    South-east Railways
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the requirement to replace old rolling stock currently in service on south-east railways.
    Mr. Watts: Estimates of rolling stock requirements for rail services are currently a matter for British Rail.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that he is showing in the future of the ABB Carriage Works in York. Will he assure the people of York, and also Kent commuters, that if, in response to British Rail's latest invitation last week, ABB makes proposals to provide new trains on the south-east region, especially in Kent, at the same cost as or a lower cost than continuing to deploy the old, clapped-out trains—some of which are dangerous, extremely dirty and not conducive to persuading commuters back on to the railway—he will do all that he can to ensure that British Rail exercises its option to build those trains, and build them this year?
    Mr. Watts: On 1 February, last Wednesday, British Rail wrote to the manufacturers of Networker trains, ABB and GEC Alsthom, inviting them to say by Friday of this week, 10 February, whether they would wish to have an opportunity to submit proposals for a further tranche. BR has made it clear that any proposals must satisfy the private finance initiative criteria, recognise that the economic case for early scrapping or redeployment of existing rolling stock is weak and take into account the planned privatisation of the rolling stock leasing companies. The British Railways Board is willing to consider proposals from manufacturers which meet those criteria while recognising the order position of the rolling stock manufacturing industry. Any proposals which BR
    8
    brings forward for assessment against PH guidelines will be considered as a matter of urgency by my Department and by myself.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: That is a load of claptrap. Has not ABB already submitted a detailed assessment of the amount of work which it could do? Is not ABB tooled up for an existing order? Is it not the Department—not Railtrack—that is doing those bizarre things, and forcing ABB to start all over again and submit a new tender? Why does not the Minister have the guts to admit that the Government are wiping out the manufacturing of rolling stock in this country, which will cause a horrendous loss of jobs?
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady should know that it would never have been a matter for Railtrack. On the previous occasion we debated these matters, the hon. Lady indulged in fairy tales. She has now, in her own words, moved on to claptrap.
    Commercial decisions about the replacement of rolling stock are a matter for British Rail. I have explained on many occasions that the role which I and the Department have in those matters is in ensuring that the proposals fit within the requirements of the private finance initiative so that they can be taken forward.

    M1
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to assess the effect of widening the M1 on traffic on the surrounding road network.
    Dr. Mawhinney: All my Department's road scheme proposals are supported at public inquiry by assessments of traffic levels on the roads affected by the scheme. Following the publication of the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, these will now take account, where necessary, of induced traffic.
    Mrs. Knight: My right hon. Friend will know that whenever motorway widening is proposed, fierce dispute is never far behind. Is he aware that the three issues of particular concern in Erewash relating to the M1 widening are the need for sound barriers, the pressure of traffic on junction 25 and the village of Sandiacre and the need to connect properly the town of Ilkeston to the M1? Will my right hon. Friend's proposals take those three matters into account?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of those issues, due to the diligence of my hon. Friend. As part of the scheme to shield those living in Long Eaton, Sandiacre, Stapleford and Trowell, 3 m to 4 m high noise fences and mounds are proposed. I hope that that is of assistance to my hon. Friend. Further improvements to the scheme are difficult because it is hemmed in by housing. It would be better to service Stanton from new local authority links at junction 26. I hope that that will be of some encouragement to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. William O'Brien: In considering the impact of the widening of the M1 on trunk roads and urban roads, will the Secretary of State also consider the impact of the

    9
    widening of the A1 and the M62 in west Yorkshire, not only on the traffic on minor roads but on the environment of schools and properties adjacent to the roadways?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Yes, because the effects on all of the roads associated with a particular scheme are taken into account before judgments are made. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.
    Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend will know that the M1 passes through my constituency, and particularly through the village of Leicester Forest East. Is he aware of the strong opposition among residents of Leicester Forest East and Kirby Muxloe to the widening of the M1, and in particular to the possibility that the M1 will be widened by another lane? Is he aware of the concern there is about the impact that that will have on roads in the area?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that concern to my attention. I undertake to bear it in mind as we discuss the matters further.

    London Underground (Access)
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve access for disabled people into London Underground stations.
    Mr. Norris: For a number of years it has been London Underground's policy to improve access to stations as they come up for redevelopment. All new lines and extensions will be fully accessible. In October 1993, London Underground announced the dropping of all restrictions on wheelchair users on the system.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Minister accept that when people with mobility difficulties are asked to give 24 hours' notice of their travelling on public transport and about only 30 underground stations are wheelchair accessible, we are a long way short of a much-needed comprehensive programme? In his earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), the Minister referred to the financial difficulties in meeting that programme. Under his plans, how many years will pass before the majority of underground stations are accessible to people with mobility difficulties?
    Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important subject. Perhaps he might ask shadow transport spokesmen whether they are prepared to commit themselves to a capital programme to permit disabled people to access the public transport system. I fear that they will tell him that the problem is that a great deal of the underground system was built in Victorian times when, as I said earlier, the needs of disabled people were simply not taken into account. In many instances, remedial work will therefore be horrendously expensive. One estimate puts the cost of making London Underground wheelchair accessible at not less than £7 billion. No one could be more understanding and concerned about the needs of disabled people than me, but I think that a little realism would not go amiss.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that London commuters have seen real progress made in this area, with taxis and other parts of the transport system having been made wheelchair accessible? Does he agree
    10
    that it is hypocritical of Opposition Members to say that they oppose tax increases, yet say that we should spend £7 billion?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is quite right. I hope that the Opposition will produce a costed programme—if that is what they are offering—to show the public expenditure implications of a commitment to wheelchair accessibility on London Underground within a few years. That cost will be horrendous; my hon. Friend is exactly right.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister accept that his replies this afternoon have been complacent and mean-minded in the extreme? How can he justify introducing legislation that allows disabled people access to stations and bus terminuses, but not to the vehicles themselves? Are those people supposed to stand on platforms and wave goodbye to trains and buses?
    In the light of the figures that the Minister presented to the House, how can he justify the fact that the recent refurbishment of the Angel station has made it even more difficult for disabled passengers to access? Does he accept that he has a responsibility not only to almost 1 million disabled potential passengers in London who cannot access public transport but to ensure public access to public transport in the capital?
    Mr. Norris: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's high-minded and immensely sincere words must be backed by finance. He has to be realistic. London Underground's management has taken considerable steps in that regard and I know that, in his usual fair way, he will acknowledge that.
    All new transport developments and new transport systems offer full access to disabled people. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that in London we operate a largely Victorian-built system with deep tunnels, which makes it very difficult to introduce disabled access. If he can persuade his right hon. and hon. Friends to cost the programme, I would like to see that commitment. I believe that, when the chips are down, the hon. Gentleman's high words will cut no ice with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

    Traffic, London
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is proposing to speed the flow of traffic and in respect of parking in London and the surrounding boroughs; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Norris: Red route measures—allied to strict enforcement of parking controls on red routes by the police—will reduce congestion on London's main roads. Elsewhere, the new local authority parking enforcement system will substantially increase the resources available for parking enforcement, and thus help to tackle the problems caused by illegal parking throughout London.
    Mr. Greenway: What is my hon. Friend doing to increase the provision of parking, which is much needed in inner and outer London, especially in Ealing? Has he been caught in traffic jams on the approach to the wedding cake in front of Buckingham palace? If so, does he remember the great value to all traffic of being able to drive around the wedding cake? Is it really necessary to

    11
    block half of it for the Queen's safety? Surely she can be made safe and a right of way properly maintained to the benefit of London traffic.
    Mr. Norris: This is exciting stuff, but I fear that the roads in question are the responsibility of Westminster city council. I have encountered that interesting traffic experiment, and we must all wait to see how it works in practice. As for providing more parking space in central London, which was the thrust of my hon. Friend's serious question, I cannot give the guarantee that he seeks, precisely because the provision of parking, especially for those who commute into central London by car, is the greatest invitation to commuting, which produces the congestion about which my hon. Friend and his constituents complain. The control of private non-residential parking is more likely to play a part in urban transport planning in future.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that he must be much bolder if he is to reduce London traffic flows and clean up the air? He must seriously cut the number of parking spaces available in central London and, above all, of the planning permissions still being granted for new office development that include a large number of internal car parks, which are filled with the vehicles of expense-account motorists, whom we are all subsidising as taxpayers.
    Mr. Norris: Stripping some of the Marxist rhetoric from the hon. Gentleman's question—[Interruption.] I am sorry, Madam Speaker, perhaps not Marxist, but then I am an amateur in such matters. The hon. Gentleman's remarks contain the germ of a perfectly sensible idea. Government planning policy note No. 13 makes the same point and emphasises the importance of the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution. We all have choices to make about air quality, allied to our own wishes and the apparently increasing desire among the population to improve it. That is felt nowhere more acutely than in town centres.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress towards rail privatisation.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Preparations are under way for the stock market flotation of Railtrack. The first franchise contracts are due to be awarded by the end of 1995 and we plan to have 51 per cent. of them in private hands by April 1996. The maintenance depots of British Rail should be in private sector ownership shortly. The three rolling stock leasing companies and the freight companies are set for sale during 1995.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Secretary of State aware of the great concern and downright offence felt by Highland regional council because the Department has not seen fit to respond properly to the council's request, which it first made on 21 December, for a meeting arising from the franchising director's pre-emptive statement about the ending of the sleeper service to Fort William? The regional council will lobby the Scottish Grand Committee in the House on Wednesday morning, when it will meet to debate that and related matters. Will the right hon. Gentleman or one of his colleagues take the opportunity
    12
    to meet a delegation from the council to explain why categorical assurances given by the previous Minister to the region about the sleeper service have not been upheld?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the concern that has been expressed locally but, as I want to be fair, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the taxpayers' subsidy per person for a sleeper berth on the trip to Fort William, excluding the infrastructure cost, is £180. If one adds the cost of the infrastructure, that subsidy becomes £540. Given those figures, it seems reasonable that there should be public consultation, as there will be when the franchising director produces—
    Mr. Kennedy: That is wrong.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I assure the hon. Gentleman, and I think that he will accept this from me, that when the franchising director produces his passenger service requirements for ScotRail, there will be consultation on whatever proposal is or is not included with respect to Fort William.
    Sir Roger Moate: I welcome the progress that my right hon. Friend has mentioned towards rail privatisation, but should not we recollect that, under public ownership, the last Labour Government cut public sector rail investment year after year and that the Labour Government before that closed 4,000 miles of track? Does not that emphasise the fact that if we are to have a railway of which we can be proud, it will be achieved only through private sector investment and private enterprise?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Neither he nor I would want to add to the embarrassment of the Labour party, but, as I understand it, its proposals are to take British Rail back into the public sector, so that it can continue to decline in relative terms as it has for the past 40 years.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when the Railways Bill was being considered in Committee, Ministers promised that passenger train services would be franchised on the basis of the current timetable, whereas the franchising director has now revealed that there will be major cuts; that through-ticketing stations would remain as now, yet the Rail Regulator has now revealed that there will be huge reductions; that there would be no investment hiatus as a result of privatisation, yet this year, for the first time since the war, there are no new orders for rolling stock; and that Railtrack would remain in the public sector until last, yet it is being offered first for sale to fit in with the Chancellor's Budget arithmetic? Is not it true that every single promise that Ministers have made—that services would improve under privatisation—has now clearly been shown to be false? Is not it high time that the Government listened for once to the 85 per cent. of the electorate—including a majority of Conservatives—who now demand that the crazy idea of privatising the railways be scrapped?
    Dr. Mawhinney: To quote a distinguished former Prime Minister, "No, no, no." I will take time tomorrow yet again to try to explain to the hon. Gentleman—who has no idea how the private sector works, but given his background he would not—precisely the benefits that will accrue to passengers: wait until tomorrow.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Private Clegg
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Attorney-General how many representations he has received regarding the case of Private Clegg; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Since the House of Lords gave judgment in the case of Private Clegg, I have received as Attorney-General representations from eight hon. Members and some 23 members of the public.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the British public find it difficult to understand how in a rapid burst of fire, consisting of four shots at split-second intervals, the first three can be lawful but the fourth not, and that they may have concluded that, if guilt is established in this case, fault may lie with the law rather than Private Clegg? Will he and his colleagues in government review very thoroughly the circumstances of the case to ensure, if necessary, that the law is amended to accord more closely with the British sense of justice?
    The Attorney-General: I recognise, as does everybody in the House, the very difficult position that soldiers—young and less young—in Northern Ireland face in their exacting duties. That said, the law of Northern Ireland applies to all citizens. The facts of the case were carefully and independently considered by the prosecuting authorities and then independently adjudicated upon by the courts. I would advise my hon. Friend, and anyone else who wishes to study the matter closely, to read carefully the judgments of the House of Lords to understand how the facts were deployed.
    On my hon. Friend's final point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that this aspect of the law on murder and manslaughter is to be carefully reviewed.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: In the light of the representations that he has received, will the Attorney-General make known his view on tonight's "Panorama" programme on the Lee Clegg case, involving a mock trial? Does he feel any anxiety lest, given the haste with which the programme was made, it will not consider any of the new evidence acquired by Clegg's legal advisers? Indeed, the programme has not even interviewed them. Is the Attorney-General concerned about the effect that that might have on the due process of law?
    The Attorney-General: Like the hon. Gentleman, of course, I have not yet seen the programme that is to be broadcast tonight, and I shall not rush into judgment on it. Obviously, the subject as a whole is a matter of the greatest public interest, but I think that we can be confident that the Northern Ireland courts would not be influenced by such a programme.
    The important questions of public law that must be considered in relation to the murder-manslaughter issue will, as I have said, be examined carefully.
    Mr. Beith: Leaving aside the possibility of any retrial involving new evidence, may I ask how soon. Private Clegg could be released under the present procedures outlined to the House by the Prime Minister? Does the Attorney-General not agree that many members of the public think that Private Clegg should be released very
    14
    soon, given the time that he has already served and the fact that what happened occurred while he was carrying out his duty?
    The Attorney-General: The case of any young soldier in this position is a matter of the greatest public concern, but the question of release by the Secretary of State is a quasi-judicial one that must be looked into very carefully in consultation with the high judiciary, and treated accordingly. It would not be for me to say more about that question.
    Mr. Ashby: Like my right hon. and learned Friend, I am a lawyer. One sometimes finds that an excessively legalistic approach, such as that adopted in the Court of Appeal in the Private Clegg case, flies in the face of what the public see as common sense. The public often feel, in respect—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not heard a question yet.
    Mr. Ashby: I am just coming to the question, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: It is about time.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the public would be anxious for that excessively legalistic approach not to be used in any way to cover up an attempt to be too political about the outcome? In other words, does he agree that Private Clegg should be treated like anyone else?
    The Attorney-General: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the law applies to all citizens equally, but I do not think that he has been fair to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland, which examined the matter very carefully. That Court of Appeal first suggested the investigation of the area of law, which investigation my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is now arranging. My hon. Friend will wish to take that into account before issuing any further strictures.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Attorney-General gently remind some of his hon. Friends that a tragic case such as this should make us all thankful that capital punishment no longer exists in this country? Will the inter-ministerial review that was announced by the Home Secretary on 24 January be restricted to the narrow question of whether disproportionate force which negates self-defence can nevertheless reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, or will it consider the wider question of whether a mandatory life sentence for murder is appropriate? Will the inter-ministerial team consider the narrow issue or the wider one?
    The Attorney-General: My right hon. and learned Friend will study the hon. Gentleman's words, but I understand that the narrow aspect will be under consideration, rather than the entire question of the mandatory life sentence.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Attorney-General what measures are being taken to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service.
    The Attorney-General: The most significant current initiative to improve the Crown Prosecution Service is the introduction of team working, designed to give both

    15
    lawyers and support staff clear accountability and responsibility for cases from their receipt until their conclusion.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that improving the relationship between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service is crucial? Does he further agree that the recent steps to cut unnecessary police and Crown Prosecution Service paperwork are extremely welcome?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend on both matters. A very close working relationship between police and prosecutor is obviously essential. Each has an independent function, but they must work in harmony in carrying out those functions. The abbreviated files review has been in operation on a pilot basis in six police areas over the past six months. That six-month period will shortly come to an end, when it will be possible to evaluate the review and, I hope, find a way to cut paperwork.
    Mrs. Roche: Does the Attorney-General agree that another factor that would help the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service is better public support? Would not such support be helped if victims of crime were consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service before charges were downgraded or dropped by prosecutors? Is not it a disgrace that the Government failed to back Labour's proposals to do just that?
    The Attorney-General: I think that the answer to the last part of the hon. Lady's question is no, because I do not think that the proposals, in so far as they differ from what is already happening, were necessarily fully thought through. That said, the Crown Prosecution Service aims, in close liaison with the police, to keep in close contact with victims so that their attitude and approach can properly be taken into account at the early stages and at any stage when a charge has to be reviewed and possibly downgraded.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the police need to be encouraged by the Crown Prosecution Service taking up cases that are before it? Is he aware of the case in my constituency of William Cocklin, an enraged father whose daughter had been attacked by three young men? The police were called but they said that they could not take the matter any further because they doubted that there was sufficient evidence. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the police had taken up that case that father would not have taken the law into his own hands and ended up on a kidnapping charge?
    The Attorney-General: I am not aware of the details of my hon. Friend's constituent's case, but close harmony and close working between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are very important to ensure that the public and justice are served.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Spending Balance
    Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his current policy on the balance between (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral spending.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): The Government will continue to deliver a large and effective bilateral aid programme and are working to ensure that our substantial and growing multilateral commitments are similarly effective.
    Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend agree that the record tends to show that bilateral aid has been better targeted and provides better value for money than multilateral aid?
    Mr. Baldry: British bilateral aid is best. It is high quality and well delivered, which is why we want a bilateral programme that is as large as possible. It is also why this year and for the next three years, year on year, we have provided extra money for the aid budget. Of course there will be times when we have to work with other countries in the United Nations and in Europe, and we need to ensure that such multilateral aid is delivered as efficiently and effectively as British aid.
    Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister be a little more forthcoming about the balance that he seeks between bilateral and multilateral aid? Is there a level below which he thinks bilateral aid would not be viable?
    Mr. Baldry: No, we need to ensure as large a bilateral aid programme as possible. Clearly, sometimes we shall have to work with colleagues either in the United Nations or within the European Union to deliver effective aid programmes, and we have to ensure that there is a proper balance.
    Sir John Stanley: Given the huge diversion of our available overseas aid money to the European Union, does my hon. Friend agree that the imperative is greater than ever for the Government to take new steps to establish whether value for money is being obtained for this increasing share of our overseas aid budget? What steps are the Government taking to achieve that?
    Mr. Baldry: We want to ensure that development aid is effective and, of course, we need to ensure that European Union aid is effective. We are determined to ensure the greatest possible effectiveness of EU aid. A Council of Ministers declaration on development policy to the year 2000 was agreed in 1992, and it set out objectives for EU aid similar to ours. We seek to ensure that those are fully reflected in all EU-funded activities throughout the world. A number of Overseas Development Administration staff are seconded to key positions in the Commission to strengthen systems and to advise on key overseas development sectors. We are always seeking to develop contacts between ODA staff and their counterparts in Brussels, to share experiences and improve co-ordination. My right hon. Friend is right: we contribute a substantial amount of money to the European Union development budget and we need to ensure that every single penny of it is spent as efficiently and cost-effectively as United Kingdom bilateral aid.
    Mr. Enright: Will the Minister explain why the multilateral aid with the United Nations and the European Union that we are spending in Cambodia is not matched by our bilateral aid in that country? Unilaterally, the Government have treated our own non-governmental

    17
    organisations as though they were backpackers; they have not consulted them. Will he reconsider the ODA's unilateral decision to withdraw finance from those NGOs?
    Mr. Baldry: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing a number of issues. We support a number of projects throughout the world, including in Cambodia. Tragically, in recent months a number of United Kingdom citizens have been kidnapped and murdered in Cambodia, which has caused considerable sadness to their families and many other people. Cambodia is a distinctly dangerous country at the moment so it must behove the ODA, as a responsible employer, to ensure that those working with it are not put at unnecessary risk. The ODA has been in deep discussions with all NGOs working in Cambodia about the position—
    Mr. Enright: That is not what they say.
    Mr. Baldry: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been the clearest and closest consultation with NGOs in Cambodia. We co-operate closely and effectively with NGOs throughout the world and we want to carry them with us in our decisions. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been inadvertently misled.

    World's Children (Report)
    Mr. Brandreth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the UNICEF report on the state of the world's children; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Baldry: We have so far received a number of letters from hon. Members concerning the UNICEF report on the state of the world's children. The priority objectives of our aid programme reflect the goals of the world summit for children. Last year we gave more than £23 million to UNICEF.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my hon. Friend recall that in 1990 the world summit for children set specific goals for reducing deaths, malnutrition, disease and disability among children in the developing world? Does he agree that the report shows that the majority of countries, including the United Kingdom, have already achieved the majority of those goals? Although the report presents many challenges, it recognises many achievements, especially in immunisation programmes.
    Mr. Baldry: I certainly support what my hon. Friend says. We were all saddened by the death of James Grant, UNICEF's executive director, who did so much to promote immunisation. At the end of the 1970s, fewer than 10 per cent. of the world's children were being immunised and measles, whooping cough, tetanus and diphtheria were claiming the lives of more than 13,000 children every day of every year. For a decade, we and others have worked with UNICEF to ensure the immunisation of at least 80 per cent. of the world's children. The attainment of that goal and the sustained
    18
    year-on-year achievement of that target has meant the prevention of almost 3 million child deaths a year. That is an outstanding achievement, which is largely unrecognised.
    Miss Lestor: First, may I join in the tribute to James Grant, whose years of dedicated service to children and children's causes have been well recognised throughout the world?
    If the Minister and the Government endorse and welcome the report, and if we are to stay on target in the areas that the report highlights, how can the Minister allow the aid budget to deteriorate, as it has done, and stabilise at its current level of just 0.31 per cent., making us 14th out of the 21 development assistance committee countries—[Interruption.] I simply asked the Minister how he could justify that—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady and she put her question correctly.
    Miss Lestor: If the Minister has read the report, I am sure that he will share my concern that overall levels of aid from industrialised nations have fallen and that a growing proportion of gross national product is going towards the cost of peacekeeping operations. That cost has risen dramatically and the shift of expenditure from the causes of catastrophe to its consequences should be considered very seriously indeed. This is a new situation. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?
    Mr. Baldry: Let me help the hon. Lady with the various questions that she has asked. On the world summit for children report, of course alleviating poverty, especially among most vulnerable groups such as children, is the top priority of our aid programme. That is why the projects and programmes that we fund cover the range of education, health, child survival, water and sanitation, and child protection objectives that were agreed at the summit. For example, we provide assistance for street children in Brazil, Peru and eastern Europe, for slum improvement projects in India and for family and community health care in Ghana and Pakistan. Our emergency relief in countries such as Rwanda, Angola, Somalia and Sudan targets all people at risk, including mothers and children. We can be proud of that aid programme.
    On the aid programme level—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady asked three questions and I am seeking to respond to them. We have been through the aid budget before. If the hon. Lady considers the figures that were announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, she will realise that he increased the aid programme: it is a plus figure. We are the sixth largest aid donor worldwide. This year, our aid budget is £2.2 billion. The latest Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development figures show that the UK was one of only seven countries to increase official aid in 1993. If the hon. Lady considers the forward spending figures, she will realise that, for the coming three years, we are increasing our aid budget year on year.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Max Madden: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order of which I gave you notice earlier this afternoon. You will have read reports that Lord Lester QC has submitted evidence to a Committee in the other place, in which allegations are made that hon. Members of this House received money for asking questions and promoting commercial interests. Is any action being taken by appropriate Committees in this House to invite Lord Lester to submit any evidence that he may have in support of those allegations to Committees of this House, and to invite him to amplify any evidence that he has submitted to the other place in support of those allegations? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am conscious of the allegations that have been made about Members in this House by a Member of the upper House. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) can take action himself. He can refer the matter to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I hope that he will do precisely that.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following the inadequate answers at Question Time, have you had a request from Ministers to make a statement about the great public concern that exists about the Government's proposals to slash expenditure in relation to airport security?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not had such a request.
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the most unsatisfactory and misleading nature of the reply that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, may I give notice that I wish to seek an Adjournment debate on the topic of Cambodia and non-governmental organisations?
Madam Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can put it that way as he did not have the substantive question, but no doubt he will apply for an Adjournment debate in any case.
Mr. Mike Watson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have the Government given notice of their intention to make a statement following the extraordinary and loutish behaviour of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for industry and local government, during an incident yesterday when he allegedly attacked a demonstrator with a pickaxe and was subsequently interviewed by Strathclyde police? That behaviour was unbecoming of a Minister. Are we entitled to a statement in the House?
Madam Speaker: I have not received any indications from the Government to the effect that they are seeking to make a statement of that nature.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will of course be aware that on Friday the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who is the parliamentary private secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, effectively obstructed any discussion of a Bill designed to protect calves. He was not in his place today for the
20
questions that he had tabled and I assume that he had not the guts to respond to the points that would undoubtedly have been raised. Would you deprecate his discourtesy to you in that he did not even notify you that he would not be attending and did not withdraw his questions, although he had the time to come here on Friday and, with the connivance of the Secretary of State, obstruct a Bill?
Madam Speaker: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, a number of hon. Members are extremely discourteous to me and to Ministers by not informing us that they will be absent. They are always reprimanded. I was not in the Chair on Friday afternoon, but I followed Hansard carefully. Nothing untoward took place. The hon. Member to whom the hon. Gentleman refers certainly spoke for something like 25 minutes on Friday, but I noticed that an Opposition Member spoke on an earlier Bill for 30 minutes. I therefore think that it was even stevens.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. This matter seems to be giving rise to points of order with which I have dealt. We have urgent business before us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. Points of order concern breaches of the procedures of the House, not political matters or point scoring. If breaches of the House's procedures are involved, I shall hear points of order.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would have been apparent to anyone watching the BBC news on Friday evening that the appearance was given that the Bill under discussion had been talked out—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter. Whatever the appearance given on television, it has nothing to do with me. My concern is only for what happens in the House.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you assist by telling us what would be the constitutional repercussions, which would almost certainly be serious, if an organisation that is now £17 million in debt, which has only one asset valued at £9 million, which was about to sack a third of its staff and whose head was the Prime Minister, became bankrupt? What would be the constitutional position—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to deal with a constitutional question of that nature across the Floor of the House without further information.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Sit down. It is a total abuse of points of order.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. One at a time.
Mr. Toby Jessel: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. About a minute ago, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) attacked the reputation of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not

21
present to defend himself. Can it be said that the Under-Secretary said clearly on the radio at 1.30 pm that he had picked up the pickaxe—
Madam Speaker: Order. It is nothing whatsoever to do with me who said what on radio or television. I have enough to contend with, dealing with what happens in the House.
Mr. Nigel Waterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sure that you are aware that I am a co-sponsor of the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). I am sure that you are equally aware that the Bill, which has support from all quarters and from many widows, including some in my constituency, was objected to by Opposition Members on Friday. Do you have any powers to restore the Bill to its former position on the Order Paper?
Madam Speaker: The answer is no.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the light of your answer to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and in view of the fact that all matters that arise in the House are clearly under your control, will you confirm that it is none the less in order that any procedural matters that may be regarded as bringing Parliament into disrepute can be raised with the Nolan committee?
Madam Speaker: I think that I need notice of that question. If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I shall deal with it with all the seriousness with which it was asked.
Mr. Douglas French: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I seek your guidance in relation to another aspect of the events on Friday, when the Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill was objected to by Labour Members? On Thursday, I received from Opposition Treasury spokesmen an assurance that the Labour party would support all stages of the Bill on Friday. Would you confirm my understanding that if the Bill had passed all its stages on Friday, it would not have interfered with the progress of business in the Standing Committee considering private Members' Bills?
Madam Speaker: I cannot comment on guarantees given across the Floor of the House; that is nothing to do with the Chair. What support the two parties give or what commitment they give to a particular Bill is purely a matter of the relationships between the parties concerned.
Mr. John Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I also seek your guidance? As you know, I do not make a habit of raising points of order unless I have a feeling of genuine grievance. Would you seek a report from Madam Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair for the earlier part of Friday? A number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, came for an important debate on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Several hon. Members had written to say that they wished to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. We were discouraged from speaking out of a fear that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) wished to talk out
22
the Bill, as he had talked out, on the previous Friday, the Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill, which was supported by a number of hon. Members. Can nothing be done to ensure that a serious Bill, which has all-party support and which is first in the list for debate, can be debated properly over three or four hours without the danger of it being talked out by Opposition Members who seek to further the progress of their own Bills?
Madam Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising my Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman raised a question about the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair. I want to be clear about the point of order that he is putting to me.
Mr. Greenway: I was not criticising the Deputy Speaker; I was making the point that she would tell you about what happened earlier on Friday. A number of us who had written to you saying that we wished to catch your eye in that important debate felt dissuaded from contributing because we wished to avoid a repetition of what had happened the previous Friday when a Bill was talked out. This is a serious problem, which the House must address. If there is all-party support for a Bill, it is surely right that we should have a proper debate without the danger that one or two hon. Members will seek to talk it out so that they can further the progress of their own Bill. You will know that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has a Bill that will be before the House this Friday.
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The proceedings of this House rest with hon. Members themselves. I have read carefully the whole of the debate on Friday. I shall look particularly at the points that the hon. Gentleman has put to me. I shall see whether there is anything further that I need to do.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have finished with that point; I have dealt with it.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) spoke for only five minutes—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You gave a firm ruling—almost a rebuke—some weeks ago that in debates on education, Ministers should not seek to name the schools and sons of hon. Members, thus putting their education at some risk of media publicity. Given that the gutter press is now harping on that theme, can you at least instruct hon. Members not thus to put the children of other hon. Members in the firing line for the sake of cheap political points?
Madam Speaker: I have already given a firm ruling on that matter, on which the majority of the House supports the Chair. I am not concerned about the gutter press. Questionnaires come round to all hon. Members, including me. For some of them, I have something in my office that is called a round file, and they go there.

Orders of the Day

  Agricultural Tenancies Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.43 pm
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  In doing so, I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, which shows that I have an interest in a tenanted farm.
  I open the debate with three facts. First, if a landowner offers an agricultural tenancy for a term of two years or more, the tenant has virtual security of tenure for life under the present law. Secondly, when agricultural tenancies terminate, it is known that, at present, about 10 per cent. of landlords choose to relet their land only on the basis of protected tenancies. Thirdly, the proportion of land that is rented in England and Wales has fallen from about 90 per cent. at the turn of the century, to about one third now. I happen to agree with Labour's spokesman in the Lords, the noble Lord Carter, that the true figure is probably lower than that.
  I shall explain how those three facts are not unconnected. I shall also argue that this Bill, which has unprecedented support from within the industry, is well designed to address those problems: to tackle the decline in tenancies offered; to open up opportunities for new entrants; and to provide the flexibility for our agriculture industry to remain competitive in the face of increasing international pressures, as trade in agricultural products becomes freer.
  The Bill, combined with the recent announcement of the extension of relief from inheritance tax to new lettings, will have a major effect. Last summer, it was estimated that more than 300,000 more hectares—nearly 1 million acres of land—would be let, even without tax changes. The Bill would have revitalised the tenanted sector without the level playing field between tenanted farm and vacant possession in taxation. I believe, as does the industry, that the Bill, if enacted, combined with the tax changes, may well transform the situation for the better. As the Tenant Farmers Association said today:
  "it is a major step towards a revival of tenanted farms".
  Since 1875, there have been more than 20 pieces of primary legislation relating to agricultural, Iandlord-tenant law. Of those, the most important Acts have related to security of tenure. In particular, the Agriculture Act 1947, which was introduced by a Labour Government—led by a great Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Tom Williams—heralded a major change. That was because the landlord's notice to quit was made subject to consent being given by the Minister. As such consent could he given in exceptional circumstances only, the effect of the change was to give all tenant farmers who farmed their land efficiently complete security of tenure for life. At that time, when nearly two thirds of farmers were tenants, it was believed that that would contribute to improving agricultural output—rationing was still in place and the overwhelming national interest was seen to be the increase of home food production at all costs.
  24
  The most damaging piece of legislation was that introduced by a subsequent Labour Government in 1976. During the passage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, they introduced a series of fundamental amendments in Committee—in itself an extraordinary thing to do—which provided security of tenure, retrospectively, for two further generations of successors to an existing tenant, subject to certain eligibility conditions. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) needs no reminding of that fact, as he piloted the provisions through the Standing Committee. By taking the land out of the landlord's control for three generations, that legislation went almost as far as it was possible to go in the direction of security, short of confiscating the legal title from the landlord and giving it to the tenant.
  Reading copies of Hansard at the time and the background that goes with them, I find it impossible to avoid the impression that that legislation was driven through as part of the internecine left-right battles then raging in the Labour party. Let us remember that the national executive committee had proposed the nationalisation of land with support from left wingers in the Cabinet.
  Mr. George Foulkes: The Minister is discussing legal title to land. Surely he must be aware that some of the largest landowners obtained that title through murder, rape, pillage and all sorts of barbaric means. I am not suggesting that that gives any Government any authority to confiscate—far from it—but the right hon. Gentleman should be equally even-handed, when he comments on the rights of tenants, as we are when we comment on those hereditary landowners.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which is one of the largest landlords in the country. I am sure that its title was based on other methods of acquisition. I accept his challenge that we must achieve an even-handed balance and will return to my explanation of how the Bill will do exactly that in today's conditions.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Co-operative Wholesale Society is one of the largest owners of farmland in my constituency, is a good landlord, treats its farm workers well, is a major member of the Country Landowners Association and should not have ascribed to it the hideous activities that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) ascribed to landlords?
  Mr. Waldegrave: It was to defend the CWS against the accusations of rapine and pillage that I rose to my feet a moment ago.
  Be that as it may, even if those pieces of legislation were genuinely designed—I am sure that they were—to protect tenants, they have had a different outcome. The Labour Government turned out to be misguided. They ignored the crucial fact that the letting of land is a voluntary activity on the part of the landowner. The point is that the more restrictive the legislation, and the greater the security of tenure that it provides, the stronger is the disincentive to any landowners who might otherwise consider letting their land. As a result, tenants' interests suffer.

  25
  That is not just the wisdom of hindsight. The point was put fairly and squarely to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East at the time, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who later became a distinguished Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On 3 February 1976, he asked the then Minister, the late Lord Peart:
  "Will the Minister give an undertaking that that"—
  that is, not detrimentally affecting the supply of farms to let—
  "will be part of Government policy?"
  Lord Peart replied:
  "I believe that I can given that assurance".—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 3 February 1976; c. 443.]
  Later, on 8 March 1976, the then junior Minister, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, said:
  "A major issue, which I recognise Conservative Members have raised in good faith, is the suggestion that one effect of the clauses will be to dry up the supply of tenanted farms. I cannot agree that such an outcome will be significant."—[Official Report, 8 March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 115.]
  It turned out to be extremely significant. Having reached the position that we are in today, I very much hope, as does the industry, that the Labour party has learnt that lesson.
  Although we removed the succession provisions in relation to future tenancies in 1984, it is clear that the present restrictive legislation is still gradually suffocating the tenanted sector. The supply of new full tenancies has slowed to the merest trickle and the vast majority of lettings are on short-term arrangements. If one excludes succession tenancies, 90 per cent. of new let land is let in that way. That is how the three facts with which I began my speech are connected.
  Not surprisingly, almost everyone in the industry now agrees that corrective action must be taken. In response to that pressure from the industry, my Department issued proposals for reform in February 1991. There followed a long and thorough period of consultation with all the interested parties, including landowners, tenants, young farmers, Iand agents, valuers and others connected with the industry. In December 1993, an agreement was reached, which was supported by organisations representing all those interests, on the changes that were needed to the present system. The result is the Bill that we have brought before the House today. That consultation and continuing industry support gives us the confidence that this reform is what the industry wants and is what it so badly needs.
  Mr. Mark Robinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on bringing the industry together in introducing the legislation. At the beginning, the industry was not in agreement. There were differences between the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union but, thanks to the hard work of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, a great measure of consensus has been established and the Bill is now widely welcomed throughout the industry.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. It would be fair to give a good deal of the credit to my predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Education. But I hope
  26
  that the action that I have taken since arriving at the Department with my hon. Friends has taken forward the work that she laid in hand.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: While my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) was nearly right to say that the entire industry is in agreement on the Bill, will the Minister bear it in mind that that is not absolutely true? In some areas, particularly Cumbria, there is a certain amount of disquiet because it is felt that the proposals will not revitalise the tenanted sector. The Minister may recall that I am a tenant of land in family ownership of which I am part. I have received a letter from the National Farmers Union saying that certain tenant members of the Cumbria NFU are concerned about
  "the absence of any guaranteed minimum term since they believe that as farming is a long-term business a minimum term is essential."
  Although I do not believe that that is enough to cause one to oppose the Bill, I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind throughout its passage that some farmers are worried about some of the implications.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is right. I intended to return later in my speech to the substance of the argument made by what I think it is fair to call "the minority" in this matter, as that argument needs to be confronted head on.
  My right hon. Friend knows very much better than I do, because for several years he held the office that I hold, that it is a strange idea that unanimity ever exists in the British farming industry. I have never met a roomful of farmers who would agree wholly about anything—and if they all agreed about anything, some of them would change the opinions that they had earlier expressed, to ensure that they did not.
  My right hon. Friend, who was a member, will remember a famous cartoon from the Victorian "Punch" in the Farmers Club, called "The Grousing Room in the Farmers Club". So there is always a certain amount of fractiousness in our industry. I believe that he will perhaps agree with me that "an overwhelming consensus with some dissidents" would be a fair description of the position. There are also some dissidents in Wales, and I have spoken to some of them.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are a few in Lancashire.
  Mr. Waldegrave: As my hon. Friend rightly says, there are a few in Lancashire—another county where there are people of individual opinions. It would be very surprising to me if every Lancastrian agreed about any subject.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Would it be helpful to my right hon. Friend if I described my own circumstances? When I came to the House seven years ago, it would have suited me very well to let land, but on the present basis, I am disinclined to do so, and I have not done so.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend offers himself as a witness in support of the very argument that we are making, and it is a powerful witness, which is genuine.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mention has been made of the tremendous efforts that have been made to achieve consensus

  27
  throughout the industry—an admirable achievement. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) today issued a press release, stating that he will oppose the Bill?
  Considerable apprehension has been caused throughout the industry about the Opposition policy towards the Bill. My right hon. Friend will be aware that, in framing the Bill, he has taken considerable trouble to ensure that it is not retrospective—in other words, Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenancies will not be included in the scope of the Bill. Throughout the debate, will my right hon. Friend ask the Labour party whether, if it proposes changes in the future, it will decide not to make them retrospective? That would create some stability in the industry.
  Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. Doubtless the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will discuss it in due course. I was going to put that very question to him, because it would be fair. On other occasions, he has said that, should he find himself on the side of the House where I am now standing, he would inquire into how any Act that we passed was working before he amended it further. I am sure that we shall listen carefully to what he says today.
  Mr. Roger Knapman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps for the last time; then I must proceed.
  Mr. Knapman: I thank my right hon. Friend, who will be aware of the speech made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) during the 1976 debate, when he said that the Conservative party, by tradition, represents the landowners and the Labour party, by tradition, the farmers. However, in the case of the Bill, the National Farmers Union, the Small Farmers' Association and all the rest support the Bill, so surely it is reasonable to suppose that the Labour party will support the Bill at this stage.
  Mr. Waldegrave: It is disappointing that the Labour party does not support the Bill. I think that the historic analysis offered on that occasion by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was wrong. The landowners were usually the Whigs and the farmers were usually the Tories, and an element of that remains in some parts of the country.
  I shall now describe the main changes that the Bill will bring about. First, it will make diversification easier for tenants. Under clause 1, the parties may exchange notices before the tenancy is granted, confirming their intention that the tenancy is to be, and remain, a farm business tenancy. If they do so, the tenancy will remain a farm business tenancy if its character is primarily or wholly agricultural at the outset, and as long as the business conditions are met—that is, as long as some part of the holding is farmed for the purpose of trade or business. The effect of that will be to allow more flexibility for tenants, with the permission of their landlords, to extend their enterprise into non-agricultural areas, without calling into question the nature of their tenancy. That is useful in terms of the importance of the rural economy as a whole.
  Secondly, Iandlords and tenants will be free to agree how long a tenancy should last. That is the key to getting more letting of land. That freedom is crucial to persuading
  28
  landlords that it is in their best interest to let the land instead of taking it in hand or entering into contract farming, or some other arrangement. There is consensus on that point.
  The Bill prescribes a minimum period of one year's notice to be given to end tenancies of a fixed term of more than two years. Unlike the present legislation, there will be no grounds on which such tenancies can be terminated with shorter periods of notice. Nor will there be any grounds for issuing notices to terminate the tenancy before the agreed date, or to resume possession of part of the holding, unless the tenancy agreement contains provisions that allow for the exercise of such options. The provisions will give tenants extra certainty as to where they stand.
  On rent, the Bill will give parties more freedom than the present legislation to reach their own agreement as to the level of rent, subject to certain safeguards. Part II of the Bill allows the parties to agree on a fixed rent for the whole duration of a tenancy by stating explicitly that there will be no rent reviews at all, or they can agree that the rent should be adjusted according to an objective formula.
  If the parties do not agree such arrangements, they will be able to provide for rent reviews at a frequency of their own choosing. If they make no such provision, either party will be able to demand a rent review every three years. When rent reviews take place, either party has the right to demand arbitration, in which case the Bill requires that the arbitrator must determine the rent on an open market basis. That is described in clause 13. One cannot have only upward rent reviews. The reviews would have to relate to the open market, where rents might well have gone down.
  The Bill contains mandatory provisions on compensation for tenants' improvements. Unlike the present legislation, the provisions will override any agreement to pay less than full compensation, so there will be no scope for the "writing down" of the value of compensation, such as frequently happens now. That is a potential advantage to the tenant.
  Under the Bill, the definition of a tenant's improvement is wider than the one in the present legislation. It includes not only physical improvements, but any intangible advantage obtained for the holding by the tenant that is capable of increasing the value of the holding. An obvious example would be planning permission, which is dealt with specifically in the Bill, and there may be other items which may add value to the holding but which are not physical structures or operations. Provided that the landlord's written consent has been obtained for any such improvements, he is required to pay full compensation for them at the end of the tenancy.
  Mr. Foulkes: Can the Minister explain how that measure relates to milk quotas?
  Mr. Waldegrave: Milk quotas are an extremely good example, since milk quotas—as opposed to other quotas—are attached to the land that might have been obtained by the tenant, which would be for the benefit of a holding. Therefore, the tenant would have a right to compensation at the market rent for the milk quotas at the time of the ending of the tenancy. That is exactly the sort of requirement that the Bill now allows for, and there may be others in the future where it would be relevant. The tenant would need the landlord's written consent to buy the quota.

  29
  The tenant has the right to demand arbitration if the landlord refuses consent for a proposed improvement—other than planning permission—or if there is disagreement after the end of the tenancy on the amount of compensation to be paid.
  Finally, the Bill sets out procedures to be followed for the resolution of disputes arising under the Bill or under the terms of the farm business tenancy. The provisions provide unilateral access to independent arbitration, which represents a simpler and cheaper alternative to the courts, while at the same time leaving room for the parties to make use of an alternative disputes resolution procedure of their own choosing, if they so wish.
  I have described the main features of the Bill, which is welcomed by all parts of the industry, although there are some dissidents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale pointed out. Sadly, the Labour party does not seem able to shed the legacy of the past and to bring itself to support the Bill. Perhaps we shall hear differently today.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I take the Minister back to what he said about planning permission? What will be the position if a tenant who seeks to apply for planning permission is refused the necessary permission by the landlord? What will be his or her right of redress? I was under the impression that certain assurances were given by Ministers in the other place that the matter was being actively reconsidered. What is the current thinking on it?
  Mr. Waldegrave: We may want to discuss the matter in more detail in Committee, but I think that a landlord should have the right to say to a tenant that he does not want the use of his land to change without his perrnission. However, he could then find himself in the odd situation whereby he might be deemed to have agreed to a planning permission that he might wish to oppose on other grounds. We must look closely at whether there is room for arbitration in such disputes and, if so, how it could be handled. It is a special and interesting area and the hon. Gentleman was correct to raise that point.
  The Labour party does not seem to have adjusted or modified its attitudes on those matters. It produced a document on tenancy reform last September, which had some sensible things to say, but they are largely embodied in our proposals. On compensation, the Labour party document proposes that a landlord must pay
  "compensation equal to the increase in value of the farmland brought about by the activity of the tenant".
  That is precisely what part III of the Bill achieves. The Labour party document goes on to say—and this addresses the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale—that
  "it will be in the landlord's interest to keep tenants on for the full term of their tenancy agreement, thus both boosting the tenant's security and encouraging the tenant to improve the environmental aspects of the farm".
  That is exactly right and the Bill provides for it. If we combine the greater freedom to set terms that are agreed between the two sides with a strengthening of the tenant's rights to compensation, the balance will be right. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was correct when he intervened earlier to say that we should seek an exact balance. If the tenant is to be repaid for his investment, the landlord will seek a reasonable length of time—it will vary according to the
  30
  type of holding and so on—to ensure that the investment has been made. Equally, the tenant will be certain that, when the tenancy ends, he will receive proper compensation for his investment. The Government—and, more importantly, the industry—believe that that balance has now been set correctly.
  On rent, the Labour party document proposed a system of rent assessment to prevent tenants from being exploited and it claimed that
  "upward-only rent rises are enshrined in the Tory plan".
  That is wrong. As I explained, the Bill gives the landlord or the tenant the right to demand that an arbitrator should set the rent on an open market basis, which clearly could not be an upward-only review.
  Lastly, the Labour document mentions the fiscal system. It is fair to say that here it has been overtaken by subsequent events. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced last week that we shall introduce the level playing field between vacant possession and tenanted land for which the Labour party called. However, we are doing that by lowering the inheritance tax on tenanted land, not by increasing it on owner-occupied land, as I suspect Labour's rather opaque commitment meant.
  As hon. Members know, we have decided to extend the 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax on agricultural land to all new tenancies granted on or after 1 September 1995—the date when I hope that the Bill will come into force. I join my right hon. and learned Friend in hoping that the Labour party will at least feel able to welcome that measure, since its document states that such reform will be "very beneficial".
  Mr. Mark Robinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. The Opposition are always telling us about the importance of new jobs, and the Bill will be important to new entrants to the industry. Surely that is a good reason for the Opposition to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I genuinely believe that that is so. I hope that, even at this late stage, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will show a willingness to listen to the debate. I do not know precisely what his position is, as we have yet to hear from him.
  Many of the reasonable objectives set out in the Labour document have been achieved. The fiscal change is the icing on the cake, which is intended to help the revival of the tenancy sector and make it easier for people to enter the industry, to support the family farm and to increase jobs.
  Mr. Robert Key: In my county of Wiltshire there are 12,500 acres of county council tenancies, which are occupied by about 126 farmers for an average length of more than 20 years. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Bill will apply to county council tenancies? If it will, does he believe that it will breathe new life into a system that is not working at present?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The Bill will apply to all new tenancies after 1 September. Although county council tenancies have often been valuable in particular areas, I hope that the revitalisation that we shall see in the rented sector will mean that, if we can get the whole tenancy sector

  31
  moving again, it will become less necessary for local authorities to intervene in an area that is not their natural habitat.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Two or three minutes ago, the right hon. Gentleman described circumstances in which the landlord and tenant would decide that it was in their mutual interests to think long term and to plan over 10 or 20 years. However, when introducing the Bill, he said that all new lets tend to be short term. Why is he confident that the industry will think long term, when the history of the industry and the free market is of short-termism?
  Mr. Waldegrave: The present arrangement offers only life terms, which are too long and under which virtually no one lets, or Gladstone and Bower. With all the convenience of the latter tenancies, which are for only 18 months, people are not turned out after 18 months, but I believe roll on for 10 or 15 years—it has not been possible to make a proper survey.
  Another source of evidence is Scotland. The Bill does not cover Scotland, but the different partnership law in Scotland means that there is probably no need for it there—although there have been some calls for reform. One can arrive at the same effect using Scottish partnership law. The average length of Scottish partnerships is 10 to 15 years. When there is effectively a free market, as there is in Scotland with use of partnership laws, that is the average length of tenancy. It would be wrong—and I apologise for going on so long, Madam Speaker, and must try to make myself wind up—to set a single target in the Bill because it would by definition be wrong in more than half the cases.
  Mr. Foulkes: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman points out that Scottish law is a great deal better than English law in this as in other respects. I note from the schedules that the Bill amends the Coal Mining Subsidence Act 1991 and the Opencast Coal Act 1958, which apply equally to Scotland as to the rest of the United Kingdom. British Coal, which is a major landowner having a number of tenant farmers, is in the process of selling off its land—and unfortunately, not giving the first option to purchase to its tenants. Although this is not strictly covered by the Bill's provisions, is there any way that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry can persuade British Coal that it is in the interests of British agriculture to sell its holdings to tenants who have farmed them for a lifetime?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I must not go too wide of the Bill, but I have been engaged in discussions about that matter, relating to England, with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Steps have been taken, which largely meet the concerns that many tenants feel. Perhaps I may write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
  Mr. Gill: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to give an assurance that he will consider tabling an amendment in Committee, to allow members of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers the same status in clause 34 as members of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, in terms of drawing up tenancy agreements?
  Mr. Waldegrave: I am biased in my hon. Friend's favour, but there are other professional views on that
  32
  matter. Perhaps it should be considered carefully in Committee, but we shall give a fair wind to discussion of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East will show today that he can listen to the industry—I know that he can—and at least confirm that the Labour party will not once again damage tenant farmers with threats of retrospective legislation. Existing tenancy agreements are not affected in any way by the Bill. More rented land will become available both for existing tenants and for people who want to enter farming and get a start on the ladder. The package of reforms is workable and fair and is supported by the main industry organisations. It provides a flexible framework, which will create opportunities for new entrants, encourage investment and benefit the rural economy. It will also put British agriculture in a stronger position to adapt to the inevitable changes that lie ahead.
  The measure carries through an explicit commitment that my party included in its previous election manifesto. It has the warm and active support of the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, the Tenant Farmers Association Ltd., the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union. It is the right thing to do and I commend it to the House.
  4.15 pm
  Dr. Gavin Strang: The legislation that should govern the relationship between a landlord and an agricultural tenant is a matter that the House has addressed regularly for well over a century. Indeed, in years past—certainly in previous centuries and at the beginning of this century—that relationship was a large factor in major social developments. I refer to the enclosures, the highland clearances and the development of crofting, where people were driven off their land and moved to other areas of land. I think even of the Irish question, where that relationship has been an ingredient in Irish history over the past century.
  The number of people directly involved in those matters has fallen dramatically over the decades. The number of landowners and farmers is relatively small, but that does not alter the fact that the proposed legislation is important to them and, indeed, to agriculture and the countryside generally.
  As the Minister said, there have been major changes in agriculture, in the ownership and tenure of land, throughout the century. At the beginning of the century, there were more than 1 million farm workers in Great Britain; now the figure is down to well under a quarter of a million. At the turn of the century, there were more than half a million agricultural holdings; the figure is now down to well under a quarter of a million. As the right hon. Gentleman said—I do not disagree with him—at the turn of the century, some 90 per cent. of agricultural land was tenanted, whereas the figure now is probably less than 33 per cent. Those figures refer to England and Wales, because the Bill applies only there.
  There have been important changes in the industry. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to not only the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 but the Agriculture Act 1947, which, in some respects, is probably more important, not least because it has been in operation longer. Both Acts had the effect of holding in tenure land that might otherwise have gone out of tenure. The other side of the argument, which the Minister regards as a great concern to the industry, is that the existence of that

  33
  security for tenant farmers has been a major disincentive to landowners to let new land, and I shall address that issue.
  It is helpful to think about our objectives. Let us take a broader view, because, after all, it is a Second Reading debate. The first objective that I suggest—I do not put them in any order of importance—is agricultural efficiency. We want a farm structure and legislation that are conducive to increased productivity, investment and efficiency. Over the decades, many hon. Members, especially Labour Members, have argued that security is a factor in the productivity of tenant farmers, because, even if compensation is to be paid, security will be needed for investment purposes.
  The second objective is what I would describe as the defence of the social fabric of the countryside. That generalisation includes support for rural communities and the maintenance of rural employment. I have made the same point more than once in the last couple of years, but Labour has changed its stance. In the 1960s, a Labour Government used taxpayers' money to encourage farm amalgamations, but we no longer wish to do that; we want to encourage the maximum number of people to secure their living from the land. Most will be farmers, but we want as many farm workers as practicable, as well.
  If that objective is to be fulfilled, farming decisions should be made locally. We do not want huge operations and huge estates farmed from hundreds of miles away, with few people in the community working on the land or directly involved with it. We do not dispute the fact that some big farms provide a career structure: because of the current high capital values, one way for employees to enter the industry is to obtain jobs in such farming companies. That may be easier than entering it through a holding. We want the farming pattern—the size of farms, for instance—to adjust to technological advance and market forces. That factor must be taken into account, but it is not the Holy Grail.
  Our third objective—again, let me stress that I do not list them in order of importance—is social justice. The Labour party believes that the relationship between landlord and tenant is not equal, and since 1947—despite the number of Conservative Governments between then and now—the House has accepted that principle. Legislation has been needed to protect tenants, and since 1947 tenant farmers have been given security of tenure. We stand by that: we think it unjust for people to enter into tenancies without such security. Farming is a business, but it is more than a business; it is a way of life. People are investing their money in the land, and living in farmhouses. That is not just a business relationship. The Bill, however, takes us back to the days when it was treated almost as just another business transaction—almost, although not quite, a contract. The Minister made some important points in this context, however, which we support.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Given what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will he conider withdrawing his statement in a press release today that the Bill's aim was
  "to end security of tenure for tenant farmers"?
  34
  As those who have tenancies will keep them, and as the tax disadvantage of letting over a longer term will be removed, how can the hon. Gentleman possibly deny that there will be increased security of tenure in the letting of farms of this kind?
  Dr. Strang: I was referring to tenancies under this legislation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if the Bill becomes law as it stands, all future agricultural tenancies will be governed by it and there will be no minimum term. That will mean that security of tenure will not be a statutory right. Some landlords will, I hope, choose to continue to let their farms on the basis of a tenancy that extends throughout the working life of the tenant. There will be no legal requirement for that; far from it, because the provisions are designed to discourage it. That is what I meant in my press release to which the hon. Gentleman kindly referred.
  Mr. Knapman: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, why does he think that the Tenant Farmers Association supports the Bill's principles?
  Dr. Strang:: That is an interesting point. Conservative Members may laugh, but I suspect that the Tenant Farmers Association agreed with the National Farmers Union four years ago when the NFU was certainly arguing for minimum fixed-term tenancies. I do not think that the Tenant Farmers Association attacked that position, but I am happy to be corrected on that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so. There is not a jot in the Bill about fixed-term or minimum-term tenancies. The NFU also argued for compensation for disturbance, but there is not a jot about that in the Bill.
  I hope that Conservative Members understand what compensation for disturbance means, because it is a significant issue. It applies when a tenancy comes to an end prematurely, for various reasons. There is no compensation for abandoning it in advance of the end of a contract. My next point is arguable, but it could have been addressed in a way that did not encourage the fragmentation of farms from the farmhouse, a point that the Country Landowners Association made in its briefing on the Bill. I believe that the NFU advanced the point about security of the family in the farmhouse, but I do not know whether the TFA supported that.
  My question to the TFA and the NFU and the NEU—but not to the CLA, because I understand the position that it has taken from the beginning—is why were those guarantees worth obtaining four years ago but not worth obtaining in the final agreement?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Strang: I give way to the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).
  Mr. Michael Lord: Is not the reason that perhaps the Tenant Farmers Association would rather have tenancy agreements that are slightly less than perfect than none at all?
  Dr. Strang: I agree; but, under the Bill, tenancies are not just slightly less than perfect. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister have a background in farming. I did not

  35
  choose to farm, but I would not be happy about my son or nephew going into farming on the basis of a three-year or four-year tenancy agreement.
  Mr. Garnier: I assume that the hon. Gentleman favours more let land coming on to the market. How would enforcing a minimum term encourage that?
  Dr. Strang: That is a fair point. I am concerned not just about existing tenants but about future ones and their families. One must strike a balance between security and social justice for the tenant and trying to encourage the provision of more land for letting. We should address the issue of encouraging landlords to let more land. There should be some incentive and they should be encouraged to let it reasonably long term. I put it no more strongly than that.
  The Bill may lead to an increase in agricultural let land. Our concern is that it may not lead to a significant increase in the number of complete agricultural holdings that are let. As the House may be aware, many critics of the legislation, and especially those farmers who have heavily criticised it—I saw one of them being interviewed on television this morning—say that much of the land will be let short term, but to neighbouring farmers. I agree with that criticism. The land will be let to people who are already in farming, rather than encouraging the letting of new holdings and the whole structure of the family farm, which the Opposition support. I think that, probably, Conservative Members also support that.
  Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Strang: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but that is it—I will accept no more interventions.
  Mr. Gill: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's description of the historic pattern of tenancies, and I understand exactly what he is saying. However, I am sure that he would not disagree with the idea that times have changed and that it might be instructive to look at the commercial letting sector of the economy. Traditionally, in that sector it would have been usual for tenants to have a 21-year lease, with rent reviews at seven years; now, we see more and more advertisements with easy in, easy out terms for tenants.
  I know that the hon. Gentleman makes a distinction between commercial property and farm letting; so do I. However, times have changed and the change in the commercial sector has occurred because it clearly suits both parties, Iandlord and tenant. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, because times have changed, there must be a new look at farm tenancies.
  Dr. Strang: I shall explain to the hon. Gentleman why his argument is flawed. We cannot treat the letting of agricultural land in the same way we treat the letting of commercial property. There is a real market in commercial property: if the price is high, more is provided. That is how the market operates. That cannot happen with agricultural land because the amount of that land is fixed.
  As I said, my third objective is the need to maintain the social fabric, to keep as much employment as possible on the land and to allow as many people as possible to secure their livelihood from the land.
  36
  My fourth objective goes wider. I am sure that many landowners and farmers would agree with our view that they are holding the land in stewardship for future generations. During the past decade or two, we have rightly paid great attention to conservation of the environment. I am not persuaded that the encouragement of short-term lets and the insecurity of short-termism are the best ways to secure nature conservation, preservation of natural habitats and all the long-term wider countryside issues to which farmers, to their credit, are now responding; farmers are certainly much more environmentally conscious than they were in my father's day.
  I want to deal with the subject of new entrants. I appreciate the fact that the Minister referred to the consultation paper drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), which was issued in September. However, only a small part of that paper related to tenancy reform. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with the paper's main points, so I shall remind the House of them.
  First, there is the question of quotas. It is no accident that the traditional way into the industry has been through milk. That was because of cash flow. An individual—perhaps a farm worker, a farmer's son or someone from the town—entered the industry through milk because he knew that if he worked hard he would receive a regular cheque. Dairy quotas have killed that. Frankly, because of the present milk quotas I would not encourage anyone to borrow money to become a dairy farmer. As the Minister knows, we have suggested a practical scheme to deal with that problem. I hope that the Government will respond to it, but there is certainly nothing about it in the Bill.
  Secondly, we raised the important issue of the Government's refusal to implement the common agricultural policy retirement scheme for farmers. For Britain, we want the link between structure and retirement to be broken. It would be a positive step if we helped the older farmer to move out of the industry, thereby creating a vacancy for a new entrant.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Last year, I went to a presentation by the Farmers Union of Wales, which vigorously opposed the Bill. It forcefully made the point that the average age of hill farmers in Wales was 58. Many of those farmers cannot afford to retire. They are small farmers. They cannot afford to buy houses because they do not have the necessary equity—they are dependent farmers. Any step in the direction that my hon. Friend mentioned would therefore be a major help in relation to not only that social problem but released land for new entrants.
  Dr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. This is an important issue among farmers in the United Kingdom, especially in Wales.
  A third proposal in our document on new entrants deals with what have been called smallholdings; I prefer to call them county council holdings, because there is no need for them to be too small. Traditionally, such holdings were—I am glad that the Minister raised this point—an important route into the industry. I do not exaggerate their role, but it was significant. We should resurrect the role of county council holdings as a route into the industry.
  It is a matter of concern that, as a consequence, albeit an indirect one, of local government reform, the number of county council holdings may decrease further. We

  37
  should deal with that issue. If we are serious about new entrants, surely there should be something in the Bill on county council holdings. Again, not a thing is included.
  We raised the question of tax. The Minister is right. On that issue, I said:
  "Labour believes that we should look again at the tax arrangements for farm land. There is no doubt that some abuse is taking place and wealthy individuals are buying up farm land to reduce their tax liability. Labour is looking at how we can create fiscal arrangements which will encourage landowners to let their land under the traditional system of lifetime tenancies."
  That quotation comes from my statement at the press conference that we held on the document, but the wording of the document is not too dissimilar to it. The Government have responded, but the right hon. Gentleman is keeping up with the tradition that his predecessors have all lived up to—if the Conservative Government can get it wrong on British agriculture, they will. The tax concession will be linked to the new short-term farm business tenancies—the Minister made it clear that that is the intention. I understand—I do not know whether this is deliberate—that the proposal may apply to succession tenancies under the 1976 Act. The Minister nods his head. The proposal, however, does not apply to other land that is held in tenure for a lifetime.
  No doubt the right hon. Gentleman managed to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the proposal. It is a small advance, but, sadly, it is in the wrong direction. The Labour party wanted to consider the whole question of equalising the tax treatment of owner-occupied land and of tenanted land, but it should not have been linked to such short-termism. Under the proposed tax arrangements, a landlord has no incentive to let a farm, even for a respectable minimum term. We are interested in encouraging new entrants into farming and we do not regard the Bill as an adequate response to that challenge—it is totally inadequate. It deals only with the narrow question of making more land available for letting.
  Making more land available for letting does not necessarily mean that many new opportunities will be provided for young men and young women to become farmers. We must make the distinction between letting complete holdings and simply letting a few fields, or breaking up farms between the farmhouse and the wider farm. We believe that security is fundamental. Successive Governments may not have liked the 1976 Act—they were certainly fairly quick to repeal the aspects relating to new tenancies—but the Minister also made an implied criticism of the Agriculture Act 1947.
  Agriculture is not only a business. It is a way of life. Tenant farmers must have security, which is also in the interests of agriculture as a whole. Until 1875, all the legislation was intended to protect the interests of the landlords, but after that date it was recognised that protection must be given to tenants. Only if they had a reasonably long outlook would they look after the land. I heard it said on BBC television this morning that one should live as if one were going to die tomorrow but farm as if one were going to live for ever. Farming is a long-term business.
  We want to encourage the creation of new tenancies. It is not only wrong and socially unjust but against the interests of agriculture itself that young people should
  38
  enter into arrangements with minimum security and have an unequal relationship with their landowner, whether that landowner is an institution or an individual.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman has spoken for a long time about social justice between landlord and tenant. Does he agree that the taxation regime under the Labour Government in the 1970s, whereby landlords were taxed at 98 per cent. on their rental income, was wholly unfair? Will he pledge that, should we be unfortunate enough to have another Labour Government, they would not impose such a stringent and punitive taxation regime on landlords?
  Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman may have noticed a certain caution and hesitancy among Opposition spokesmen about making off-the-cuff statements about public expenditure and taxation. I am happy to share that caution, but I shall say that most people believe—rightly—that a Labour Government will not return to penal rates of taxation. I would regard a rate of more than 90 per cent. as penal. That is my assessment of the general position, but public expenditure and taxation are matters for the shadow Chancellor. The Conservatives tend to think of incentives only for the better-off, but we believe that there should also be incentives for medium earners and people at the bottom of the scale.
  There is a real advantage for the environment and the countryside in continuity and security. There are advantages in encouraging family farms and maintaining the social structure, for which security is needed. The problem is that the Bill will do nothing to encourage security; indeed, it implies that the Government have given up and that the land can be let for two, three, five or 10 years. We cannot support such a notion. The Bill will not result in a significant increase in the number of complete agricultural holdings let to new tenant farmers on terms that allow them to build a long-term business and to support not only themselves but their families.
  We believe in security of tenure for tenant farmers, and encouraging short-termism and the fragmentation of holdings is not the right way to proceed. On the contrary, that will do real damage to the fabric of our countryside, which is why the Opposition will vote against the Bill.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: I speak in my capacity as second Church Estates Commissioner. The Church Commission is the second largest agricultural landowner in England after the Crown. We currently own 148,000 acres comprising some 500 let farms averaging about 300 acres each. The value of this holding is about £210 million. As the Church Commission is in effect a parliamentary charity, every hon. Member sitting here has a stake in that gigantic agricultural land ownership. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that only one third of the agricultural land in England and Wales is now let land. I think that he and the House can gauge what a significant proportion the commissioners represent.
  I welcome the Bill and the support that the joint industry agreement managed, by a miracle, to impart to it but I must disagree with the allegation made by some critics that the Bill is a landlords charter. We do not regard that as a remotely fair criticism of the Bill. I believe that there is a genuine balance between the provisions for encapsulating security of tenure in the terms of a lease under a free contract between responsible and free parties

  39
  to that contract and the imaginative and generous provisions for tenancy compensation covering intangible assets, which will prove very attractive.
  I must say, almost in parenthesis, that because the Church Commissioners have come in for some criticism for the extent to which they are overextended in the ownership of property, it is their current policy to sell when they are able to gain vacant possession. However, there is no doubt that the freedom within a contract, introduced by my right hon. Friend, and the flexibility and encouragement that that produces for giving new tenancies, especially perhaps to younger applicants, means that when the Church Commissioners have brought their agricultural portfolio into a slightly better balance, they will be more inclined to look sympathetically at the new flexible provision.
  However, speaking on behalf of probably the largest landlord of let tenancies in England, I am bound to tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East that if the flexibility becomes circumscribed by minimum tenancy provisions of, say, 10 years, the Church Commissioners will not readily take advantage of my right hon. Friend's provisions but will tend to return to the current policy of selling whenever we get vacant possession.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to expatiate on how the philosophy that he has distilled to the House matches up to the description of the early Christians in the Acts of the Apostles:
  "And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
  Mr. Alison: It was also a feature of the arrangements in the early days of the Church and the New Testament that it was made very clear to the owners of property that they did not have to pool it if they did not want to do so. It was entirely voluntary and not compelled by the collective diktat of an overbearing, authoritarian, secular authority or even, in later days, by the fairly potent directives of papal power. However, I hesitate to pursue that idea.
  As I was saying, if there is to be a voluntary arrangement, the option that will continually face the Church Commissioners—whether to go for a sale on vacant possession or to turn to my right hon. Friend's admirable and flexible alternative—will depend and turn fully on whether he is able to maintain the flexibility in the Bill and resist the temptation to write in a minimum term of, for example, 10 years, as the Opposition have suggested. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that point in mind and that it will assist him in his policy of maintaining flexibility.
  Dr. Strang: I would not like it to be implied that we had suggested 10 years as a minimum term. I know that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to mislead the House; I think that he was probably talking about the
  40
  principle of a minimum term. I would not like anyone to think that the Opposition were arguing for a minimum term of 10 years.
  Mr. Alison: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that important correction. I apologise for attributing that particular time scale to the Opposition.
  Mr. Lord: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's attitude is crucial for the Bill? Although they may never be returned to office, who knows—
  Mr. Enright: Want to bet?
  Mr. Lord: As there remains a possibility that the Opposition might be returned to office, the fact that they oppose the Bill introduces a degree of nervousness which will seriously damage the whole purpose of the legislation. The Opposition can make their points and argue their case. It will be enormously beneficial if they then say that they will go along with, and respect, the legislation.
  Mr. Alison: I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and his colleagues have heard what my hon. Friend has said. When the time comes for tabling amendments in Committee, the Opposition may table amendments aimed at circumscribing the flexible arrangements in the Bill. Those amendments may prove to be exploratory, a good debate may ensue and the Opposition may not push their amendments to a conclusion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the anxieties of the Church Commissioners.
  When we come to the end of the necessary phase of selling on vacant possession, we shall look sympathetically at new tenancies under those flexible provisions as long as they are not too circumscribed. I hope that there will be no attempt to introduce special provisions affecting farmhouses on let agricultural land, such as residential shortholds specifically applying to farmhouses within a separate agricultural tenancy.
  The Bill is a good example of deregulation. Many of the points at present covered by statute will become matters of contract. That must surely be an important step forward in a free and liberal—in the best sense of the word—democratic society which believes in the ownership of property. I warmly support the Bill.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Derek Enright: I confess that the constituency of Hemsworth does not spring to everyone's mind when we are talking about matters agricultural. In fact, that is a basic error. Pit villages—the Hemsworth constituency is a series of pit villages—are surrounded by farms. Some of the farms were let out under British Coal and others were farmed by the tenants of large landlords in the area. One instantly springs to mind.
  Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Enright: Of course I give way to the hon. Gentleman who at least knows something about Hemsworth.
  Mr. Garnier: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has said. There are a number of farms in his constituency,

  41
  which I had the honour to contest in 1987. Of the 7,000-odd votes I managed to scrape up in Hemsworth, many came from the farmers whom he represents.
  Mr. Enright: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the fields that used to proclaim their loyalty to the Conservatives have moved to the Liberal Democrats and are fast on their way to the Labour party. I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest. Logic lives and thrives in Hemsworth.
  As my father worked on the railway and we had to go round the London and North Eastern Railway region, I was brought up in a place called Gaisgill near Tebay. All the farms there were small farms with decent folk—families who had been there for generations and who were tenants. They did not own their property in any way. The richest person was the lady who owned the village shop. Hers was the sole shop and all the small farmers had to buy from her because, unfortunately, public transport even then did not run people rapidly to Penrith.
  In thinking of those people, I am much reminded of ancient history, which I know that the Minister will appreciate. One recalls in particular the early Greek reforms—ges and anadasmos—and the whole problem of the threat to the stability of society caused by people who were landless and who were not part of society. It was well recognised that if there was to be stability in society, people had to have a stake in society. Even the most right-wing reformers were prepared to give certain guarantees to small people who could work on their land.
  The Minister will recall, in early Roman history, Cincinnatus the great consul. He was tired of state affairs—perhaps some of the Minister's colleagues might take a lesson from this—so he went back to the land and tilled the soil until, once more, the ungrateful Romans called him back. He had learnt his lesson behind the plough; that was the essence of it. The Minister will also recall that Cato the censor, who was by no means a radical left-winger, extolled the virtue of medium-sized farms. He extolled not the great farms—the latifundia—but the medium-sized farms. The idea is expressed most beautifully, perhaps, in Virgil's "Georgics". Virgil says that happy are the farmers who have their small estates. He speaks not of large estates or too-small estates, but of medium estates. Indeed, this country has grown in democracy as a result of the people who have served as yeomen. I think especially of the people who served under Cromwell.
  Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot resist a brief addition. The hon. Gentleman will remember the landless farmer in the "Eclogues" who left his farm, probably because it had been confiscated by the central Government so that it could be given to a soldier. If the protection, in terms of notice and so on, in the Bill had been available to that farmer, the situation would never have arisen.
  Mr. Enright: I note that the Minister refers to the "Eclogues" and to what resulted from civil war. I knew that we had social turmoil in this country, but I did not know that we were on the brink of civil war or that the Bill would prevent little farmers from having their land taken away during it. The Minister's point does not really wear; it is a bit thin. It is a very poor "Eclogue" anyway, as I think that he will agree.
  I now come to the point about British Coal, which is relevant to what the Minister has just talked about—the dispossessed farmer. After the privatisation of British
  42
  Coal, property that had been let to farmers and, perhaps even more importantly, to allotment holders—there are many allotment holders in my constituency—was no longer to be owned by British Coal. What will the property board do? Will it say, "The Bill says nothing about allotments"? It jolly well should say something about them. Will the property board offer first choice to the allotment holders? Not on your life. Will it offer first choice to the farmers? The only advantage that the Minister gained from the President of the Board of Trade was that farmers who had previously put in a firm bid to buy their farms would be taken into account. That did not apply to anybody else.
  How will that land be sold? I defy any hon. Member to defend the means, as it is to be sold in huge lots, in London, to people who have the ready cash. In other words, Hemsworth smallholders could become the property of Kuwaitis in next to no time, which is a living, breathing scandal. The Bill does not deal with that problem.
  The Country Landowners Association has an interest in this type of Bill, but that does not mean that it cannot speak intelligently on the subject. The association spoke intelligently on inheritance and how inheritance tax discourages people from letting their land, which is a valid argument. Tidying up that part of the law makes sense.
  Having said that, the Bill does not assist newcomers to the land, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) said, or the county councils, which are in such a desperate financial position that they are having to sell some of their smallholdings and farms to raise capital. County council land was a prime source for people who wanted to set up afresh in farming with remarkably little capital.
  Some of those people go to our excellent agricultural institutes, which are as good at training people in agricultural ways as any other section of our further and higher education. They do a magnificent job and I have yet to visit one in which standards are slack or there is no control over what is happening. They are able to make young people think about the future of agriculture and what they should be doing, not only in a United Kingdom context, but in that of Europe and the general agreement on tariffs and trade. Many newcomers do not have any capital and their interest originated in schools, which provide imaginative courses. How are such people to get into farming? It is extraordinarily difficult and the Bill does nothing to help.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East said, reform of the common agricultural policy does not depend on the pious utterances of the Government, or of the Opposition, but on making farmers willing to go along with root and branch reform. Those with large farms have been unwilling to do so, especially when the reforms have been allied to environmental considerations. Those with family farms consider the environment and can see what is happening in the wider world. They are sufficiently flexible to respond, and to feed into the Government machine the sort of policies that can best be put across.
  Short-termism is another worrying aspect of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) expressed it when he said that tenancies must not be too long. Short-termism has crept into our economy and I am not thinking merely of those people who have made great profits from electricity, water or whatever, although they must certainly take their share of the blame for creating a

  43
  certain atmosphere. I am thinking of the many short-term work contracts of three or six months, which lead to all sorts of insecurities. The Bill will introduce those same insecurities into the farmer's world and the family farmer's world.
  I have no worries for those with large farms, who can look after themselves. They can always get out and go into something else—if they cannot, they do not deserve to succeed. Family farmers need our support, however, and they need to be able to plan over a long period. They must plan from "generation unto generation", to quote the Bible again. It is important for people to be familiar with the land that they farm and to have sympathy with it. People have feelings about the land—that is a difficult concept, but it is true.
  I have also been extremely worried about the number of tax farmers and I am sure that that concerns the Minister too. It is appalling that rich people, such as pop idols or footballers, can save huge sums of money in tax by investing in farms to which they bring no productivity. The family farm is part of the core and the foundation of this country. The Bill does nothing to strengthen such farms and much to destabilise them.
  5.5 pm
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I speak as a former tenant farmer who has consistently opposed security of tenure, which has done so much damage to the system. It is extraordinary for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who propounds the merits of the system, to talk about improving entry to the industry. No man alive has done more harm to the system than the hon. Gentleman did in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. It is clear from the tone of his speech that nothing much has changed in his mind.
  I sat through the Standing Committee that considered the 1976 Act with him and I acknowledge that he probably knows as much about the subject as any hon Gentleman, but somewhere in his soul he hates landlords and believes that tenants should be preserved. The inevitable result of such a policy is that the supply dries up, as it did with housing, and the system stagnates.
  It is universally accepted that the system will not continue without some sustenance. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point—his only point—that the Conservative party has failed to grasp that nettle despite the fact that it has been in power for so many years. Minister after Minister felt that to act without the agreement of all sides of the industry would simply be stirring up a hornets' nest, which is not something that Ministers like to do.
  Not long after I succeeded the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1979, the Northfield report came to the Government for an answer. The then Minister—the noble Lord Walker—was very nervous of the whole subject. He felt that the problems of the agricultural world were similar to those of the housing world. I tried to persuade him that that was not so and that tenants did not feel the same about their landlords as housing tenants felt for the Rachmans of the day.
  44
  In a debate in another place, the noble Marquess of Hertford described the status of landlord as having an "aroma of sulphur"—an apt description. Those of us who have been tenant farmers recognise that, to a large extent, one's prosperity depends on the amount of rent that one has to pay. I observed that no sooner had my farm begun to prosper than the landlord would collect an extra slice of rent every three years, which put one back to where one started. Matters such as capital investment, plant and drainage were constantly negotiated and those negotiations were crucial to the business.
  If one recognises that the return from owning agricultural land is tiny, even at today's much increased rents, and that the opportunities to find capital to buy land are extremely limited, one can well see the merits of a system that divides the owning of land from farming it. That is why we had such a strong and prosperous landlord-tenant relationship for so many years, with landlords minding their landowning business and tenants getting on with farming. I accept that the cost of equipment in a modern milking parlour, probably installed by the tenant, runs into tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds and does not compare with the elementary equipment that farming required only 50 years ago. Substantial changes have been made, but there is no reason why there should not be a free market.
  The Agriculture Act 1947 spelt the beginning of the end and the 1948 and 1976 Acts made matters worse. Landlords have lost their land for three generations. If a landlord signed a lease under the 1976 Act, he could say goodbye to his land for his lifetime and probably that of his sons. There is no need for such contracts, which should be an agreement between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. Historically, that was so, but the Acts of 1947, 1948 and 1976 were all retrospective and imposed new conditions on contracts that had been freely entered into.
  If I were on the Standing Committee of this Bill—I sincerely hope that I shall not be—I would table amendments proposing that those who signed leases under those Acts should no longer be subject to retrospection. For example, if a tenancy was held before 1947 between a willing landlord and a willing tenant, the tenant knew that he would have short-term notice, different rent reviews and other conditions, but the Government of the day altered such contracts and then altered them again in 1976. If a landlord and tenant have signed a contract under the 1976 Act, that is between a willing landlord and a willing tenant. The Bill is an opportunity to remove retrospection from the agricultural landlord and tenant relationship.
  If someone owns an office block as an investment, it is worth much more when it is let than when it is empty, but precisely the opposite is true of a farm, which is worth twice as much with vacant possession as it is with a tenant. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be in his position for many years to come and will swiftly give further thought to how he might progress the improvement of the landlord and tenant system. He will not succeed until a let farm is worth more than a vacant farm; that position prevailed until 1947 and we should seek to return to it. We have succeeded in doing so in housing and we must work towards that in farming.

  45
  Many benefits derive from freedom of movement. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East admits that the only benefit in his proposal is that he has "locked in"—those were his words—a number of tenants. I see no benefit whatever in that.
  The Bill is a small acknowledgement of the fact that the various interested parties have managed to agree. I referred to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which I voted against, as the Building Societies (Robin Hood) Act. If ever the Robin Hood principle applied, it applied to the landlord and tenant system in the agricultural world: rob the rich and give the proceeds to the poor. It is no longer entirely that way round, because many tenants have had a good deal. For a small percentage of the capital cost of the land, they have been able to rent that land, sometimes for many years, but now they are unwilling to give up their position and they scream their heads off at the thought of some justice being returned to the system. They argue that they have invested a lot in their farms. That is fair enough, but provisions for tenants' and landlords' rights are well established. I shall discuss landlords' rights in a moment.
  I am delighted to see that, in the short term, leases that will be available under the Bill will include a definition of "tenant right". The important point is that the improvements concerned will be made only with the landlord's approval. Tenants have sometimes been able to improve their farms without permission but. on termination of the tenancy, Iandlords have had to find a substantial sum to pay to the tenant. That did not encourage movement.
  Mr. Knapman indicated assent.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) nodding. He is an expert in those matters.
  I strongly welcome the inclusion in the Bill of written agreements, which are essential. In my long experience of misunderstandings between landlord and tenants and affairs of the countryside, agents or landlords often cannot remember having said that a tenant could make certain changes. When it is the other way round, nor does the tenant. I welcome the definition in the Bill that those agreements must be in writing. I foresee a majority of those agreements being fairly short term to start with. Landlords will tread warily, and I do not blame them for doing so. They will gradually gain confidence in their new tenants. I take the point that they may be old tenants with expanded farms. The law can do nothing to prevent that. It is surely the landlord's right to let his farm to whom he wishes.
  A great deal of nonsense is spoken about new entrants into agriculture. Few businesses of substance today allow new entrants to start with little money or experience and become their own masters overnight, yet for some reason people say that newcomers have the right to enter agriculture. It is a lovely theory but in practice it should be examined in today's scene, where high capital, high technology and education are more important than ever before.
  I entirely endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). County council smallholdings—I call them that because that is what the relevant legislation is entitled—are an anachronism of the past.
  Mr. Enright indicated dissent.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: If the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), who shakes his head, were to go to the Library and examine the annual report, he would discover that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are tied up in county council smallholdings, all of which could be sold tomorrow to their tenants or at an equivalent tenanted price. County councils such as Somerset, where I live although my constituency is elsewhere, have thousands of acres of county council smallholdings yet bleat that they must make cuts in education. They had an opportunity to sell those, and they should be sold to their tenants. When the hon. Gentleman reads the bottom line, as he no doubt will, he will be astonished to discover how few new tenancies are being created. The capital and running costs of county council smallholdings are a scandal that should be exposed.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown:Is my hon. Friend aware that the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, passed when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was on the Front Bench, specifically excluded county council smallholdings because they needed mobility of tenants, and the right to tenancy succession was not given?
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I would hate to be reminded of all the aspects of that long—I was going to say "friendly"—tussle. It was not friendly at all. It was hard-fought legislation, imposed, if I recall, in the absence of the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary picked up the torch and ran with it, to the eternal pleasure of his socialist friends and to disastrous effect throughout the system.
  We have new complexities and new complications. Quotas have rightly been mentioned. They are a highly important and emotional subject, but I would say to the farming community that they came out of the blue, that they have acquired a value and that they may go back into the blue. It is the Government's avowed policy, in many cases, to get rid of quotas. Nevertheless, one or two of my friends retired upon selling their quota, and if I had 1 million litres of milk quota and someone offered me 60p a litre for it, I too would retire. It is extraordinary how those things have come from nowhere.
  The premium paid for sheep on the higher land now runs into substantial sums of money, and quite small flocks can fetch tens of thousands of pounds because they are eligible for the sheep premium.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend mentions quotas. Given the debate about farmers retiring on the basis of their quota, does he agree that what Governments give, Governments can take away, and that, although quotas may be worth something today, if the quota system ended tomorrow those quotas would be worth nothing?
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I was trying to say that, and my hon. Friend put it in much more succinct language.
  That presents a problem for the landlord and tenant system. Let us take as an example the less-favoured areas ewe premium. A farm—probably an extensive farm—at a high level that did not attract that premium would find it hard to make a profit, hut, if the previous tenant has sold that quota, either the landlord or the new tenant will have to buy it back, and we are getting into extraordinarily

  47
  large sums of capital. I do not know the simple solution to that, because in Europe and in Brussels the excellent way in which our system operates is not recognised, which is a great pity. I know that it causes my right hon. Friend the Minister problems. Perhaps when he replies he will say a word or two about the way in which that is to be tackled.
  I strongly welcome the recognition, at long last, that there is merit in tax relief on let land. I wish only that we had been sensible enough to have introduced that many years ago, but I understand that it will apply only to land let after 1 September under the terms of the Bill—which by then I hope will be an Act—and to land that continues to be tenanted as a result of the succession provisions. I would go further, and say that, if there is merit in a family farm, which indeed there is, there is certainly merit in a family landlord letting his land, provided that the land is let. I think that that is perfectly reasonable.
  As long as hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench do not give an absolute statement of their intentions, there will be no confidence in the agricultural industry to employ the terms of the Bill, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East knows that, because he well knows what happened under the Agriculture (Amendment) Act 1984, which I voted against.
  I was the only Conservative to vote against that Bill because it did not go far enough. I said that the Bill would not work, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), who has just left the Chamber, the then Minister, said, "Ah, but there will be new tenancies because the Country Landowners Association has promised me that there will be." I wonder how many there have been; perhaps a handful. I will bet that there have been fewer than 100.
  Unless there is confidence—unless the landlord can return to the free and open possession of his own land at some definable period in the not too distant future, under the terms of a contract freely and willingly entered into with a tenant—the landlord will opt to keep his own land, use some other legal device or in some way seek to avoid the penal provisions of security of tenure.
  I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has some responsibility for that matter, and at some time he will have to make that statement if he wishes the Bill to work. Given the agreement in the industry, I plead with him not to delay making that statement too long. We should not waste our time in the House with legislation that will take some time in Committee and on Report and so on, only to find that, in practice, it is destroyed as a result of a lack of confidence.
  If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East believes in the system, I hope that he will say so, and that he will at least give an assurance that contracts made under the Act-to-be will not be dishonoured by a future Labour Administration.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am not a farmer. I do not declare an interest, but I have lived all my life surrounded by the working countryside. My present home is surrounded by tenanted farms—both by Cornwall county council's smallholdings and by Duchy of Cornwall farms.
  48
  In the past few weeks, I have been to Scotland, to Wales, to all parts of England and of course in the Celtic country of Cornwall, and I have met tenants in all parts of the kingdom.
  Although the Bill is extremely important, it is only part of a three-pronged approach that must be adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and by the Government generally, if opportunities for new entrants are to increase and if a healthy tenanted sector is to be maintained and expanded to everyone's benefit.
  The approach that must be adopted is, if you like, Madam Deputy Speaker, a three-legged stool. First, we need the end of tax discrimination. I shall discuss that in a moment.
  Secondly, we obviously need the maintenance of a flourishing county farm estate. In the light of what the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, it is a key part of the tenanted sector. I believe that it could play a much better part in future, if it returns to its original function of being a first rung on the tenanted ladder—the first rung of the farming ladder—instead of being the only rung that some tenants have found themselves able to get on to.
  Thirdly—the subject of the Bill before the House—we need a legal framework that both potential landlords and potential tenants accept is reasonable, acceptable and likely to remain permanent. I shall return to the argument made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in a moment.
  Those are the three elements that the sector requires to retain confidence.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman describes the county council holdings system as the first rung on the ladder. Can he give some evidence, from his own county or the Duchy of Cornwall, of the number of farmers who have left county council smallholdings to move on to other, larger, tenancies? We do not appear to be hearing much about that.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making my argument for me. The Bill is important precisely because smallholding tenants on county farms do not have an opportunity to move on to other tenancies. I think that he and I would recognise that the Bill will make it possible for tenancies to be loosened up in future. However, if we simply sell all the smallholdings to their tenants, or if the pressure on the county councils' budgets forces them to dispose of their holdings outright in the open market, the first rung of the ladder is removed. It is not an argument for strengthening the second rung of the ladder if one removes the first one.
  It is obvious throughout southern Britain, where I have some experience, that it would be a disaster for the tenanted sector if county councils were forced by Whitehall to sell their prize possessions, especially when they may not be able to obtain the best of prices for them, as a result of local government reorganisation or budgetary restraint. The pressure on the other tenancies would put the system in an impossible position.
  Mr. Colvin: On county council smallholdings, will the hon. Gentleman give us some evidence that county council tenants on smallholdings have moved to larger tenancies?

  49
  In the county of Hampshire, there have been plenty of new lets of agricultural holdings. We also used to have a county Council land settlement. The county council, in its wisdom, eventually sold that settlement—most of it to the sitting tenants, because there was no evidence that any of the tenants of those land settlement holdings were moving anywhere. They were very happy and cosy doing what they were good at, but they had no intention of moving elsewhere. It was not the first rung on a ladder, but a first rung to nowhere. They were content to stay where they were.
  Mr. Tyler: I cannot speak with authority about Hampshire. In any event, it would be wrong for me to spend too much time on the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. I have, however, met the county land agents for seven of the south-west counties. It is because they recognise that it is difficult to move from the first rung on to the second that they support the Bill. If Conservative Members think that the work that the agents are doing is wrong and that the agents' values and judgments are wrong, they should reflect that those professional advisers support the Bill, as I do.
  The second leg of my three-legged stool is the tax treatment of tenanted land. As a member of the Committee that considered the Finance Bill in 1992, I moved an amendment which seems now to be remarkably close to the change that the Government seek to introduce by means of the current Finance Bill. The Minister, in urging his hon. Friends to reject my amendment, said:
  "If agricultural landlords were to benefit from 100 per cent. relief there would be ensuing pressure from other landlords for similar treatment and if 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax were extended to other landlords, it would increase pressure for their businesses to be treated as qualifying for trading reliefs from other taxes. To extend trading reliefs to all landlords throughout the tax system would cost hundreds of millions of pounds."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 30 June 1992; c. 422.]
  Of course, but we were not asking for that. When my hon. Friends and I pressed the amendment to a Division, all the Conservative members of the Committee voted it down.
  Tonight, Conservative Members come before us as converted sinners. I welcome them aboard. I wish only that we could be sure that the tax distortion that has been built into the system for so long can be completely removed. It would be good to find in future that land, whether owner occupied or in tenancy, was treated in a non-discriminatory manner in terms of inheritance tax.
  The third leg of my milking stool is that the Bill produces a new legal framework. It is pleasant, for once, to be able to welcome a Bill that is both sensible and progressive. Given the Government's record of unwanted and unnecessary legislation, it is encouraging to welcome a Bill that has widespread support in the industry. Indeed, it derives its parentage far more from the working group of all the interested parties—the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the young farmers' groups and, most important of all, the Tenant Farmers Association—than from the Ministry. Perhaps it would be fair to say that the Ministry had washed its hands of trying to find an acceptable formula. It should be said that the persistent work of the organisations to which I referred achieved an important consensus.
  It is worth noting that the TFA says firmly that it believes that the Bill is a major step towards the revival of tenanted farms. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, in undertaking a survey last year, considered
  50
  the possible effect of the Bill. It projected that about 1 million acres would be let for five years or more soon after the Bill came into force, if it were enacted. It foresaw that over half of that land would be let for periods of 10 years or more and that more than 1,000 fully equipped farms and over 3,000 blocks of bare land would provide opportunities for new entrants, for farmers and for businesses to engage in restructuring, with better security and lower capital overheads, because it would not be necessary to buy expensive land to enable them to expand. That does not square with the nightmare scenario that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) was describing a short while ago.
  The TFA endorses that view. In giving a warm welcome to the Bill, it states:
  "The tenanted sector is the traditional way into the industry for those with skill and energy but who cannot afford to buy land. Yet it has been in steady decline for reasons which include owners' fears that any letting could create life tenancies under present legislation and tax discrimination against letting land. Almost no land is now freshly let on full tenancies under the present law. Agriculture, facing economic and political pressures, needs the business flexibility that a free tenancy market can give for it to remain competitive; paying a rent rather than having to buy high priced land."
  It is clear that there will be continuing difficulties if we make no changes to the law. It is equally clear that in Committee we must be careful about the way in which the detailed provisions of the Bill operate, especially as regards compensation—I have noted the arguments advanced about compensation for quota, which will be extremely difficult to calculate in the current speculative environment that is being suffered by the milk industry—and to ensure that we have the best possible arrangements for arbitration. I am confident that we have a good legal framework, which is a good basis on which to make progress. I am equally sure that it will be extremely important to deal with some of the concerns that tenants are already expressing about some detailed provisions.
  I think that it was the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare who referred to tenant right. There are still some problems about that, which have not been resolved. They were explored in another place, but they still require some definition. It is extremely important that the approach that is taken to the issue should follow the amendment to clause 17 that was put before the other place. I hope that it will be possible to identify specific exceptions to the general rule where consent is required for compensation.
  For example, it is difficult to obtain specific consent from a landlord at each stage of the growing of annual crops, but that may be extremely important when it comes to compensation. The same can be said of pasture and beneficial acts of husbandry, which can add to the value of a farm but may not be appropriate for specific consent from the landlord. Similarly, there is the liming of land and the application to land of purchased manures and fertilisers.
  In the normal yearly management and husbandry of a farm, there are elements that can add greatly to the value of the holding, and they must be taken into account when it comes to compensation. Tenant right will require some attention in Committee.
  The fly in the ointment must be the attitude of Her Majesty's Opposition. I understand from the Opposition's press release that their spokesman in this place takes a different view from their spokesman in another place. It

  51
  was evident from the way in which Lord Carter approached the Bill's provisions that he regarded the measure as a sensible framework for reform. He made a positive contribution to the debates upon the Bill, as one would expect. He has great practical experience of agriculture. He did not divide the other place on any of the principles underlying the Bill.
  That being so, the issues to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred this afternoon and in his press release require some attention. I do not propose to analyse them myself. Instead, I shall take advantage of the work of the TFA. After all, it is members of that association who will be affected by the Bill. The TFA has, point by point, rebutted the objections of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East to the Bill.
  Labour suggests that the Bill will end security of tenure for tenant farmers. That is not true. It is absurd to frighten people by suggesting that that is the position.
  Dr. Strang: I have already responded to that issue. I explained in answer to an intervention that I was talking about new tenancies under the proposed legislation, not existing tenancies. There will be a voluntary contract and no statutory right, as the hon. Gentleman will understand.
  Mr. Tyler: I heard the hon. Gentleman's explanation. However, I have had the benefit of re-reading his press release. Having done so, it is far from clear that what he says is the position. It is important that we take the TFA's views into account. There is a good case for saying that without this legislation, the position of tenants would be increasingly difficult.
  In his press statement, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said that the Bill would mean the end of tenanted family farms, but the TFA rebuts that too, saying firmly that that is not expected to be the case. Through the freeing up of tenancies, many farmers will be provided with the flexibility that they need to cope with the radical changes that lie ahead for British farming.
  The Labour press statement says that the Bill will cause a free-for-all and the fragmentation of many farms. But there is no empirical evidence to suggest that that would be the case. The TFA points out that economic pressures have caused that to happen. Those pressures include tax regimes, and local authority holdings and other big estates have been pressured to the point that they find it impossible to maintain their tenancies, and they have—when the opportunity has arisen—sold.
  Labour's amendment in the other place, which insisted on long-term protection for farms with a dwelling, was not pressed because it became perfectly apparent to anyone with practical and realistic common sense that, if such a measure were introduced, Iandowners would simply avoid the burden by hiving off farmhouses, treating them separately and finding tenants who did not need the farmhouse. The so-called residential farm business tenancy was originally proposed by the noble Lord Carter, but he sensibly backed off because he had experience of the practical realities.
  I did not understand what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said about the breaking up of holdings, or that holdings would just become larger rather than there being more of them. There is no suggestion that that would be the case, unless his own amendment on
  52
  residential farm business tenancies was pursued. In that case, there would undoubtedly be a tendency to break up holdings.
  Dr. Strang: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is talking about when he refers to "my amendment". He may be referring to a probing amendment that was tabled in the other place.
  I said earlier that there may have been a case for addressing the point to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but clearly if one does—this is a fair point, which the Country Landowners Association made in its briefing for the debate—one must do it in a way that will not achieve the outcome that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting; that is, encouraging the splitting of the farmhouse away from the holding. I thought that there was a consensus in the House that we should seek to discourage the breaking up of farms, which the hon. Gentleman will be aware is happening throughout the country, including in Cornwall.
  Mr. Tyler: I am again grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that point. If he does not press the probing amendment in this House, as his colleagues did in the other place, I shall be only too pleased. The amendment would have precisely the effect that I identified. It would tend to encourage the break-up of holdings, rather than their consolidation.
  I hope that at end of the debate—not necessarily this evening's debate, but the debate during the whole process of the Bill—there will be consensus. The part of the agriculture industry with which we are dealing needs some long-term confidence and some real appreciation that the political system has reached a consensus about the way in which it is tackling what is undoubtedly a difficult problem. I hope that the Opposition spokesman who winds up will come clean and say whether they would seek to repeal the legislation should they ever come to government. For our part, I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues would wish to reach a point with this legislation at which it is not required to be torn up and thrown out of the window again, and we would wish to build on it, to make progress in the future.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to his peroration, may I say that I have been able to obtain figures on county council smallholdings, which may be of interest to him? In the county of Cornwall, there are no less than 4,600 hectares of land, where there are 167 tenants. In the year before last, nine new tenancies were granted. In the country as a whole, out of 5,000 tenants, only 125 new tenancies were granted. There is public investment, however, in over 133,000 hectares of land. Surely that is not showing a first step on the ladder. It is simply showing that the concept is completely out of date. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will join us in seeking to destroy such a system.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has proved my point. He obviously did not listen to what I said—perhaps he was studying the figures. It is because there has not been a second or third rung of the ladder that the tenanted sector has seized up in recent years. That is why I support the Bill. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased that I am supporting it.
  It is not the fault of a bottom rung of a ladder that there is no way up after it. The hon. Gentleman and I may agree that, for a number of reasons which we have been discussing, we have not been able to free up other rungs

  53
  of the ladder. That is why the land agents responsible for the county estates right through southern Britain are convinced that the legislation is important. They are convinced that we must get it right, and that it is extremely important that we have a political consensus. We can then give everybody confidence that they can get off the bottom rung and move up. The last thing that we want to do is to remove the bottom rung, as that would not help one little bit.
  That is the first leg of my three-legged stool. The second leg is tax discrimination. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why that is limited in its present format, as the logic of the situation is that it should be extended throughout, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said earlier.
  The third leg is that it is very important not only that the legislation reaches the statute book in its best possible form, but that we all make sure that there is no future threat by any potential Government to undo the work that we do with the Bill this Session. Retrospection is a very unhappy way to deal with such problems. It almost always results in injustice and diseconomy.
  Naturally, members of the Committee will want to scrutinise all parts of the Bill and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will wish to make sure that the legislation meets all the requirements, not just for 1995 but, I hope, for many years to come. I hope and trust that Labour Members, both here and in Committee, will adopt a positive attitude to the legislation, listen to those with practical experience of the industry—including the noble Lord Carter—and come round to accepting that, at a later stage, the Bill should be given fair wind on to the statute book.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Roger Knapman: It worries me greatly that the Government have the support of the Liberal Democrats on the Bill. However, I find the news release from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) far more predictable. It says that it is not for use before Monday 6 February 1996; when one has read it, one wants to change the year to 9996.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East sees this as an issue of social justice. It would be interesting to know just which subject the hon. Gentleman does not see as an issue of social justice. We did hear this afternoon that he was basing his argument on the highland land clearances. He also complained that the Bill would result in the fragmentation of farms, but that is exactly what has. been going on. It is precisely because the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and the Agriculture Act 1947 bear no relevance to the needs of today that we need the Ministry's five-year terms and other partnerships to get around the existing legislation. That is why we have the fragmentation of farms, and why so few tenancies are available for those who wish to enter the industry.
  I turn from the press release of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East to the real world, where the Bill has been welcomed by almost every body associated with the industry, including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Country Landowners Association and the Tenant Farmers Association. To get those groups to agree was not just good; it strikes me as a minor miracle. That was acknowledged very much in the other place, where there was acknowledged to be a wealth of expertise, and a number of valuable amendments were accepted.
  54
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has not said whether there is a wealth of expertise here, although I must claim to be one of the few Members who can understand the residual manurial values of farmyard manure. I do not know whether that constitutes expertise, but I am tempted to take a few minutes on the subject.
  As someone who was obliged to study agricultural law at Cirencester agricultural college—which, 30 years ago, some people thought was an alternative to education—I am pleased to see lengthy and complicated legislation reduced to a Bill of just 31 pages. It is a change also to consider legislation that deals with people who live and work in the countryside—bearing in mind the fact that so many think that the countryside is the green bit that separates the towns and that it is there primarily for access by, and for the recreation of, townspeople.
  The number of people who live and work in the country is declining. The Labour party should consider the fact that the Bill is responsible for that decline to some extent. We must restore and increase the number of available tenancies.
  We all agree that the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948—I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said—is well out of date. It was probably appropriate for its time, although my hon. Friend would have trouble accepting that. It is interesting to look at the report of the Second Reading debate on the Agricultural Holdings Bill in 1948, which lasted for two minutes. The Solicitor-General begged to move the Second Reading motion and Major Legge-Bourke of the Isle of Ely said:
  "I think that hon. Members on this side of the House would like to say that we are grateful to the Government for this Bill".—[Official Report, 16 July 1948; Vol. 453, c. 1659.]
  Hon. Members were commendably brief on that occasion and I shall try not to trespass too much on the time of the House on this.
  What was right in 1948 is certainly not appropriate now. Some Opposition Members cannot come to terms with revising clause IV, let alone revising the 1947 and 1948 legislation. At that time, circumstances were very different and the policy behind the Act was that Britain should not be caught out again and that we should not be short of food after the war. Convoys had saved us from defeat in the war and there was no post-war food surplus. Every effort was made to increase production.
  In those circumstances, tenants were encouraged to rent smallholdings and to have county council smallholdings. The county council smallholdings—I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said this—were supposed to be the first rung on the ladder. However, once people got to the first rung of the ladder, they found it very comfortable and stayed there for ever. In any case, as a result of the prescriptive Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, when people reached the first rung of the ladder they looked up, to see that the other rungs had been sawn away because no one was letting larger areas of land.
  That was the view in 1948. I think it was probably Charles Dickens—I may be misquoting him—who observed that any man who could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass grow where only one grew before deserves more from mankind than the whole race of

  55
  politicians put together; but then Dickens did not live in the enlightened age of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.
  Mr. Colvin: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for pinching the quotation that I intended to make in my speech. However, I must correct him: the quotation is by Jonathan Swift from "Gulliver's Travels". My hon. Friend has saved me a couple of minutes in my speech.
  Mr. Knapman: Bearing in mind the fact that, first, I have credited the quotation to the wrong person and, secondly, I am not certain that I have the quotation correct, I think it is incumbent on my hon. Friend to set it right at an appropriate time.
  The recent announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor about inheritance tax on let land will ensure that the Bill is more effective. I could quote at some length from an unusually supportive leader in last week's Farmers' Weekly, which said that the massive boost to the tenanted farm sector
  "has been heralded as the beginning of a new era by the Country Landowners Association and as a powerful boost to the tenanted sector by the Tenant Farmers Association".
  I agree that that will not convince the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who is more concerned about highland land clearances. The article says:
  "They speak for the whole industry in predicting that this important new tax break will encourage more owners to offer land for letting. In doing so they will ensure the success of the new farm business tenancy agreements which take effect this September.
  It should also encourage landlords to increase the length of new tenures because the tax implications of sudden death are less severe".
  I hope that that is correct, but it will depend to some extent on whether the Inland Revenue can be prevailed upon not to offer too narrow an interpretation of what constitutes agricultural let land.
  The 1948 Act was extremely complex and it led to a lawyers' beanfeast in later years—but I suppose that most legislation does. That was especially so of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare referred—it seems to be engraved on his memory—and the three generations of succession provision. After a number of years, it was obvious that landlords were becoming increasingly reluctant to rent land. One needs a certain amount of confidence to rent out land; one must be prepared to accept that land may be let for up to three generations and that, during that time, its asset value will be half that under vacant possession.
  As a result, there were virtually no traditional lettings of agricultural land, which benefited no one. I had the privilege of visiting the Smithfield show the December before last and I spoke to a leading agent who managed hundreds of thousands of acres of land. I asked him how much traditional tenancy land remained and he looked at me as though I were joking. No one does that sort of thing any more.
  I must declare, rather late in the day, an interest in the debate. I am a partner in a small firm of land agents which is unsuccessful, first, because my partner is of advanced age; secondly, because he is over-fond of salmon fishing; thirdly, because he is fond of his own woodlands; and, fourthly, possibly because I spend so much time in this
  56
  place. It was the only firm of chartered surveyors and land agents that was not the subject of a takeover bid during the boom years of the 1980s.
  We managed to survive despite the fact there were few traditional tenancies on offer—I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State suggested that the figure was 10 per cent., but I thought that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors had said the figure was only 6 per cent. Whatever the figure is, it is very small. Of the total, 3 per cent. is let to existing tenants or their relations and only 3 per cent. is let to what might be termed "outsiders".
  I must tell those hon. Members who would vote against the Bill that that amounts to stagnation of the industry. The average farmer is now older than 50—although I have reached the stage of life where I do not consider that to be particularly old. All hon. Members should accept that the original purpose of the 1948 Act—to provide security of tenure—may have been sound, but, sadly, it has had precisely the opposite effect. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was speaking, it occurred to me that there is no security if there is no tenancy available. That is the point to which the present legislation has brought us.
  All those involved in the industry have known for many years that something is wrong. The National Farmers Union of England and Wales, the Country Landowners Association and the Tenant Farmers Association know that there is not a healthy balance between letting and owner-occupation. Even the National Union of Agricultural Workers, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned, must have suspected that something was wrong when it suddenly had so few members that it was obliged to merge with a larger union. I hope that, even at this late stage, the hon. Gentleman will try to appreciate the industry's problems.
  Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend give way again?
  Mr. Knapman: I have not given another quotation in recent minutes, but I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Colvin: I shall not mention the authorship of any quotation on this occasion. Surely one reason why the tenanted sector has dried up is the enormous extent of distortion because the industry is heavily subsidised and enjoys all manner of Government support. One reason why landlords were not prepared to let farms was that they could make much more money farming land in hand than they could letting to tenants. That is why landlords tended to take farms in hand whenever the opportunity arose.
  Mr. Knapman: I agree with my hon. Friend that most landlords go through that stage of thinking. It is only when they have the privilege of meeting several different managers—some better than others—that they go off the idea. Theoretically, Iand in hand should show a better return than tenanted land. I believe that landowners—and the Church Commissioners—want to continue with the traditional letting of land, provided they are satisfied that they can, at a reasonable stage, have vacant possession. That seems to be the guiding principle of most professional land agents and surveyors.
  I have mentioned on numerous occasions the complexity of the 1948 Act, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister of State has thought about ensuring that we do not enter another minefield. There

  57
  have been many cases of "horseyculture"—the letting of agricultural land for use by horses. If we mean to encourage extensification and diversification, we must be sure that any farm business tenancy can include letting to horses without the protracted rigmarole that occurred in the courts some years ago.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): Perhaps I may make a point of detail: the horse cannot sign.
  Mr. Knapman: The horse can do many things, but I agree that it cannot sign anything. However, perhaps my hon. Friend will satisfy even me on that point in due course.
  The popularity of litigation linked to the 1948 Act was second only to divorce at the time. Most cases revolved around what was a short let and an agricultural tenancy. There was a great deal at stake, which is why we were relieved when Gladstone v. Bower seemed to settle matters once and for all, albeit in the short term—which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East should not like. Many cases were based on the various notices that had to be served one or two months before the end of a tenancy.
  There is no end to it. One must constantly check one's professional indemnity insurance to ensure that such notices have been served in time. Even then, there have been court cases disputing the validity of such notices. Estates Gazette has been clogged with reports of such cases for nearly half a century. I hope that will end under the new legislation.
  I must enter a caveat. Although I greatly welcome the Bill's brevity of 31 pages, compared with the 1947 and 1948 Acts, we must ensure that the brevity of contracts is not balanced by the complexity of valuation clauses and custom, where appropriate. The shorter the tenancy, the more likely it is that the contract will be silent—and where agreements are silent, we need a clear indication of the code of practice, which I understand is being prepared by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. In short, we must not generate more legal action based on the new legislation.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East took the House on a little history tour, and I agree with some of his points. If a farmer died in July or August in the 19th century, it was unfortunate, not just because he was severely short of breath but because one was not in a position to harvest his crops—and had no right to harvest them. Whatever was planted or attached to the soil remained with the soil. In Latin, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know, that is
  "quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit."
  If someone had the misfortune to die in July, having gone to all the bother of planting the corn, no claim could be made once the crop was ready for harvesting. It was obviously necessary to introduce legislation, and that dated mainly—although not exclusively, despite our briefing—from 1875.
  The initial legislation was based primarily not so much on security of tenure, which so concerns the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, as on equity between landlord and tenant in terms of the value of crops—particularly at the end of a tenancy. That is where the hon. Gentleman goes wrong. If he said that he was looking for equity between
  58
  the two parties but would leave them to decide the contracts themselves, we would all he together. I am sorry that we are not.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend wants to see a contract freely entered into by the landlord and tenant. Is not the problem that, because we have not repealed the 1947 and 1948 Acts and others, the contract must be specified or one will appear as a result of the 1948 Act, for land let for more than two years? Something must be written into the Bill, unless we are prepared to repeal all the other legislation.
  Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend is entirely right, which is why I mentioned the number of court cases to determine whether there was a grazing let or a full-blown tenancy. The financial rewards of winning a case that decided an agricultural tenancy were huge. One understands why so many people were tempted to suggest that they had a tenancy. It was an artificial form of legislation in the first place, and I hope that we can leave all that behind.
  I thoroughly support the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister and his Front-Bench team, largely because my right hon. Friend made the point that the Bill will provide greater market flexibility and, I hope, opportunities for more tenancies. One recalls Disraeli's dictum of
  "lies, damned lies and statistics."
  I like to think that 1 million extra acres will come on to the market, but I suspect that one could as easily make a case for 100,000 or 100 million acres. It is not that vast amounts of land will come on to the market as a result of the Bill, but it will release some extra land.
  A broad-brush approach to compensation seems to be favoured. What is the status of the RICS guidance notes? Will they be ready and agreed when the Bill becomes law? It is rather important that they should be.
  What part, if any, of the customs of the country will apply? If the Minister cannot tell me now, perhaps he will do so in Committee. Those customs are still important. Cornwall has a fairly clement climate—I am sorry to alliterate in such a way—and the Pennines have a rather harsher climate, especially currently. Their customs need to be retained wherever possible.
  I am not clear in my own mind about the compensation provisions for relatively short-term lets. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take an interest—I am sure that he will—in the RICS's recommendations. For instance, it was traditional, under a 1947–48 tenancy, with, perhaps, a 200 acre heavy clay soil farm, to conclude that a proportion of the drains and ditches should be cleaned or cleared every year. There was more or less a seven-year term then, and it was thought reasonable that a tenant farmer should go around the farm. I am not sure that it is entirely equitable that a tenant with, perhaps, merely three years—in the Bill, it amounts to four—of farming should have the whole of that liability placed on him or her during that short tenancy. I am not sure that I have thought that matter through entirely—perhaps that is all too evident—but it should be borne in mind. We cannot place wholly on short-term tenancies—three to four-year terms—all the obligations laid on those tenants under the 1948 Act.
  It was a pleasure recently to read an article in Estates Gazette, entitled "Implications of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill", written by Mr. Christopher Jessel of the

  59
  London firm of Farrer and Co. I am happy to give it publicity, bearing in mind the fact that it acts for a certain noble Lord in the west country who leases me my salmon fishing, which keeps me sane—although I appreciate that that might be a contentious observation. Mr. Jessel said:
  "There is, though, no provision in the Bill that would stop the landlord from restricting the use to pure agriculture if he wishes, although that will be reflected in the rent. If notices are not served (for example, where the tenant goes in on the basis of a handshake) and the character of the occupation changes, then it may become protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act.
  In the past it has not usually mattered which protection has applied, so long as the tenant could claim some security, but this could become important in the future, for example, where someone is allowed to keep horses in a field in return for payment."
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned some of the difficulties of horses, but I hope that he will take that point on board.
  It is all very well for a parliamentary draftsman to say that all the improvements will be determined by the increase in the value of a holding. I have tried to imagine the increased value of a holding a good many times over the past 30 years or so and find that a somewhat theoretical guidance for any valuer.
  Many of the extra bits of land that we all hope will come on to the market as a result of the proposed legislation will be 50, 100 or 200 acres of bare land. That is where the so-called "intangible improvements" envisaged by the Bill become most tempting to tenants; they may suddenly—particularly if there are enough acres—put in an application for an agricultural dwelling.
  I can quite understand that whatever a tenant is going to spend should be returned on the appropriate basis at the end of the tenancy, but merely to obtain planning permission, and perhaps against the landlord's wishes? Is that the way in which we should proceed? If that is not my hon. Friend's intention, I should be pleased to hear him say no.
  Mr. Jack: It is not.
  Mr. Knapman: That is all well and good. One of the replies to a survey by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors read:
  "We consider that if the present proposals for new farm business tenancies go through unaltered, then no landlord could be advised to let a farm to a tenant under any circumstances".
  It continues:
  "The reason is quite simple. It is proposed that a farm business tenant may carry out improvements without the landlord's consent, for which the landlord will be liable to pay at the end of the tenancy. This amounts to writing a blank cheque to the tenant when he moves, and no landlord could possibly be advised to take the risk. I am not alone in that opinion, and I think that the Government is so anxious to put through a consensus agreement that the point has not been addressed."
  I am sure that that point has been addressed, but that is the fear of some people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will see that such concerns are resolved.
  Despite all that, I am perfectly satisfied that this is an excellent Bill. It is long overdue, as my colleagues have pointed out. We need greater flexibility and a fresh supply of tenancies to come on to the market. It has been traditional in agriculture to rely on entry either through patrimony, matrimony or parsimony. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr.
  60
  Colvin) was not going to say this: patrimony and matrimony are still in fashion, but parsimony, sadly, is no longer enough. So huge are the amounts involved that it is just not possible, however parsimonious a person is, to save up enough money to get into farming on a vacant possession basis. The only way in which we can allow young farmers with limited capital behind them to get into farming is to increase the number of tenancies coming on to the market. That is what the Bill does. That is why I enthusiastically support all that my right hon. Friend the Minister proposes.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am pleased to be able to make a contribution to the debate. A generation ago, my family were farmers. Indeed, if it were not for the fact that the farm occupied by my paternal grandfather was too small, I might today be a farmer myself.
  In the 1930s, in Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, my father, like many others, faced the prospect of leaving the land because there was no room for him to farm. Not enough land was available for new tenancies. We heard today—and we are aware of it—that the percentage of let land has been in decline consistently since the beginning of the century. Indeed, in the 1900s, the figure was about 90 per cent., but, as we heard today, a recent survey showed that it is now 30 per cent. or less. The Minister mentioned that in his opening remarks.
  Undoubtedly, legislation is necessary for several reasons. The present law on agriculture and agricultural holdings is complex and is contained in a plethora of statutes. I speak as a country solicitor who had substantial dealings with agriculture law. "Scammel on Agriculture" was actually read by lawyers in Meirionnydd, not simply used for pressing flowers. I also speak as one who has the honour to represent a constituency in which at least one in five families has some financial connection with the industry. Of course, farming is what gels the community together. Daily life in Ambridge is very much what it is in parts of my constituency, although the language used may be different. The farming community is the backbone of the rural economy. I realise that this is a Second Reading debate, and I cannot hope to cover all—or even most—of what I believe should be examined in Committee. I think, however, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will readily acknowledge the need to deal with the dramatic decline in the availability of land to new entrants.
  I have argued for some time for the inheritance tax relief concession that has just been granted. It will make a substantial contribution, and I am pleased that the Treasury is to amend the Finance Bill to that effect. It will release many hundreds, if not thousands, of acres for letting at a stroke. The much-maligned Farmers Union of Wales, which was treated less than respectfully in another place, had campaigned for the move for some time; apparently it was entirely right in that regard, but wrong in others.
  I attended the Royal Smithfield show with the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman). He has already been corrected once or twice this evening, and I hope that we shall not fall out if I correct him again. I was with him, and the rest of the group, when we spoke to a partner in a large west country firm with, I believe, 25 or 30

  61
  branches. To the best of my recollection, he said that two or three full tenancies had been created out of several hundred, rather than none. That may be nitpicking, but—
  Mr. Knapman: The hospitality at the Smithfield show was generous, and I am prepared to accept that the figure may have been two or three rather than nil. I concede that I may have lost some of the argument.
  Mr. Llwyd: I may not have lunched as well as the hon. Gentleman, but we will not go into that now. I meant no disrespect; suffice it to say that very few full tenancies were coming on line. No doubt the bulk of the tenancies that were created—I call them tenancies, although in strict legal parlance they are not—resulted from the Gladstone v. Bower agreements, which have already been mentioned. They have done nothing for agriculture, and I do not think that they have done anything for rural stability. They fell through because of an unfortunate judgment. I do not decry the judge concerned, but I think that they will become outmoded if the Bill is passed. That, in general, will be a welcome development.
  Although it is beyond doubt that change is needed, if we want to give new entrants more opportunities we should consider a retirement scheme for farmers. For all its faults, the European Union has produced a mechanism for partial funding of such a scheme. Many farmers in my constituency, throughout Wales and beyond are in their mid-50s but cannot afford to think about retiring: the return on their investment has not been good, farming has had its ups and downs over the years and they have been able to put nothing aside. They will have no houses to live in once they leave their holdings, so they are in a difficult position.
  The European Union perceived that difficulty, and sought to deal with it. The Government must reconsider; such a scheme would undoubtedly provide more opportunities for new entrants, and I feel that that is one of the main concerns of the Bill. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) suggested a three-pronged milking-stool approach; this is one leg of that stool, which should he added to the inheritance tax exemption and the basic provisions of the Bill—some of which, at least, meet my approval. If we seriously wish to bring more people into the industry and to release more units of land, we should adopt the arrangements already adopted by the European Union.
  The Bill is designed to deregulate the law governing agricultural holdings. The agreement to let land is essentially a contract between a willing landlord and a willing tenant, in which I consider equality of bargaining to be a key factor. I hope that, in freeing the legislation as they are, the Government are not thinking along the same lines as they were when they abolished some of the wages councils recently. The aim then was to allow employee and employer greater flexibility in the setting and agreeing of terms, but the only flexibility that I could see was the lowering of wages, as employers always had the right to pay more than the statutory minimum.
  I fear that, similarly, agricultural landlords who are less than scrupulous will impose onerous terms on tenants who will be so desperate for land that they will accept those terms. I do not wish to create anxiety—I am trying to express an honest opinion on the basis of a little experience—but it is clear to me that there will be no equality of bargaining if that happens.
  62
  If a commodity is in short supply, a premium attaches to it. In this instance, the premium could manifest itself in unfair terms that would do nothing for individual tenants and even less for the industry as a whole. Let us not pretend that there will be true equality of bargaining. It follows logically, therefore, that we must build in safeguards for the weaker party in the negotiation—the tenant.
  Rural stability and the future of our communities rely on a healthy and buoyant agriculture industry. I do not deny the need for incentives for landowners to let farms, but tenants must have enough security to enable them and their families to earn a decent living. Farming is at best an onerous and difficult task, and a balance must be struck between both parties; I believe that the Bill is the right vehicle for that balance.
  The Farmers Union of Wales has mooted the idea of a working life tenancy lasting until the tenant reaches the age of 65. That is a halfway house between the 1986 system of successions and the complete so-called freedom of contract in the Bill; for reasons that I have already given, I challenge the phrase "freedom of contract". The idea of a working life tenancy is worth investigating, and deserves better than to be put down as it was in the other place. I hope that time will allow a full discussion of it in Committee.
  If the Government do not accept the idea, as they may not, I think that there should be a minimum term. That will not drive a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill. I respectfully suggest that a minimum term of 15 years with a right of renewal for, say, five years would deal with the problem of one-sided bargaining.
  Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman said that he would comment on the views of the Farmers Union of Wales. Much has been made of the unanimity of support among landowners, tenants and other organisations. According to current reports, the union is alone in resisting the Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking on behalf of the union or are his views his own? It would be useful for us to know which aspects the union does not like, so that we can deal with them in Committee.
  Mr. Llwyd: With respect, I thought that I had made the position clear, but I shall do so again if it assists. The Farmers Union of Wales wants a lifetime tenancy until the tenant reaches the age of 65. That is an excellent idea, but I do not think for a moment that it will be realised. If I am on the Committee, I shall advocate a minimum term of, say, 15 years plus a renewal for five years. That would bring an element of stability and equalisation to the bargaining process. I do not know whether that assists the hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for raising the issue.
  The second reason for some form of minimum term is that farming in general and animal husbandry in particular are long-term occupations. Years of careful development are needed to produce a good dairy herd or even a flock of upland sheep or cattle. No one can move in with a two-year agreement and expect to get anywhere. Further, it obviously takes time for a tenant to achieve a return on his investment. Many new entrants will have to borrow substantial sums from banks or lending institutions before they can purchase an item of equipment or stock.
  Will banks queue up to lend a large capital sum to a new entrant whose only asset is perhaps a three-year or a five-year agreement? I do not think so. That matter was brought into clear focus by Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos in

  63
  the other place. That may mean that the Bill will not assist the vast majority of family farmers, especially in Wales, or young entrants who are anxious to enter the industry and who see that opportunities are becoming fewer and farming is becoming totally impractical for them.
  Alas, many youngsters have already voted with their feet. It is sad to note that the intake to agricultural colleges, particularly in north Wales, has been in sharp decline for the past five or six years. I suppose that that shows a lack of confidence in the industry.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman sports a black eye so in sympathy I shall give way.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I assure the House that the hon. Gentleman did not give me the black eye. He rightly spoke about the willingness or otherwise of banks to lend money to short-term tenants. Does he agree that a better criterion for bank lending would be the ability to repay the debt rather than the security offered? Does he further agree that banks are increasingly moving to that point of view?
  Mr. Llwyd: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but, traditionally, banks look at all sides. One matter to be looked at is the available equity, capital or collateral. Someone with a three-year agreement will not be entertained on that score. Perhaps he or she is exceptionally able. The applicant may have graduated with honours in agriculture or may come from Seale Hayne or some other college. However, we must remember that he has not been put to the test in that he has not been working as a farmer.
  I should like to speak more positively but I am not making this up. I am reflecting what I hear and read every day in my constituency. No doubt there is some validity to what the hon. Gentleman says, but the length of the agreement is a telling feature.
  Another important point is that in the Bill as it stands there will be no real security for farmers and their families. At the end of the term people will risk losing not only their businesses, however well they may have farmed, but their homes. That cannot be just or equitable on the verge of the 21st century. It is a backward step that is more in keeping with Victorian times.
  There may be even fewer new entrants because the detail of the Bill may be tailor-made for expansion by established farmers. It will assist owner-occupiers with large farms who are looking for additional land so as to maximise profits. What will that do for the industry and for our communities? It is potentially damaging. I agree that the Bill contains important principles that are broadly acceptable to hon. Members in all parts of the House. But another recent measure which was heralded for its principles was the Child Support Act 1991. I do not think that I need to say any more. The Act has not worked out and has gone through a process of metamorphosis. It is still not right and many thousands of people in England and Wales are suffering because of it.
  I hope that I am not putting forward too black a view, but I read with considerable interest the debates in the other place and note that there is a potentially serious
  64
  environmental problem in the Bill. Short-term lets may lead to exploitation for short-term gain which would result in long-term detriment to the environment. Furthermore, in Wales there are three pilot areas for a scheme called Tir Cymen, which is similar to the farm stewardship scheme in England. Several schemes operate in my constituency and have been a great success. For example, there is heavy over-subscription for entry to the schemes. That typifies the environmental awareness of farmers who have been excellent and sympathetic custodians of the land for centuries.
  Secondly, the modest sums that are available under these schemes are welcome in the current economic climate. The core point is that, typically, the schemes involve a 10-year cycle of works to be carried out. Many tenants in my constituency have signed up to them, but what is to become of such schemes in future if those tenants—I use the term loosely—have agreements that are for five years or less? I put that question to the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on two occasions—once on the Floor of the House and once during a private discussion. I regret to say that I am still awaiting a reply.
  The matter is important not simply for the tenants but more broadly for the environment. The mere fact that the Tir Cymen scheme and the stewardship schemes are so popular means that the point should be urgently addressed. If there is a prevalence of agreements with terms of five years or less many thousands of people will not be able to enter these environmentally sustainable and friendly schemes.
  On Second Reading in the other place Lord Elis-Thomas said:
  "agricultural production and food production is an essential part of countryside management as is environmental and land management and the ensuring of countryside sustainability in environmental and landscape terms for future generations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 1994; Vol. 559, c. 507–8.]
  To that I say, "Hear, hear". No doubt in debates on the Bill the Government will be able to assure us that that point will be cleared up and that diversification in farming will not be hampered. That is also an important aspect, although it may not matter as much in my constituency because people who live on a mountain cannot start to grow coconuts. However, in many areas of England and Wales it is important. I hope that nothing in the Bill will stand in the way of further diversification because that is necessary. Something to that effect would be better in the Bill.
  At a later stage I hope to develop the need for a written tenancy agreement in each case. Banks and lending institutions will be even less impressed if nothing is reduced to writing.
  I remind the House of the provisions of the Solicitors Act 1974. I note that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is gazing in my direction. It is obviously to remind me to declare an interest as a country solicitor. The Act clearly states that agreements disposing of or dealing with an interest in land of more than three years' duration must be evidenced in writing and must be drawn up by solicitors. The Bill changes that responsibility, which will now be shared with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I have read the debates in the other place, when the RICS was quoted almost as though there was no tomorrow. It is obviously in great favour with the

  65
  Government. I am not sure why, but it is one of the flavours of the month. I want a uniform notice period of 12 months. That is a simple but sensible suggestion.
  Hon. Members have mentioned council-owned smallholdings. There is a ridiculous anomaly in that set-up—it is that people aged 40 and over are automatically disbarred for applying for such a tenancy. I know of an experienced farmer who has moved into my constituency and applied for a tenancy. His wife works locally and his children go to the local school. He has been on the short list three times, but he is not being considered because he is 43. Being that age myself, I feel a little uneasy about such a provision. I sincerely believe that it should be reconsidered.
  Quite astonishingly, the Bill does not contain a definition of the word "land". It is highly desirable to have such a definition in an agriculture Bill. The compensation provisions need further explanation and elucidation, especially regarding planning permission and the refusal of a landlord to grant that. In fairness, the Minister has said that there will be room for further discussion on that point and I am grateful for that.
  Many other points arise and, no doubt, will be argued in due course. The authors of the Library research document say on the cover that farm tenancies will now be
  "in a similar position to business tenancies."
  The Library is usually very good and I rely on it, but I regret to say that that is a complete misstatement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Farm tenancies are not in the same position as business tenancies.
  As Lord Prys-Davies said on Second Reading in the other place, part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which relates to general business tenancies, allows for an almost automatic renewal. This Bill does the opposite. He asked why a right of renewal would be available under the 1954 Act for a tenancy of a shop or an office, but will not be available to a tenant of a farm. I hope to raise that question in more detail in due course.
  If the Bill is to be the panacea that it has been heralded to be, a great deal of detailed thinking and discussion will have to take place at a later stage.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I apologise for missing the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. As he has instructed me as counsel on numerous occasions over the years, I can testify to his expertise as a solicitor in drafting the sort of tenancies that we are discussing. Does he agree that the fiscal treatment of agricultural tenancies that the Government have announced needs careful examination? Welcome and necessary though it is to encourage tenancies by fiscal means, does he agree, from his experience as a solicitor, that if there is a danger that very short agricultural tenancies could be used as a way of evading inheritance tax that will dramatically push up the price of land and may make it more difficult for young entrants to come into the profession? Does he further agree that we need to consider a sophisticated means of ensuring that the fiscal provisions can work effectively?
  Mr. Llwyd: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that view. I am sure that he is right. Indeed, I said earlier that I welcomed the fiscal amendment. I believe that there should be a minimum term. If there were, that would deal with the problem highlighted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There could even be a
  66
  sliding scale, which is not uncommon with fiscal arrangements. I have no doubt that we shall return to that matter in Committee.
  The Government are deriving a great deal of misplaced comfort from the so-called industry agreement. The president of the National Farmers Union said recently:
  "As part of the deal the NFU will accept that there should be no provision for a minimum term."
  The word "deal" is interesting. What is the deal? Will the NFU have two knighthoods a year instead of one? Time does not permit idle speculation, so we will have to speculate further about that outside the Chamber. However, I wonder whether it is a big deal. I do not know.
  The Farmers Union of Wales is implacably opposed to the proposals and it wants a minimum term for the reasons that I have given. Many members of the NFU in Wales, Iancashire and Cumbria oppose the Bill on the simple ground that there needs to be a minimum period of tenure. The leadership of the NFU, having gone through the painful process of arguing with the membership, has reached some sort of consensus. However, when the Government say time and again that there is consensus in the industry, they are not really correct because a large percentage of NFU members have yet to agree. The whole of the FUW strongly disagrees with the Bill. Therefore, the argument continues.
  If a reasonable minimum term were to be included in the Bill, that would not destroy its purpose of freeing up units. Common sense dictates that there is a great difference between tying up land for three generations and tying it up for 15 years. I am sure that such a provision would not drive a coach and horses through the raison d'être of the Bill.
  Much of the Bill needs to be amended and strengthened, for the reasons that I have given. As it stands, the Bill is similar to the curate's egg—good in parts.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in welcoming the Bill. I note that two of my more experienced colleagues, the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who spoke very effectively, made the point that the one thing they did not want to do was serve on the Committee. They made one or two telling and difficult points that rendered them ineligible to sit on the Committee. I note that the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) is shaking his head. Could I get away with saying that there is nothing that I would like more than to serve on the Committee? The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said that he, too, would like to serve on the Committee. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East will have made a careful note of that and, no doubt, room will be found for the hon. Gentleman.
  I welcome the Bill not only as someone who takes a personal interest in farming and agricultural matters, not only as a member of the Leicestershire and Rutland committee of the Country Landowners Association and not only as Member of Parliament for a rural constituency but as the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Harborough, where agriculture is practised by farmers who work both their own land and the land of others.

  67
  As occupants of the Chair will have heard earlier this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill has, I am happy to say, received the support of practically every organisation that has anything to do with agriculture. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has apparently said that the Bill no longer has the support of the official Opposition Front-Bench team. It is out of step with all the people who have given the matter any thought.
  I am also sorry that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has confirmed what I had heard before: that many Welsh tenant farmers are not as keen on the Bill as other farming practitioners in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a pity. I hope that, if he is fortunate enough to be selected for the Committee, and I know that he has pressed hard to be selected, he will have an opportunity to listen to the arguments advanced by Conservative Members and, indeed, by Opposition Members who did not listen, or who listened to, but ignored, the arguments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I hope that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will support Committee members who support the Bill.
  I support the Bill primarily because its general purpose is to encourage the letting of more farmland. That purpose is good and much to be welcomed, but I echo the words of warning that were uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and by people outside the House. We should not think that, if the Bill goes into law, acres and acres and acres of new let land will come on to the market—it will not. Some land will come on to the market. A lot more land than is now available to be let will be let, but a flood of new land, if I can mix my metaphors, will not become available.
  A flood of new entrants will not come into the farming world as a result of the Bill. Of course, several new entrants will enter it—I hope that many of them will do so—but there will not be a great rush of landlords willing to open up their land to new young farmers in the way that we would all like to see. We are, however, making progress.
  It is almost unnecessary to say this but I shall say it—the present law of agricultural tenancies is far too complicated; it has inhibited landowners from letting land; and it does not encourage them to do so. It serves neither landowners nor prospective tenants. If one considers the many Acts of Parliament which, in the past 150 years, have dealt with agricultural tenancies, one realises why that is so—they are all complicated. It took the half-hour speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud to point out some of the more complicated aspects of landlord and tenant law in relation to farming tenancies. With the expertise that he has, he sought to explain the intricacies of the Agriculture Act 1947 and of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. Since 1948, numerous miscellaneous agricultural tenancy provisions, statutory instruments and Bills have been introduced and they have further complicated the whole question.
  I should like to compare the present situation with that which pertained in the previous century. In doing so, I shall refer to some of the remarks that were made in another place by my noble Friend the Earl of Yarborough on 28 November 1994, in the Second Reading debate. During the course of his maiden speech to that House, he referred—I shall be referring rather than quoting, Mr.
  68
  Deputy Speaker—to what life was like on the Yarborough estate in Lincolnshire not so many years ago. He said that things had changed considerably, even in the past 50 years. When his great-grandfather owned the estate, the written contracts of all employees stated that they were to attend church. Even up to more recent times, the lease required all farming employees to walk a hound puppy. That is an admirable clause to add to all farming tenancies. Coming from Harborough, where I am the happy Member of Parliament for three packs of fox hounds, I wish that that were still considered to be a perfectly normal thing to do.
  The noble Earl went on to say that even his grandfather, the late Lord Yarborough, who did not die all that many years ago, had especially firm views on estate management. While reading the lesson in church one day, he quoted from St. Luke, chapter 2. When he got to the bit where the shepherds left their flocks to go in search of baby Jesus, he looked up at the congregation and exclaimed, "If they had been my shepherds, I would have sacked the lot of them." I think that things have changed a little. We have much to learn from the debates that took place in the other place just before Christmas.
  One of the things that we can learn from the other place—here I criticise myself—is shown in the following example. On the evening of the Second Reading debate, the noble Viscount Hampden noted that 16 speeches had already been made in under two and a half hours—it was still only 5.45 pm. Even better, by 6.33 pm, the House had adjourned, having finished the Second Reading debate. Would that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) were still in the Chamber to hear that the Jopling Committee's admonitions were taken more seriously in the other place than they are here.
  Let me remind the House of one odd quirk that arose during the speech of my noble Friend Viscount Hampden. He told those listening to him and, indeed, it could be claimed that he told those who were not listening to him, that his grandfather was the only Member of Parliament to have been able to vote twice on the same Bill in a different House. He had voted against the Parliament Act 1911 as the Unionist Member for Brighton in the House of Commons. Then, on the death of his father, and as the successor to his title, he had whipped Upstairs or along the Corridor to vote against it again. We do things a little differently here, except in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who we know succeeded his father, and in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who succeeded his father in that seat. Things in the other place are a little different from here.
  Much is to be learnt about the Bill and its good sense from the debates that took place in the other place. As I said when I opened my few remarks, a great sense exists that this sector of agriculture is in decline. I am advised by the Tenant Farmers Association:
  "The tenanted sector is the traditional way into the industry for those with skill and energy but who cannot afford to buy land. Yet it has been in steady decline for reasons which include owners' fears that any letting could create life tenancies under present legislation and tax discrimination against letting land. Almost no land is now freshly let on full tenancies under the present law. Agriculture, facing major economic and political pressures, needs the business flexibility that a free tenancy market can give for it to remain competitive; paying a rent rather than having to buy high priced land."

  69
  It is regrettable that that is not the view of the Farmers Union of Wales. As I said earlier, I trust that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will be persuaded that he will have heard enough in the debate and in Committee to change his mind and to allow him to return to his constituency and to change the minds of the members of the Farmers Union of Wales.
  The Tenant Farmers Association accepts the need for reform. Country landowners also accept it. As the hon. Member who opted on to the committee and who represents Leicestershire and Rutland, I should inform the House of the view of the Country Landowners Association on the Bill. It states:
  "Current agricultural holdings legislation serves neither landowners nor prospective tenants. It does not attract sufficient lettings, and the rented sector is in decline. In 1900, 90 per cent. of land was let. By the end of the 1980s, that figure had fallen below 35 per cent., and it continues to fall. Radical changes in the law are necessary to reverse this trend."
  Mr. Enright: I yield to none in my admiration for the Country Landowners Association which is a magnificent body that represents its members' interests very well. However, does the hon. Gentleman really believe that it takes an impartial view and that it agonised before reaching a conclusion?
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman's advocacy of rhubarb, which I greatly admire, is second to none. I am only sorry that he did not have time in his speech to commend Yorkshire rhubarb, something that he usually does when questioning any Minister on any subject. Of course the Country Landowners Association is self-evidently an association of those who own land—that is not a matter of controversy—but that does not mean that it is unsympathetic to, or careless of, the interests of all those who play a part in agriculture.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) was unworthy? It took considerable time and considerable courage on the part of all parties involved in the fanning industry to come up with the industry agreement and carry the bulk of their members with them. At many stages, all those organisations had to concede much more than their individual members would have wished.
  Mr. Garnier: I hear what my hon. Friend says but advise him not to take the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) too seriously as he is a man with a very refined sense of humour. However, I am happy to place on record the hard work done by the leadership of the CLA, the NFU and the TFA and the many others who played a constructive part in producing the agreement. It goes without saying that the civil servants and Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are also to be congratulated. However, I am being diverted. I was placing on record the view of the CLA and explaining why that organisation believes that there is need for reform.
  In addition to citing the decline of the amount of land available to be let, the CLA said that it was essential for the industry to have a
  "dynamic … rented sector, attracting capital, expertise and new entrants … as it faces increased competition. Reform will lead to an increased supply of land to let."
  70
  I said at the outset that the Bill would increase the amount of land to let but not to the extent that many of us had hoped. The CLA also states:
  "The RICS"—
  the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors—
  "estimated that up to one million acres might come forward."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to the figure of 1 million. It is difficult to see how that figure was arrived at but it is clear that that will exists to bring a great deal more land on to the market.
  The present state of agricultural tenancy law was described by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place as a "tangle". In introducing the Bill last November, he said:
  "The present tangle of agricultural holdings legislation has grown up largely over the last 120 years or so. Before then the relationship between the landlord and tenant of agricultural land was a much simpler one, governed principally by the terms of the tenancy agreement itself. In the middle of the last century, freedom of contract was held in high esteem, both in society and in legal circles. For example, in a case before the Court of Appeal in 1875 the then Master of the Rolls made the following pronouncement:
  'If there is one thing which more than any other public policy requires, it is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting and that their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by courts of justice'."
  The value of that dictum is timeless. I am only sorry that it did not receive the attention that it deserved during the passage of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
  The Parliamentary Secretary claimed:
  "Although one-third of agricultural land is still rented, much of this is now rented on short-term agreements such as Gladstone v. Bower tenancies which do not have security of tenure."
  Many hon. Members have spoken with feeling about that. The Parliamentary Secretary continued:
  "Thus, the proportion of land that is let on protected tenancies is small and diminishing, and where such tenancies terminate it is known that only about 10 per cent. of landlords choose to re-let on a similar basis."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 1994; Vol. 559, c. 485–86.].
  Any measure that can halt the decline, make more land available to let and encourage landowners to let land to existing tenant farmers or new entrants is to be encouraged. However, the Bill cannot do that alone. I am therefore happy to join my hon. Friends in welcoming the alteration to the capital tax provisions affecting rented land. I suspect that the relevant amendment to the Finance Bill will make more progress than this Bill alone but together the two will have an advantageous effect on the agricultural sector and the let division of it.
  As the hon. Member for Hemsworth intervened on me, it would be discourteous of me not to remind the House that he made an entertaining and learned speech, although it was dotted with unparliamentary Latin. However, his private little debate with my right hon. Friend the Minister was instructive for those of us who are not so familiar with the "Eclogues". No doubt as soon as the debate is over, many hon. Members will rush to the Library to check the hon. Gentleman's references and citations.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth mentioned the farming community in his constituency. He may know that I had the honour of attempting to take that constituency from the Labour party in 1987. I was not successful but I did manage to meet people who farm in that traditionally coal mining constituency. We are

  71
  mistaken if we think that Labour Members represent only urban and industrial constituencies. It is certainly the case that many of them do but many—too many, sadly—represent constituencies in which there are farmers. I suspect that if the hon. Member for Hemsworth and his colleagues who represent similar areas were to conduct a detailed poll of farmers, Iandlords and tenants in their constituencies, they would find that many would be prepared to welcome the Bill.
  Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend accept that the health of the agricultural sector goes far beyond farming per se? I previously represented the urban constituency of Bristol, North-West which contained, among other things, docks and aircraft factories. The health of the agricultural sector was important to my constituency because grain, feedstuffs and fertiliser were exported through the docks there. In other words, agriculture has to be healthy in order to support the service industries that feed on it.
  Mr. Garnier: I could not agree more. One of the sad effects of the industrial revolution was that, for obvious reasons, many people moved from the country to the cities and the affinity between them and the areas from which they came has been lost. The increase in incomprehension about what goes on in the countryside and the widening gap between the understanding of the urban population and the understanding of the rural population about what farming entails and about what country life is all about are much to be regretted.
  Mr. Enright: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that farmers in my constituency, who farm what is now British Coal property, but which will be sold off over their heads in the City, are happy with the Bill? It does nothing to protect them.
  Mr. Garnier: Far be it from me to lecture the hon. Gentleman on the individual opinions of his farmers—
  Mr. Enright: You did.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman has corrected me. The farmers who have been contacted by the agricultural associations, including the unions, have overwhelmingly come out in support of the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been unable to persuade his constituents of the good sense of the House passing the Bill. Next weekend, he can have another try; he may try a little harder this time. I do not want to part from the hon. Gentleman on a churlish note because his constituency is the birthplace of Geoffrey Boycott. It also has within it the greatest collection of Chippendale furniture to be found in one place in this kingdom, at Nostell priory—
  Mr. Enright: And Featherstone Rovers.
  Mr. Garnier: Featherstone Rovers, too. I trust that when the hon. Gentleman takes time off from talking to his farmers about the good sense of passing the Bill, he will take the chance to look at the furniture at the priory.
  I expressed disappointment at the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. It was in line with the current attitude of the Labour party—the so-called new Labour party—in being unhelpful to those who live outside traditional Labour areas. It was also in line with the speech we heard from the hon. Member for Leicester,
  72
  East (Mr. Vaz), the so-called shadow Minister for Inner Cities. Last week, he spent 26 minutes lecturing the House on rural England, a subject about which, as his speech made clear, he had no knowledge. It was interesting that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able in her winding-up speech, which lasted about eight minutes, to dismiss the ridiculous remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, East as the remarks of someone whose knowledge of farming and the countryside had been gained from the windows of InterCity trains at night. A truer word was never spoken in this House.
  This debate gives me the opportunity to place on record my support, and that of the Conservative party and the Government, for landlord farmers, whether they are human or corporate, for tenant farmers and for all those who live and work in the countryside and who have concern for its wildlife. In my part of Leicestershire, over the centuries, they have made the countryside the green and pleasant land that it is today. Their daily lives and work are less and less understood by the majority of the urban population.
  I have not spoken tonight about the A427 and for that you will be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I have done is to express my whole-hearted support for the Bill. I have expressed one or two reservations about the enthusiasm felt by many inside and outside the House about the numbers of new tenants, and the amount of new tenanted land, that will come on stream. None the less, this is a good Bill. It deserves a fair wind and I am sorry that the Labour party appears to have taken such a churlish attitude towards it.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Colin Pickthall: I noted with pleasure the speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). He always addresses arguments in the manner of a snow plough, brushing everything aside and ploughing straight down the middle. Some weeks ago, as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, of which he is the distinguished Chair, I asked him whether it would be a good idea for the Committee to investigate the issue before us this evening. His reply—I am sure that he will not mind my referring to this—was, "There is absolutely no point in discussing the subject because you lot will support the tenants and us lot will support the landowners. We will end up producing two reports and then we will be exactly where we were at the start." There was some sense in that and the conversation ceased at that point.
  There is, however, an area between complete deregulation, which is what the Government are about, and the status quo, which the Government want to get rid of. There is still a great deal of scope for reasonable discussion and there may be solutions less disturbing than those that currently worry many tenants and many Labour Members. That area was well covered by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) who made an intelligent and weighty speech full of interesting points that the Committee will want to consider.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare also mentioned, as have several other Conservative Members, that the Bill is supported across the industry. That is not quite so. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned his extensive visits around the country.

  73
  He cannot have made it to Wales, or at least he cannot have listened there very much, and he cannot have made it to the north-west or to Cumbria.
  Mr. Tyler: As I said during my speech—as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had listened—I have paid three visits to Wales in recent months. I have also been to the north-west and the north-east. There is far from unanimity, even in the depths of rural Wales, for the view taken by the Farmers Union of Wales.
  Mr. Pickthall: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that because that is my experience too. It makes his robust defence of the Bill even more surprising. The Bill is presented as if it had monolithic support from all organisations; it does not. Many of us have had meetings. A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and I met the Farmers Union of Wales, many members of the National Farmers Union from the north-west and the Farm Tenants Action Group. That group included one Conservative county councillor from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) who was a virulent opponent of the Bill. Until his recent sad death, Lord Derby was also an opponent of the total deregulation envisaged under the Bill. I did not hear that straight from his mouth; I did not move in those circles, but I heard it from many of his tenants.
  At the end of 1993, the NFU dropped its support for a 15-year minimum tenancy. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, it would be interesting to know what deal brought that change about. At that point, the NFU tenants committee split in a way that made opposition very clear in the north-west, in Wales and in Cumberland. Perhaps the country does split along those lines; I do not know about that in detail. Farmers told us that they were angry because the provisions were not retrospective. They do not object to the lack of retrospection in itself; they would be crazy if they did. They saw this lack of representation, however, as taking the heat out of the debate.
  As the provisions of the Bill are not retrospective, the tenant farmers to whom we spoke were personally secure and were thus talking out of a sense of altruism. They were worried about the future of farming and the fact that new tenants would find it more difficult to make a start in farming. They were worried about the threat to family farms and the fragmentation of farms.
  Mr. Jim Heyes—a member of the National Farmers Union tenants committee until the split—farms close to my constituency. He described the Bill as a "time bomb", which would have little immediate effect, but would mean that, as tenancies ended, farms would be rented out in a new and insecure way. He said:
  "The position of farmers in the community will be undermined because they will always be moving on. Currently farmers tend to be in once place for at least 25 years, bringing stability to the community."
  That is the other side of the stagnation argument voiced by Conservative Members. Mr. Heyes continued:
  "the law will cater for less sensible landlords and those who want to work the system".
  74
  It seems odd for me, as an Opposition Member, to be speaking on behalf of maintaining a system that has kept Jim and his family farming at Mossborough hall since the 16th century, but I am at home with that argument. He also said that the Bill would mean the
  "destruction of any career structure for farm workers"
  because of the short-term nature of their employers' business. Farm workers have not been mentioned in that context.
  The Government have sought change for three main reasons: the unfavourable fiscal treatment of let land; the problems of the remaining rights of succession and lifetime tenancies; and the fact that the amount of let land is declining as a percentage of farmland, as many hon. Members have said, thus restricting new entry. In the other place, the noble Lord Carter estimated that it is now as low as between 20 and 25 per cent. Nevertheless, that is a quarter of farmland and it is not an inconsiderable amount.
  The Government's announced equalisation of fiscal treatment for inheritance tax has sorted out some of the problems, but hon. Members have drawn to Ministers' attention where the tax regime is not yet satisfactory.
  The original NFU policy of a 15-year minimum tenancy had some force. It answered the arguments about lifetime tenancy rights but retained an element of security that, while not going all the way to answering tenant farmers' concerns—certainly not those of the Farmers Union of Wales—at least acknowledged the need to protect continuity in law, with all that that means for career structure, the health of the land and the environmental investment of tenants.
  My concern is whether the free-for-all that the Government and the CLA insisted on will create better conditions for new entry, or whether it is simply a means of increasing the value of land to the landowner—a process that will automatically follow from short tenancies. The shorter the tenancy, the greater the increase in value. Of course, that never occurred to the Church Commissioners. As we were assured, they are merely worried about flexibility and it never crossed their minds that their land holdings might rocket in value.
  The Bill would create two classes of tenant—those who enjoy the present rights of security and those who do not. The former have the sort of security that can attract backing from banks to enable them to secure further rented land on a short or a longer-term lease, which might keep out new entrants, who will find that the short-term nature of their leases is not conducive to getting the financial backing or investment required. The same problem arises with larger owner-occupiers and their ability to take on extra parcels of land, and contract farming companies, which are able to offer higher rents.
  It is more than possible—I put it no higher than that—that the number of tenant farmers will continue to decline and that new entrants will not get the toe-hold that the propaganda surrounding the Bill promises. We must take considerable care to deal with that problem.
  The sons and daughters of farmers, who are the largest pool of future farmers, may well be discouraged from staying in the family business, or even in fanning, by the short-term nature of their parents' leases. The possibility of short-term leases might encourage the fragmentation of farms. Older owner-occupiers might be encouraged by the new system to retire, retain the farmhouse and lease off

  75
  parcels of land to provide an income, which could divide more houses and farms and accelerate the demand for more building. I am concerned about that, as it might affect the green belt, and I know that the Minister of State will also be concerned.
  During the debate a couple of weeks ago, I asked questions about the effects of planning policy guidance 7. The Minister did not have time to answer any questions because she spent so much time abusing my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), but she said that she would get in touch with me with some answers. That has not yet happened. As the Minister knows, PPG 7 loosens the controls on the alternative use of agricultural buildings, allowing landowners to secure planning agreements to change the use of such buildings, even if they are not redundant.
  Mr. Waldegrave: That is PPG 2.
  Mr. Pickthall: I am sorry. I stand corrected.
  That change could be a significant means of elbowing out the tenant, by removing certain important buildings and I want the Minister to deal with that in his reply.
  Tenants who want to move to bigger or better holdings will be able to do so only by giving up the security that they enjoy. They will be reluctant to do so—indeed, they would be mad to do so—which will further choke off the possibility of movement within the tenanted sector.
  Several hon. Members have referred to the lack of stepping stones—I think that the ladder has been the metaphor. One of the significant rungs in such a ladder must be when a tenant moves from a small farm, or perhaps a difficult farm having made a good job of it, to a better farm and, he hopes, to an even better farm after that. He used to be able to do so with security. He is not going to move to a slightly better farm if he then suddenly finds himself without lifetime security. The total removal of the minimum term, therefore, might not achieve what the Bill's central purpose is purported to be—the increased flexibility to attract new tenants—and it could well do the opposite.
  The probability of adverse effects on the environmental work that farmers undertake is just as serious. Because many farms are of a piece and are lived on for a long time, tenant farmers have traditionally improved the quality of the land, the buildings and often the marginal environment. Their role in improving ditches, sluices and drainage is especially important in a flat, low-lying, peat area such as mine. Under a 10-year lease, which is reasonably optimistic, will there be the same natural, cumulative process of positive work on the quality of the land and the environment in tenanted areas? I very much doubt it.
  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which seems to have written a bible in connection with this debate, suggests that some 50 per cent. of new land let will be bare land. That connects with a question asked by Viscount Hampden on Second Reading in another place. He asked, dramatically, what one should do about houses for farmers. Lord Stockton went on to another subject and left it as a rhetorical question. I do not blame him, for it is a difficult question. The demand by new entrants farming bare land to live close to or on their holdings will increase. That is only natural, especially when they must
  76
  keep an eye on livestock, which cannot be done easily from five miles away in a neighbouring town with perhaps one or two remaining council houses, or when they have glasshouses. Pressure on the planning system to build on green belt or other sensitive areas will increase.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked who will house tenants evicted after five or 10 years. Where will they go? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East discussed the Labour party's policy for freeing up entry into farming. I shall refer to just one element of that, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members this evening: county council smallholdings. Until last year, Iancashire county council, for instance, had 4,700 hectares of county council smallholdings. Once the current negotiations have been finalised, it will have only 1,750 hectares, comprising just 65 smallholdings in total. That has been brought about partly by the Government's decision in 1992 to allow councils to spend the proceeds obtained from such sales, so long as they got rid of them before December 1993, and now by the assumption in resettlement grants of ludicrous levels of capital receipts. County councils are being steadily and progressively removed from the tenancy sector and I imagine that most of them will be completely removed from it by the end of the year.
  I accept that movement through the county council smallholding system has been relatively small. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare gave figures on that. None the less, in one area tenancies reached 65, so there was some possibility of movement in the system. If the Government wanted to do something about that, would not it have been more logical to give shorter tenancies for county council smallholdings?.
  A colleague told me to look at the case of Johnson v. Moreton, which was heard by the Law Lords in 1987. I recognise that events have moved on since then. The dispute was over an attempt to evict a tenant in Warwickshire. I refer not to the details of that case, but to some of the Law Lords' judgments, which still apply. In the first sentence of their finding—they found in favour of the tenant—they discussed the 1948 Act on which their judgment was based. They said that
  "it was in the national or public interest to encourage efficient farming and good husbandry by conferring security of tenure on tenant farmers, and that such farmers, because of their inequality of bargaining power, required statutory protection in the making of contracts for the leasing of land."
  Mr. Jack: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments on security of tenure. Does he agree that clauses 1, 5, 6 and 7 of the Bill give the protection that he seeks?
  Mr. Pickthall: I agree that, for the Government, many parts of the Bill, such as those on compensation agreements, are immensely compromising. However, I am dealing with the overall effects of the Bill, which, the Minister will agree, is primarily aimed at freeing up tenancies to bring new people into farm tenancies. I assume that the aim of Bill is not entirely to fill landowners' pockets with money. I have been trying to explain why, in reality, the Bill could have the reverse effect. In that respect, I share the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.
  Lord Salmon went on to say that, if there was no such thing as security of tenure,

  77
  "there was no great inducement for those farmers to work as hard as they could, still less to plough money back into land which they knew they might well lose sooner or later.
  The security of tenure which tenant farmers were accorded by the 1947 Act was not only for their own protection as an important section of the public, nor only for the protection of the weak against the strong; it was for the protection of the nation itself."
  I shall not bore the House by quoting extensively from that judgment, but all the Law Lords agreed and I quote only the general principles on which they made their judgment, not the details of the law.
  Some of the most striking phrases came from Lord Hailsham's judgment. He said that
  "since the 1880s successive Parliaments have considered the fertility of the land and soil of England and the proper farming of it as something more than a private interest … It takes years (sometimes generations) of patient and self-abnegating toil and investment to put heart into soil, to develop and gain the advantage of suitable rotations of crops, and to provide proper drains, hedges and ditches. Even to build up a herd of dairy cattle … These are not simply matters of private contracts from which the landlord can stipulate that the tenant can deprive himself … It is a public interest introduced for the sake of the soil and husbandry of England of which both landlord and tenant are in a moral, though not of course a legal, sense the trustees for posterity."
  Obviously, the same applies to Wales.
  I return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech about the clear polarities between the parties, mentioned by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. There are large areas for compromise, which I hope can get rid of many of the fears of Opposition Members and the tenant farmers with whom we have spoken in recent months. Most of the areas of compromise appear to be swept away in the Government's urge to deregulate. Ultimately, that will be detrimental to the future of farming in the north-west and the rest of the country, and to country life itself.
  7.38 pm
  Mr. Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) seems to have discovered various cells of the National Farmers Union in Westmorland arid Wales that are against the Bill. He must accept that, nationally, the Country Landowners Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and the National Farmers Union, after enormous discussions among themselves, reached a mutual agreement on both sides of the industry. That is a fact of life, which he cannot avoid. Of course, one can find dissidents in those organisations, as one does in all organisations, but the national situation is clear.
  Mr. Pickthall: I believe that, in a sizeable slice of the country, comprising Cumbria, Iancashire, Cheshire and Wales, the majority of tenant farmers oppose the measure.
  Mr. Spicer: I do not know about that part of the country, but the national position is clear. It is so clear that all those organisations have agreed; indeed, everyone is pretty well agreed except for, it would appear, the Labour party.
  One can understand why the Labour party might oppose the Bill, because the Bill—to my mind, admirably—strengthens proper market principles with respect to the agriculture industry, and especially bases those principles on the supremacy of the contract within lettings. That has been done in the circumstances of a very sharp decline in the lettings industry due, as has been said,
  78
  to factors on both sides of the industry—the lack of security of tenants or the feeling of lack of security, and the fact that, for years, Iandlords have not been able to get their properties back in the way that they would want to.
  That dying letting industry is in a worse condition than most of the statistics that have been pushed back and forth across the House suggest. Arm's-length tenancies as a proportion of holdings had decreased to 19 per cent., according to figures published by the Royal Agricultural Society three or four years ago, and were declining. That is a very serious matter.
  The Bill, as has been said, encourages new entrants; it encourages a flexibility of approach that must encourage new lettings, although this may be difficult to quantify precisely, as several hon. Members have said.
  Would that the principles of the Bill—especially the liberalisation of taxation that goes alongside the legislation—were applied to that extent in, for instance, the residential lettings market. When I stopped being Minister for Housing and Planning, the residential lettings market accounted for the smallest proportion of the housing market of that in any country in the western world, and there were very large numbers of unlet houses: 600,000 in my time. I doubt that the figure has improved much. I certainly approve of the liberalisation measure in the agricultural tenancy sector.
  I have one reservation, which relates to the famous "Evesham custom". I use the word, "famous", but I suspect that only you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have heard of the Evesham custom before tonight. It will effectively be abolished if the Bill goes unamended. As I have the honour of representing Evesham and the vale, and have done so for 21 years, I am likely to be the only hon. Member to bring that matter, which is very serious in my opinion and that of my constituents, before the House tonight.
  The Evesham custom became law exactly 100 years ago, when it was introduced by means of the Market Gardeners Compensation Act 1895 by two of my predecessors. In those days, two Members represented the Vale of Evesham; now we have two for the price of one. The grandson of one of those hon. Members, Sir Berwick Letchmere, continues to live prominently in the constituency.
  The Evesham custom was maintained in the Agricultural Holdings Acts of 1908, 1923, 1948 and, most importantly in view of the argument that I shall make, in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. It applies exclusively to land tenanted for the purposes of market gardening. It relates, therefore, to small parcels of land—often of no more than two or three acres—on which the monitoring of improvements, and indeed valuation when there is a transaction, was regarded, and continues to be regarded, as so costly and time consuming for the large landlords that dominate our district—such as the Glebe and the Christ Church, Oxford—which tend to be ecclesiastical landlords as it happens, as to make it not worth their while to become too involved in matters that are important to the tenants.
  A method was therefore devised by which tenants became responsible for their own purchases and sale of their tenancies, which carried with them a lifetime tenure. Tenancies were bought and sold, with the protection of statute, at prices that could and did include the value of improvements, the value of crops and, critically, a premium associated with lifetime security. I am told that

  79
  typically, nowadays, that premium is worth between about £200 and £300 an acre, or about 50 per cent. of the market price of agricultural land.
  In the Vale of Evesham, about 420 tenants are affected, many of whom have paid the premium or have included it in their balance sheets, to the extent that they bought it or it was bought many years previously. I am told that 420 tenants in my constituency are affected in that way by the Bill, but there may well be an equal number throughout the country who will suffer a similar deprivation if the Bill is passed. If the Bill was passed unamended, they would suffer a loss of anything up to thousands of pounds in terms of loss of premium valuations and, being small businesses, they would be very badly affected.
  Should the premium that those tenants have paid for, or have found in their balance sheets over the years, be stripped from them retrospectively? I hope that the Government will reconsider the issue, because there has been considerable confusion about the matter, certainly in departmental circles. Not many people have thought the matter through. It affects only 420 tenants in the Vale of Evesham, but, crucially, it affects the premium that has been added to the other valuations, and I emphasise that it would be retrospective. The Government have made a big play of the fact that the legislation is not to be retrospective, so I hope that they will consider the retrospective element of that matter very carefully.
  An amendment could easily be added to the list of exemptions in clause 4 of the Bill. Those would disallow new tenancies using the Evesham custom, but would allow present tenancies to be saved from retrospective abolition. In practice, the custom would die out, partly as a result of the trend towards ownership of larger parcels of land, and partly because the custom already dies on the death of the incumbent unless it is passed on.
  This is a wrinkle in an otherwise very welcome Bill, but it is an important one, at least for the 420 tenants who are, rather worryingly, affected, or potentially affected, by the Bill—to the extent that several of them could well go out of business through no fault of their own, as a result of the effect that the change in the premium valuation would have on their balance sheets.
  I said at the start of my speech that the Bill would help the process by which new entrants come into agriculture. Sadly, the effects of the Bill must be seen in the context of the general working of the common agricultural policy, one part of which is the distortion deterring new entrants to agriculture. The artificial suppressions of supply and price, and above all the inflated values of certain holdings to which quotas apply, are real deterrents. The Labour party claims to have a magical way of dealing with the distortions of milk quotas, for example, but it seems that we would still be left with basically the same system.
  If we are to encourage new entrants, we must radically reform the CAP. The United Kingdom will have to have control over the way in which its agriculture is supported, which should be only where that support is directly required. We should not be in the business of distorting our agriculture for the purpose of helping other countries' agriculture.
  I welcome the Bill, but it is a small drop in a large bucket if the purpose is to release agriculture from its present constraints and to make it more flexible, and to
  80
  make it more worth while to rent and own agricultural property and to work in the interests of British farming and horticulture.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: First, I declare my interests. I am connected with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and the Charities Property Association.
  Perhaps the interests of our 250,000 farmers and 48,000 agricultural workers have been forgotten during the debate. In the 1900s, 90 per cent. of farming land was let while only 30 per cent. is now let. How will the Bill attempt to remedy that? Words such as "stewardship" and "benefit" to agriculture must be uppermost in our minds. That is why the four major parts of the industry came together, following some tortuous negotiations, to produce an industry-wide agreement.
  The parties to the agreement were the CLA, the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association Ltd., and above all—the organisation has not, to my knowledge, been mentioned before this evening—the young farmers. The young farmers are especially important because they are the people who are trying to get into agriculture. It is regrettable that the present system locks them out of it. Young farmers cannot afford the entrance fee that the current system demands. If the health of the industry is uppermost in our minds, we should be encouraging younger people to enter it. It has been said that the average age of a tenant farmer is 55 years. If that is the fact, we should be seriously concerned. We should be considering ways of reducing that average age.
  Apart from youngsters, there are those who have had a first career in a profession or industry, who have made a bit of money and who want to have a second career in farming. They, too, should be able to enter the industry.
  The Royal Agricultural college is in my constituency. We know that there are other such excellent centres of education. We have a great tradition of training new entrants into agriculture and we have done that extremely well. It is a tradition that we export throughout the world. I was a student at the RAC, and when I travel the world I meet other ex-students who are advising foreign Governments. We have excellent training and it would greatly enhance the health of agriculture if we encouraged new entrants.
  The Bill has been produced after tortuous negotiations. As is apparent, it is largely a deregulatory measure. It will allow much greater freedom for agreement between landlord and tenant, and between lessor and lessee. At the same time, there are dangers and pitfalls for both sides of an agreement. It is for both parties carefully to negotiate a tenancy agreement. I recommend that anyone entering into such an agreement should ensure that it is set out in writing. It would be foolish for either a tenant or a landlord to enter into a verbal agreement unless it were for two years or less. Contrary to what was said earlier, it is possible under the Bill to have a verbal agreement.
  The RICS has been criticised for estimating that more than 1 million acres of farming land would potentially be created by the enactment of the Bill. The estimate was arrived at because 10,000 agreements in the private sector are now negotiated outside the provisions of agricultural holdings legislation. I shall deal later with the options.

  81
  Having arrived at an industry-wide agreement and the Government having produced an extremely good Bill, the industry is poised to let much more land go forward for tenancies. Agricultural husbandry is set to improve by encouraging new entrants into agriculture. What has happened? We find at the last minute that the Labour party has decided to oppose the Bill.
  It is incredible that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who is about to walk out of the Chamber, was a Labour Minister when what was the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill passed through the House, to be enacted in 1976. The hon. Gentleman has recognised the folly of that Act as it applied to the tenanted sector of agriculture. He knows that almost overnight the lettings of farms dried up. Why was that? The answer was that the current tenant had security of tenure, as did the two succeeding tenants. The hon. Gentleman came to recognise that. He has made various statements since I have been a Member of this place, and I have not been here for very long. He has recognised the damage that was done to the tenanted sector by the 1976 legislation. I hope that, although time has passed, this Bill will go a long way to remedy the disastrous effects of the Labour Government's legislation.
  Why does the Labour party oppose the Bill? The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has made some extraordinary statements. For example, he said that he wanted the pattern of farm sizes to adjust to market forces. He said in his next sentence that he was worried about social justice and the relationship between landlord and tenant not being equal. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either he believes in market forces or he does not. It should be understood that no one is forcing a landlord to let or a tenant to take land. There must be a free market agreement. That is the best approach if both parties are subsequently to be happy about what they have done.
  If I were one of our 45,000 agricultural workers, I would be quaking at the Labour party's attitude to the Bill. If the Labour party opposes the Bill, there will be no farms to let and the number of farms and farmers will decline. Above all, the number of farm workers will decline because the industry will not be sufficiently profitable to continue to employ them all. The trend that we have seen since the war will continue.
  It is foolish of the Labour party to oppose the Bill. I hope that the Opposition will not divide the House, but if they insist on doing so—I suspect that they are so shortsighted that they will—they will give a signal to the industry that they intend subsequently to change the proposed legislation. If they intend to do that, let them give an undertaking that any such change will not be retrospective. At least we would not then have to wait 20 or 30 years until Labour came to power with the industry being apprehensive and not letting. I should be grateful if the Labour party would give the industry that assurance, as landlords and tenants would then be given the confidence to go forward from the enactment of the Bill—one hopes well before the end of the year—and use its provisions to the benefit of the industry.
  82
  When I wrote my speech, it just so happened that I wanted to comment on clause 4, although not the type of clause 4 which Labour is talking about.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I know that the hon. Gentleman will be very pleased to talk about clause 4.
  Mr. Williams: I shall intervene before the hon. Gentleman moves on to clause 4. The hon. Gentleman made a ringing declaration about free market forces, and how the Bill allows the free market to work within tenancies. Does he feel comfortable in his own mind that he is talking about agriculture, when the common agricultural policy is the most interventionist policy one could imagine? Is not it contradictory to be strongly advocating the free market in what is an incredibly rigged market?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) on this. We must press for the European Community to expand to the east, and it will be difficult under GATT and the CAP to continue the present regime. I expect the present regime to continue until the reforms which are due to take place in 1999. Thereafter, there may be some phasing out and reduction of the CAP, not least when the second stage of GATT starts to bite.
  I return to clause 4 and, before I am ruled out of order, I must add that I am not referring to the Labour party's clause IV. Clause 4 is important, because it puts an absolute seal on anybody being able to make the legislation retrospective. The clause rules out those tenants who already come under the terms of the Agriculture Holdings Act 1986. Even artificial devices with the agreement of both the landlord and the tenant will not be affected by the Bill.
  Having said that, clause 4(1)(d) was amended in another place, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at it. I have read it several times and—although I shall take advice from my legal friends—it is a tortuous clause. Perhaps it can be simplified a little.
  Clause 37, which is the most fundamental clause in the Bill and which has not been mentioned tonight, relates to the definition of agriculture, which has been lifted from the definition in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 and which I believe to be somewhat out of date. For example, the clause talks about osier land, but I doubt whether there are many commercial osier beds left. The definition needs to be updated.
  The definition—which is the basis of the Act—must suggest where the industry will go in the future. For example, we need to think about including in the definition crops for industrial and fuel uses. We must think about those tenants who will have land in various Government schemes, such as set-aside, environmentally sensitive areas and nitrate sensitive areas. Will they be included in the definition? The basis of the Bill could be undermined unless we consider updating that clause.
  Clause 10 relates to rent reviews. There was great discussion in the other place about this, and the clause was subject to an amendment which enshrined the Government's intention that the Bill could be used to review rents upwards as well as downwards. My hon.

  83
  Friend knows that it is possible to have a rent review by agreement which includes the usual clauses referring to the default of an agreement in which an arbitrator can be appointed. It is also permissible to draw up a tenancy agreement in which the rent is to be reviewed by a formula. I have talked to several professionals in the industry, and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend at some stage—perhaps not this evening, but in Committee—could clarify what sort of formulae would be accepted which would give rise to the possibility of a downwards, as well as an upwards review.
  Would a formula on a retail prices index basis be acceptable? Would it be acceptable to have a formula based on some form of profitability of the tenant's farming? The industry is interested to know about those things, and it would be helpful if my hon. Friend could clarify them.
  Rent reviews have been mentioned widely by professionals in the industry, and one aspect of those discussions has been the resumption of part of the holding, for which the Bill rightly makes no provision and for which prudent landlords and tenants will wish to make provision. If a tenant wished to surrender part of the holding and the landlord wished to resume part of it—the rent being altered thereby—would that trigger a fixed-term review date? We need to be clear about that.
  I have said that the Bill is largely a deregulatory measure which allows greater freedom of agreement between landlord and tenant. Therefore, I believe that it will start to incorporate some of the facets which are well known in commercial property law, including the concept of forfeiture. Under the old agriculture holdings arrangements, where a tenant had an irredeemable breach of covenant, there was an incontestable notice to quit. This Bill contains nothing like the seven deadly sins that were covered by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. Those matters have—quite rightly—been left to the landlord and the tenant to agree. But, as in the case of commercial property, I believe that the law of forfeiture will apply in those cases.
  One other piece of commercial practice which I believe may apply to the legislation—I raised the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister earlier this week—is the concept of privity of estate and privity of contract, which was the subject of an amendment by Lord Gallacher in another place. It is a highly technical matter, and I shall try to explain the concept simply to the House.
  Where the parties to a lease agree to certain matters which affect the property, they are bound by that agreement. That is called privity of estate. One can, of course, enforce those covenants in a court of law, and that becomes what is known as privity of contract. Under commercial agreements in England and Wales—not Scotland, as the law there is the opposite to that in England and Wales—where an assignment takes place and the assignee defaults on the lease, the enforcement of the original covenants can go back to the original assignee. In commercial property, the original assignee can be several stages and many years down the line.
  I have had one very bad case in my constituency, where a couple had been retired for many years in a very nice town. They had totally forgotten about the commercial lease of their small premises, and the landlord had gone back through all the lessees, all of whom had—for one
  84
  reason or another—been unable to meet their obligations under the covenants. Suddenly the couple found themselves with a huge bill for a lease which they had long since forgotten. I would be very interested to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about that.
  Although some professionals disagree with me, I think that if we had a comparatively long lease for farm business tenancies—for example, 25 years—and there was more than one assignment during that term, those assignees could be held to account by the landlord. That is a very undesirable and insidious practice, and I am talking to the Lord Chancellor's office to try to abolish it in the commercial sector. As the farm business tenancy scheme is an entirely new concept, I urge my hon. Friend—if he and his experts agree with me—to see whether it will apply to the Bill. My hon. Friend should consider seriously amendments to make sure that that does not apply under the new concept. It is an entirely new concept; it is not retrospective and it will not affect existing tenants. I think that it would be a thoroughly worthwhile exercise.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I support the points that he has made and I add my concern that the Bill might perpetuate the existing law in some way. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor said in another place that there is a case for reforming the law and if the Bill allows the iniquitous practice of privity of contract to continue it is most important that we amend it in the House.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. As hon. Members know, he has tried to introduce a private Member's Bill to remedy the situation. He and I are working hard with various parties in the commercial sector in an effort to avoid the pitfalls that should not befall the agricultural sector.
  On the more technical aspects of the Bill, clauses 15 to 19 deal with improvements. There has been much discussion about what the words "physical" and "intangible" mean in the context of clause 15. I think that the word "physical" encompasses growing crops, tenant right, severed crops and so on, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) has mentioned. The "intangible" element of the clause is much more difficult to define and I think that it will give rise to many court cases in the future.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give some examples now or in Committee of how the intangible aspects of the clause will be dealt with. Those which arise during the currency of the lease will be affected, as well as those intangible aspects that may not have been noticed when the lease was taken out. Intangible aspects encompass simple things such as planning permission and abstraction licences, but we must also deal with the difficult intangibles such as good will.
  How does one compensate either the landlord or the tenant for good will at the end of a tenancy? How does one with deal with contaminated land, for example, which may be attributed to an act of the tenant but which may not be noticed for many years? Those matters must be considered very carefully.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the problems of quotas and the compensation clauses. Under the previous legislation, the landlord was entitled to a share of the milk quota as of right, but this legislation does not prescribe

  85
  how quotas should be dealt with. One cannot foresee what will happen if we introduced a wheat quota, for example, which would decrease the land value considerably from the landlord's point of view. The tenant could then sell off that free quota for a substantial amount of money at the end of his tenancy and the landlord would suffer as a consequence. We must examine those aspects of the Bill.
  A number of professionals have referred recently to a problem with serving notice under the legislation. I believe that it could be remedied fairly easily arid there must be plenty of legal precedent as to how the notices should be served. The legislation does not outline how a landlord should deal with a tenant who consistently refuses to allow any form of notice to be served upon him. Those sorts of problems have been overcome in similar legal situations.
  The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers has raised several other problems with me. Under the Act as it was drawn originally, clause 34 allowed only solicitors to draw up leases of three years or more. I believe that there will be an amendment in Committee to allow chartered surveyors—of which I am one—to draw up such leases.
  Although I have a vested interest in not allowing anyone else to draw up the leases, I must point out that the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers is the most widely respected body in the area of agricultural valuations. Its yearly valuation tables form the basis of the work of all professionals in the field—whether they are surveyors, accountants or solicitors. Therefore, it would be iniquitous for the Bill to exclude that organisation from drawing up leases.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned a problem with granting planning permission. What will happen if a tenant applies for planning permission for a housing estate, for example? It could involve the payment of substantial compensation to the tenant at the end of his term of tenancy and the sum involved may be well beyond the landlord's resources.
  Under the present Act, the tenant must ask the landlord to allow him to apply for planning permission and the landlord may refuse to give that permission. The matter can then be referred to arbitration and the arbitrator may allow the tenant to apply for planning permission for a housing estate, which is duly granted. However, if the housing estate is not built, when the tenancy comes to an end the landlord may have to compensate the tenant for many hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Bill should contain a mechanism to allow the landlord to block tenants applying for planning permission. We must examine that area closely.
  Many of the Bill's clauses allow for matters to be taken to arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1950, which will give arbitrators far greater freedom than they have at present. The Bill also gives the landlord and the tenant the right to appoint an independent expert and there may be a temptation to appoint such as expert as it will be a much cheaper process than arbitration. What will happen
  86
  if an independent expert makes a decision in favour of one side and the parties disagree? Will they he able to appoint an arbitrator subsequently?
  Mr. Jack: If a person who is independent of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is appointed, the two parties must agree beforehand to abide by the arbitrator's decision.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's clarification. Perhaps he will clarify what will happen if one party wishes to appoint an independent expert but the other party does not. The matter will then almost certainly have to go to arbitration because the Bill provides that the matter should be referred to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which will appoint an arbitrator. I hope that that assertion is correct. If my hon. Friend does not wish to clarify that point now perhaps he will do so later.
  We have had a long canter around the course this evening. I welcome the Bill as one of the most important milestones in the post-war history of agriculture. It is a long-overdue reform from which landowners, tenants, agricultural workers and new entrants to the industry will benefit. Yet the Labour party consistently opposes it. It is typical of the Opposition to think that their only role is to oppose. They cannot see that, when it is in the interests of the entire industry, for once they should support the legislation. I welcome the Bill and I wish it a speedy passage on to the statute book.
  8.18 pm
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: I have listened intently to the speech of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I followed the first half quite well, but I found it more difficult when he began to discuss privity of contract. The hon. Gentleman has certainly done his homework in that area and if he is as voluble in Committee as he has been this evening the Committee process will be a long one. I agreed with his early comments about the common agricultural policy, although I beg to differ about how the free market will assist agricultural tenancies.
  I also listened intently to the opening speeches by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). My hon. Friend concentrated on the insecurity that the Bill will create among tenant farmers. Farming is a long-term enterprise and requires considerable commitment and investment—particularly in the case of livestock. The present legal framework offers lifetime tenancies and succession rights, but if there is a move to the free market and no minimum tenancy, there will be enormous insecurity.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that most new land on the market is the subject of short-term lets. In Wales in 1993, only 11 per cent. of all relet private land was the subject of long-term agreements, whereas a massive 72 per cent. was accounted for by short-term agreements. The Bill will tend to encourage the latter. The right hon. Gentleman said that when the market settles, it will be in the interests of landlords and tenants to enter into long-term agreements, typically of 10 to 15 years. That is more an article of faith than a belief based on experience. There is a risk of a multiplicity of short-term contracts of three, five, seven or 10 years in place of existing lifetime

  87
  tenancies. That could inflict on British agriculture the short-termism that cripples British industry, with its failure to plan and invest for the long term.
  Short tenancies would make it difficult for new entrants. Banks will be reluctant to lend money for farm improvements and investment unless there is security of tenure for 20 years or more.
  Mr. Jack: Can the hon. Gentleman substantiate that claim with the views of any particular clearing bank, particularly bearing in mind the fact that banks already transact substantial business in providing finance to tenants who are only on Gladstone v. Bower agreements?
  Mr. Williams: At a presentation given last year by the Welsh NFU, one of its officers stated that Barclays was reluctant to lend to new entrants unless there was long-term security of tenure. I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I know that the statement was made.
  The NFU's chairman in Wales, John Lloyd Jones, stated in a press release dated 16 February 1994 that
  "virtually all lettings in the last few years have been on the minuscule 20 month Gladstone Bower arrangement, which gives neither tenant nor landlord adequate returns or opportunities …You have to remember that the present situation is not encouraging young farmers into the tenant sector, but simply enabling existing farmers to be larger because they are the only people who can take the risks implied in a tenancy as short term as 12 to 20 months."
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman heard my remark that 10,000 current private landlord agreements are skirting existing legislation. That represents a large amount of agricultural land. The RICS calculates that a high proportion will come within the Bill's scope, which would provide much greater stability. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Williams: There may be stability in some cases, but in Wales generally there is strong opposition to the Bill.
  The proposed legislation could mean short-term exploitation of the environment to its long-term detriment. In upland areas, what value will the upkeep of hedges, dry stone walls and wildlife features command if all contracts and agreements are short term? I am aware of the NFU's qualified support for the Bill, but the Welsh NFU wants tenancies of a minimum of 15 years. Ninety per cent. of farms in parts of Wales such as Betws and Coed in Snowdonia are tenanted. If they become short term, there will be severe repercussions.
  The average age of farmers in Wales is 58 and the industry desperately needs a new early retirement scheme. There is a case for helping older farmers to retire, provided that they make way for their sons or daughters or for another person.
  I am concerned about the Bill's effect on rents for existing tenants. The December 1994 parliamentary brief that hon. Members received included an article by Roger Gibbard, lecturer in land management at Reading university. He stated:
  "Throughout the debate, perhaps the fiercest opposition has come from existing tenant-farmers, despite repeated assurances that existing tenancies will not be affected. One of the greatest fears is that the rents on new lettings, which will inevitably be higher due to competitive tendering in an under-supplied marketplace, will be used as comparables in traditional rent reviews, much in the same
  88
  way as residential rents are often quoted as comparables for farmhouses. The consequence of this will be pressure on existing tenants to pay higher rents."
  Other hon. Members mentioned the importance of local authority smallholdings in offering a way in to young people. Dyfed county council has 167 such farms, ranging from 40 to 180 acres. They are retirement tenancies with an age limit of 65. Ten to 12 farms become available every year to let. There is an appalling danger that local government reorganisation and the financial pressures on councils will put them under pressure to sell. Councils must resist if their farms are to remain as breeding grounds for new farmers.
  The Bill suits existing owner-occupier farmers who want more land, agribusiness or contract agriculture. However, short-term agreements will make life much more difficult for new entrants. It will drive up rents for existing tenant farmers and can only be destructive for the environment. I am happier with the present system, which offers greater security to tenant farmers, and allows them to plan long term and to farm in harmony with the environment.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I declare my interests in agriculture as a landlord, owner-occupier, tenant, member of the Country Landowners Association and National Farmers Union, a past president of the Hampshire Association of Young Farmers Clubs and one of its current vice-presidents. I believe that I have the credentials to speak in this debate.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams). He reflected the Farmers Union of Wales brief in demanding longer tenancies, but that is entirely in his hands and those of Labour's Front Bench. If they removed the uncertainty that persists over the future of tenancy legislation, Iandlords would be greatly encouraged to grant longer-term lets.
  The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was probably one of the most powerful that we have heard this evening, and one would expect that from a former student of the Royal Agricultural college, Cirencester. I, too, am a former student—only I did the short course. From the great knowledge that he obviously has of both landlord and tenant legislation and the proposals before the House today, it is clear that he did the long course and came out very fully qualified.
  I was interested in some of the other contributions. My hon. Friend has obviously talked himself on to the Standing Committee that will consider the Bill, but so, too, has my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who referred to the 420 tenants in his constituency and the way in which the Bill will affect premium valuations. I sense that there was confusion on the Government Front Bench when he put his questions. It will be interesting to see whether he gets an answer this evening.
  The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) made an interesting contribution. I was surprised that, as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, he did not have a greater knowledge of landlord and tenant legislation. It is perhaps a pity that the Select Committee did not look at the present law and decide how it might be reformed. He referred to the Bill as total deregulation, which it manifestly is not. One cannot just repeal all

  89
  landlord and tenant legislation and hope that case law will take its place. The Bill replaces what is in existence with something that we think will be very much better.
  The hon. Member for Lancashire, West referred to the speech by Viscount Hampden. I seem to recall, from reading through Hansard of the debates in the other place—I am thinking in terms of the much earlier intervention by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) about the rather dubious ways in which some landowners came to possess such large acres of our country—that the noble Lord has, in fact, owned his estate for more than 600 years. I also recall that he discovered from one of the early tenancy agreements which he looked up in preparing for the debate that the rent in 1314 was payable in barbed arrows. I suspect that they were used to ill-effect, because that is the date of the battle of Bannockburn, which, I am glad to say as a Scot, the English lost. No doubt some of my ancestors and those of the hon. Gentleman were there on that day and took part in that decisive battle and victory against the invading English.
  The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was interesting. I am pleased that he did not stray on to the subject of the A427, but I made a mental note that if in future there is any need to prolong debates in the House, an intervention on that question may provoke a lengthy reply from him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) made a contribution based on his experience as a land agent. He called for a free market in farm tenancies, and, of course, it is freedom of contract within the market that the Bill will introduce. That is precisely what it is all about.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—I am pleased to see him back in the Chamber—made an interesting speech as a solicitor with much experience of farming matters. He left us in no doubt of the line taken by the Farmers Union of Wales in its call for a minimum term. I have already said that I believe that the proposed legislation will lead to greater security and more tenancies.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Convey also referred to the black eye of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. I must confess that I, too, had a black eye. That was 25 years ago—the last occasion on which I had a black eye. The hon. Gentleman said that at least it was not a Welshman who gave my hon. Friend his black eye. It was, however, a Welshman who gave me my black eye. I was a tenant farmer in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I was visiting my farm and was being driven around it by the Welsh manager. He tipped me over a precipice in a Land Rover and we fell 300 ft. I had two black eyes, and 15 other breaks. It was a Welsh doctor who put me together again. I sat in Aberystwyth hospital contemplating the future and read the biography of Iain Macleod, and it was at that moment that I decided that politics was for me; so, had it not been for the black eye that the hon. Gentleman's constituent gave me—I hope that he is still alive, because he, too, was in a mess afterwards—I might not be here today.
  I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend got his black eye in the hunting field. I very much hope that the circumstances under which he got his black eye will persist for many years to come and that the House will resist any attempt that might be made at any time in future to abolish hunting.
  90
  The opening speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), the Opposition spokesman, was revealing. There was one lovely moment in his speech when he said that a Labour Government would not be returning. Then there was a very long, rather Freudian pause. I think that it was a great pity that he continued. He should have stopped his speech right there.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) took big farmers to task, because they were environmentally unfriendly. He painted a picture of small farmers being extremely careful with the environment. I must point out to him that every farmer and landowner is very conscious of the need to protect our environment. It is a costly matter. I would argue that the bigger the farmer, the more able he is to bear the cost of protecting the environment. I should like to see less cross-compliance than there has been, whereby grants available for other aspects of agriculture depend on environmental measures being undertaken. I would far rather have a policy of direct grants for environmental purposes.
  Mr. Llwyd: Is it not a fact that, because of the recent changes in the law regarding the farm conservation grants available to farmers to comply with environmental sanctions, and so on, more of an onus is placed on potential tenants and the short-term tenancy without guarantee is even less likely to be practical?
  Mr. Colvin: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view. It is not mine. There is obviously an obligation on both landlord and tenant.
  On the point made earlier about the stewardship scheme in Wales, I believe—I stand open to correction—that the provisions of such grant aid under any stewardship scheme would continue even if the tenancy were to change. There is an obligation, which becomes a liability jointly on the landlord and the tenant of a farm.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is not the precise issue raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) the sort that could well be coped with under the proposed legislation? Referring to the slurry disposal system, an incoming tenant could say to his landlord, "This farm is defective and I shall not take it on unless you allow me to make this improvement and compensate me for it at the end of the tenancy."
  Mr. Colvin: That is the answer that I should have given. My hon. Friend is obviously far more learned in the matter than I am, and it is a very good reply.
  Her Majesty's Government have been wise to introduce this measure in the other place rather than here. Reading through the contributions made in the other place, I was struck by the number of peers who referred to their wealth of expertise both as landlords and as tenants. There are, of course, very few farmers in the House. Times have changed. There used to be many, but I recall that, at the end of the Maastricht debate in July 1993, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, having concluded the debate, slammed shut his notes, turned around and said, "Well, that is the end of that very important business, now let us all go off and gather in a really good harvest." Looking around the Chamber, I did not see many hon. Members on either side of the House who had anything to do with gathering in the harvest, and I thought how much times had changed.

  91
  It is not surprising that the Bill has arrived with very few amendments from the other place. It is the product of many months of work by the Tenants Reform Industry Group, which comprises the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs, supported by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers. I agree with what hon. Members have said about the importance of bringing the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers within the scope of clause 34 so that agricultural valuers, as well as solicitors, can prepare leases.
  The Bill is well thought out, and has been on the launch pad since December 1993 following a lengthy period of consultation set up by Ministers back in 1991. Of course there have been differences of opinion, but ultimately sensible compromises have been made. The Bill also follows a 1992 Conservative manifesto commitment to liberalise radically the agricultural tenancy laws
  "in order to make more land available to rent, especially for new entrants."
  The involvement and agreement of the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs has not been mentioned enough, given the extent to which the Bill will improve the younger generation's prospects. At present, having left college or university with good qualifications and, often, with practical experience, members of the younger generation are doomed to a life on the road as travelling salesmen trying to sell agricultural products to, for instance, my right hon. Friend the Minister and to me—or, at best, to being agricultural contractors working for other farmers. I believe that the Bill will enable youngsters to get into farming more easily, although I acknowledge that there will always be the problem of trying to raise capital. Hitherto, they have been the victims of outdated legislation dating from 1947 and 1948, and of the 1976 legislation that extended security of tenure from one generation to three.
  Many hon. Members have referred to the regrettable shrinkage of the tenancy sector. In 1900, total acreage was 90 per cent. let; the percentage is now down to 35. I acknowledge what the RICS has said about the real percentage of land that is let: it puts the amount at 27 per cent., and ascribes only 20 per cent. to tenant farmers. I think, however, that the number of genuine arm's-length tenancies is even smaller. Many tenancies nowadays are merely arrangements dictated by tax considerations. I refer, of course, to tax avoidance rather than tax evasion. There is nothing wrong with that. The value of land for probate purposes, with vacant possession, is probably £1,400 an acre; the value of land that is let is between £800 and £900 an acre. Landlords can hardly be blamed for taking farms in hand and then reletting them to family farm partnerships to reduce valuations for probate purposes.
  Labour Members have said that the Bill heralds the end of security of tenure for tenant farmers. I say that, if it is not enacted, it will herald the end of tenant farmers: there will be none for whom to provide security of tenure. The Bill's principal objectives have been adequately set out, and, as I have said, it has come from the other place with very few amendments; those that have been made are mainly minor and technical.
  92
  Opposition Members may not remember very well our recent debate on the rural economy, as few were present, but the Bill is relevant to it. The Bill will benefit the countryside, because agriculture will remain the foundation of our rural economy and farmers will continue to be the principal stewards of rural areas. I hope that the White Paper that the Government intend to publish soon will encourage farmers to be more environmentally aware, following the progress that has already been made, and that such awareness will be based on the voluntary principle rather than compulsion.
  I also hope that planning policies will be more proactive and will support diversification. I hope that our tax policy will recognise farming, forestry, the letting of land and buildings and alternative farm enterprises on agricultural holdings as farm businesses—what the Country Landowners Association has described as rural business units.
  Clause 1 is important, because it defines a farm business tenancy and goes on to describe tenancies that cannot be farm business tenancies. According to a brief from Conservative central office, the proposals relate solely to the agricultural sector and are not concerned with tenancy provisions relating to business premises; but the Bill says that they can cover commercial activities when the character of the tenancy is primarily agricultural. Confusion will arise as farms diversify and alternative enterprises spring up. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain precisely where the division will come.
  These are times of rapid change in farming, and of great opportunities which the Bill will extend to the younger generation of farmers. In 1800, George Crabbe said:
  "Our Farmers round, well pleased with constant pain, Like other farmers flourish—and complain."
  I have not heard a single farmer complain about the Bill, but one thing that farmers do complain about is lack of capital.
  Farmers tend to be capital rich, although the capital is usually locked up in land and fixed assets; but they are often revenue poor, unless they are overwhelmed by the concrete jungle of development—in which case, they cease to be farmers altogether. The 1970s saw an influx of new institutional capital into farming, and of remote landlords with little interest in farming other than its relation to the balance sheet and its provision of a hedge against the galloping inflation produced by Labour Governments' economic policies. I hope that we never see such inflation again. Many of those investors burnt their fingers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said how wrong it was for farming decisions not to be made locally, and I agree. I felt very sorry for tenants whose landlords were on the other side of the world, and saw landowning only as a temporary investment.
  I believe that the Bill can provide the basis for a far closer partnership between landlord and tenant. It should be welcomed by all political parties. It is certainly in accord with what was called for in the Labour party's consultation paper "Encouraging new entrants into farming", which was published last September. The Opposition should avoid sewing any seeds of doubt about the durability of the proposals: farming is a long-term business, and a stable legal framework is vital.

  93
  For the record, let me correct the quotation from Jonathan Swift that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud wrongly attributed to Charles Dickens. It was Swift who wrote:
  "that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together."
  My farm, like most others in the United Kingdom, and certainly the farm of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has done just that. As a farmer cum politician, I am in two minds about the quotation. However, I am not in two minds about the Bill which I commend to the House. It is long overdue and it is a sensible package of reforms for landowners who do not wish to farm or cannot farm, and for farmers who do not wish to own or cannot own. I trust that it will get its Second Reading.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Paul Marland: In view of the cautious words at the beginning of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Watersicle (Mr. Colvin), perhaps I should remind the House of my interest in farming. More significantly, and as a matter of caution, I remind the House that, sadly and reluctantly, I am still a name at Lloyd's. I apologise for missing the Minister's speech at the beginning of the debate and that by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr Strang). My reason for missing them was that I was at the sitting of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee which was interviewing the chairman of Lloyd's about Lloyd's self-regulation. You may be interested to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have never in my life heard such a puny justification of self-regulation.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Interested as I might be in a private capacity, in my public guise I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is out of order and must return to the debate on Second Reading.
  Mr. Marland: I thought that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Minister might be interested to know why I arrived late in the Chamber. I thought that it was important to state the exact reason.
  I welcome the Bill, as do most hon. Members who have spoken. I pay tribute to the National Farmers Union and the Tenant Farmers Association for negotiating on this matter between themselves for, I think, more than five years. I am glad that the NFU is giving the Bill the nod of approval, certainly in my constituency, and that is added justification for taking matters forward.
  It is sad that Labour appears to have changed its view. It cannot understand that, to make a market, one needs a willing buyer and a willing seller. It appears that that is what the Bill will provide. Labour's attitude should come as no surprise to Conservative Members because for ages it has claimed that it is the friend of the farmer and the farm worker. It is a friend to as many people as it can possibly convince that Labour believes in their best interests. Sadly, that does not always turn out to be the case. A recent example is to be found in the export of live animals, because, in 1975, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East voted for the restoration of such exports. We have been discussing the issue in the House for the past fortnight. The matter has been brought up two or
  94
  three times and, twist and turn as he may, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East cannot get away from the fact, because it is on record, that he voted for the restoration of the export of live animals.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a second time, but he is still not in order.
  Mr. Marland: I was speaking about farming and about the interests of tenant farmers.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was a little closer, but he was not close enough.
  Mr. Marland: Many tenant farmers have a vested interest in the export of live animals to the European Community and I wanted the House and anyone listening outside to appreciate that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is in favour of such exports and has voted for them in the past.
  The Bill will bring new entrants to agriculture and give the industry new vigour. All industries need vigour, and let me make no bones about the fact that farming is a business. I am sure that you will let me get away with saying that, Madam Deputy Speaker. Vigour and new blood need to be brought in all the time, and farming is becoming more and more specialised. Hon. Members have said that the capital requirements of those involved in farming are becoming greater. Technology is developing and the knowledge of farmers is becoming greater.
  Sadly, I was not able to go to Cirencester on the three-year management course which my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) attended. It obviously did him a lot of good. Farming is a specialist business, and out are going the small farmers and those people who for reasons of their own want to quit the business. Dynamic young men and women are coming in. It is probably significant that I have a parcel of land which I intend to let to a young farmer who lives near my farm. He is much more dynamic than I am and I shall welcome him to my farm because he will bring to it vigour, dynamism and excitement.
  People want to own land for all sorts of reasons, but they do not necessarily want to farm it. They want to own it for fishing, conservation, tree planting, shooting, pride of ownership or the privacy that it gives them. There is nothing wrong with any of those aims. Term agreements will be helpful because they will ensure that a farmer does not lose control of his land. That is surely at the heart of the measure. No long-term contracts are coming on the market, because landowners do not want to lose control of their land for many years.
  It is right not to fix term tenancies: there should be no minimum or maximum. The market will shake itself out and at the end of the day will reach the right conclusions. Rents will accurately reflect the opportunities in agriculture. It is right for a farmer to take the opportunity to generate wealth from a tenanted farm outside a town or urban area by adding value to his product, whatever it might be, through selling it directly to the consumer. However, he should pay a higher rent than a hill farmer.
  Recently, many of us had an opportunity to meet some hill farmers who came to the House and gave us an extremely nice dinner of Welsh hill lamb. They told us that some of the difficulties that they were facing might

  95
  force some of them off the land. They said that it was right and proper that, when their rents were being decided or reviewed, the difficulties they were facing should be taken into account. So be it: if there has to be a rent reduction to keep them on the land, we should welcome it and pave the way for it.
  The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) made great play of the fact that there was too much short-termism in farming and in the tenancies that are currently available. He is right: there is much short-termism in letting, for the reasons that I gave earlier—landowners do not want to part with their land for long periods. That is why there is such a growth in grazing tenancies, in the number of Gladstone v. Bower arrangements and in the number getting permission from the Ministry to have tenancies.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: Is it not extraordinary to note that, although the Opposition may intend to vote against Second Reading, the Labour Benches are quite empty?
  Mr. Marland: Nothing surprises us about the Opposition or about what goes on on the Opposition Benches. Earlier in my speech, I mentioned that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, Labour's Front-Bench spokesman, had voted for the export of live animals.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not expect to have to warn the hon. Gentleman again.
  Mr. Marland: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Enright: I have just done a quick calculation and, in fact, there is a larger percentage of Opposition Members present than Conservative Members.
  Mr. Marland: I do not want to risk deviating, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can count nine Conservative Members and only five Opposition Members.
  The Bill will bring an end—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) to do his maths incorrectly?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As I have told the House previously, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of hon. Members' observations.
  Mr. Marland: It is accurate to say that many businesses use rented property. Why should agriculture be any different from engineering? If an engineering business wants to occupy a factory from which to run its business, there is no problem—it can take the premises for whatever length of time it wants. It should be precisely the same with agricultural businesses.
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman must know that an engineering business comes under part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, which allows it an almost automatic renewal of its tenancy. There is no such provision for agricultural tenancies in this Bill.
  Mr. Marland: Perhaps that point should be studied further. A good landlord and a good tenant would want their arrangement to continue. Whether it is an engineering business or a tenanted farm, it does not appear
  96
  to me that, in the long term, it makes any difference. As we all know, my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has volunteered to serve on the Standing Committee and he may wish to raise that point during its proceedings. It is right that we should provide the opportunity for people to occupy land on a term agreement, to be worked out between the landlord and tenant. They can go forward together on that basis.
  I am glad that the new arrangements for tenant compensation at the end of a tenancy will reflect the value that a tenant has added to the holding, whether it is quota, a building improvement or the establishment of new enterprises on the land. The landlord and tenant can come to an arrangement either before the start of a project or, if the tenancy comes to an inexplicably early end, reach a proper agreement to compensate the outgoing tenant and/or his family or those whom he leaves behind in the event of his untoward death.
  The question of tenant right should also be discussed in Committee. If a tenant dies when crops are growing—for example, when the wheat crop is just ready for harvesting—under current provisions that crop would belong to the landlord. I hope that that problem can be sorted out in Committee because it is an important aspect, especially for short-term tenancies.
  The change in inheritance tax is something that all with an interest in the Bill will welcome, as will all those with an interest in the health of the countryside. The 100 per cent. relief from inheritance tax will ensure that newly available land for letting will come on to the market. I am absolutely certain that that is a major feature of the Bill, because many would-be landlords have been waiting to see the precise financial arrangements. I compliment the Treasury, which has agreed to this provision, because it will bring many new jobs and opportunities to the countryside.
  The Bill will create not privilege but an opportunity for new entrants into agriculture. It will create opportunities for wealth creation in the countryside. It will create opportunities and jobs for the 48,000 agricultural workers who have already been mentioned. What will they say when they hear about the antics of Labour Members tonight? What will they say when they hear how their jobs and their future are jeopardised by Labour Members, who appear to be advocating a massive running down of opportunities in the countryside? Labour Members should seriously reconsider their position between now and 10 o'clock, because there is no doubt that what they have said will have a serious effect on the countryside.
  Mr. Booth: Does my hon. Friend deprecate the fact that the number of agricultural tenancies has fallen to about 10 per cent. of all landholdings? Does he agree that the Bill will help to redress that imbalance to its previous position of almost 80 per cent. of landholdings?
  Mr. Marland: I do not know whether the traditional figure is 80 per cent., but I am certain that there will be a tremendous increase in the amount of land that is available for letting, for all the reasons that other hon. Members and I have given.
  As I said earlier, I am sorry that I missed the bulk of the debate. I wanted to explain in greater detail to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, why that happened, but you would not let me. I am really sorry that I have not heard the entire debate.

  97
  You may think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am again deviating from the subject, but I promise you that I am not. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury will back me in my assertion that there is a major problem with Gloucestershire county council. It is controlled by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who have run it into a massive debt of £129 million, and it has a large agricultural estate. For some time, my hon. Friend and I have urged the council to reduce its debt. More than once, we suggested that it should liquidate a large part of its agricultural estate, for which it could obtain many millions of pounds.
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Marland: Here we go.
  Mr. Tyler: Had the hon. Member been present during an earlier part of the debate, he would have heard hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise that county farms are the essential first rung on the tenancy ladder. That does not mean that it is the only rung, or that, if one takes away all the rungs above, one will be left with something that is worth preserving on its own. As a Conservative Member said, to cut the ladder at the point where people would be prevented from getting on that first rung is of no assistance to the tenanted sector. Hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledged that before the hon. Gentleman returned from dealing with the matter of Lloyd's upstairs.
  Mr. Marland: I wondered what defence the Liberals on Gloucestershire county council would come up with, and the hon. Gentleman has just given me a foretaste of that. Labour and Liberal members of that council have been saying precisely what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but the object of the Bill is to create more opportunities for new entrants—whether they be young, middle-aged or old men—to come into the industry. Justification no longer exists, therefore, for the hon. Gentleman's friends on the council to hang on to the agricultural estate. They should consider seriously the opportunity of selling it off.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend in the middle of his excellent peroration. Is not the real point about smallholdings that they could be perfectly well managed by a private or institutional landlord? Tenants would have security of tenure—they would still be there—but the tremendous capital value would be released. I agree with my hon. Friend about Gloucestershire county council. I put it in touch with someone who would do what he suggested, but it refused to listen to that person's advice. The council should reduce its landholding.
  Mr. Marland: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. I am sure that we shall hear more about the matter because there will be some twisting and turning from the Liberals, as has been shown by the comments of Liberal Members.
  Mr. Enright rose—
  Mr. Marland: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, no doubt, will tell us about the Labour councillors on Gloucestershire county council.
  Mr. Enright: Absolutely not, and I deplore words being put into my mouth. Is the hon. Gentleman aware
  98
  that, earlier in the evening, a National Farmers Union delegation from west Yorkshire was here in the House? I was buttonholed for half an hour by a gentleman who hired his farm from North Yorkshire county council, and who complained about what might happen to him as a result of the Bill. That council, of course, is controlled by the Conservatives.
  Mr. Marland: I obviously cannot discuss specific cases with the hon. Gentleman, but I am certain that, if he wanted to buy his farm from North Yorkshire county council, he probably could do. I do not know the debt position in relation to that council, so it is not possible for me to make a constructive comment on that point.
  Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. I wish it well in every way. I hope that it has a speedy passage through Committee and that, between now and 10 o'clock, Opposition Members will change their minds.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Martyn Jones: The Bill shows an important philosophical difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. Conservative Members believe that society is best ordered by unbridled exercise of social position and the power of accumulated wealth. Labour Members recognise the strength and contribution of those forces, but we seek a society in which all people can live without fear of exploitation or harassment, and in the knowledge that the law will provide them with economic and social justice.
  The notion that an agricultural tenant should have security of tenure for life was introduced by a Labour Government in 1947. It was part of a package of measures that were designed to bring stability to an industry that, before the second world war, had witnessed crushing depression and chronic insecurity.
  The Bill is portrayed as part of a liberating process that will release land to be farmed by new tenants, and that will facilitate the expansion of progressive and successful operators in the industry. Labour Members do not believe that the interests of the industry and of the countryside will be best served by denying future agricultural tenants the benefit of a reasonable measure of security of tenure and of statutory protection in the complex relationship that they have with their landlords.
  The Government, apparently with the full agreement of the landowning and tenant farmer organisations, are throwing to one side the whole panoply of legal safeguards and protections which have been developed over the years to prevent the tenant from becoming a victim of his landlord and to give him a legal framework in which he can invest with confidence and which will enable him to give of his best to the land. In its place is to be a system that has at its heart a key fallacy: that the parties to an agricultural tenancy are free agents and come as equals to the negotiations. In this respect, the Bill opens the way to a revesting of power in agricultural landowners, which will place them in a position not dissimilar to that held by their forebears in the 18th and 19th centuries.
  All this has been done on the pretence that landowners will now be encouraged to award more lettings of their land to new entrants into farming. How shall we know whether this gamble has paid off? It has been estimated by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors that 1 million acres of agricultural land will be released for letting as a

  99
  consequence of the Bill. The Country Landowners Association estimates the figure to be 1.6 million acres. Wisely, the organisations give no idea of the period of time over which these acreages might be released.
  Both estimates were made before the Government announced that let agricultural land is to qualify for 100 per cent. inheritance tax relief. Therefore, it is possible that the figures may be revised upwards. Indeed, that may be the only positive effect on tenancies. It was, as the Minister graciously acknowledged, mentioned in our document on encouraging new entrants into farming.
  Apart from the public relations figures issued by interested bodies, what will tell us how many new tenancies will be created over a period of, say, five years from the date of Royal Assent? No doubt landowners will wish to include the reletting, under farm business tenancies, of land at present covered by grazing agreements, Gladstone v. Bower arrangements, Ministry-approved short lettings and other ingenious licence tactics which avoid the creation of an agricultural tenancy.
  Also included in the total new lettings will be a substantial acreage of bare land. That will enlarge the size of neighbouring farms and provide no opportunity for a newcomer in the industry. In addition, there will be the let farms that become available during the period of assessment and that will now be let on farm business tenancies. We must be careful not to include them in the figures for "new let" land.
  Assuming that at least half of the 1.6 million acres is composed of land at present in hand but which would be let to new tenants on farm business tenancies, and assuming that the average size of the holdings let is to be 250 acres, we should expect 3,200 new tenancies for commercial farms over, say, the next five years. We shall see. A tally could also be kept of the acreage of farmland which, over the same period, ceases to be tenanted, such as farms currently owned by British Coal.
  Mr. Colvin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that the average new tenancy will cover 250 acres when the average size of farms is 150 acres?
  Mr. Jones: I was using a putative figure to minimise the numbers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if farms were to be 150 acres, considerably more tenancies could be expected.
  What causes a sharp intake of breath is the absolute nature of the Bill's intent. There have been no half measures and no visible compromises. It might have been sufficient to open the door to many new entrants into farming if landlords had been given freedom of manoeuvre for tenancies of less than five years and lettings to tenants of a certain age or for holdings of, say, less than 80 acres, or to introduce period tenancies, the compulsory retirement of tenants at 65 or one of the many other proposals that must be on the table. Instead, the sword has been taken up and the rights of several generations of future tenants have been severed.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman was trying to talk down the acreage that would come on to the market as a result of the Bill but, according to his figures—3,250
  100
  farms of 250 acres—I calculate that the total land available would be in the region of 600,000 to 700,000 acres. That is still a substantial figure.
  Mr. Jones: I was not talking down the figure; I was saying that it was rather a lot to expect out of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has his own views.
  The right of the tenant to serve a counter-notice on his landlord when he is told to quit the holding has gone. Also gone is the sensible connection between the rent that the tenant is asked to pay and the productive capacity of the land. The tenant is now left to the vagaries of an imperfect open market in which agricultural rents are set on an upward course. Also gone is his entitlement to compensation for disturbance when he is ejected from the farm. All that is left is compensation for improvements that have received the landlord's approval. That provision has been described by the National Farmers Union as a hard-won concession.
  Gone are the model clauses that made clear which repairs were the responsibility of the tenant and which were the responsibility of the landlord. The division is now left for the landlord to determine in the terms of the agreement that he offers to the tenant. Worse, where there is no agreement, confusion and uncertainty will prevail and will lead to endless legal wrangles.
  Gone is the statutory right of the tenant to claim compensation for damage caused by wild animals and game birds, which only the landlord has the right to kill. That may be a small point, but it is indicative of a determination in this legislation to wipe the slate completely clean. The list could be extended by going more deeply into the schedules of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986.
  One consequence of the Bill is that the tenant of a 1,000-acre farm, with all the capital equipment and employment that is needed to run a farm of that size, could have less security of tenure and fewer rights when dealing with his landlord than the occupier of a small corner shop in Newmarket. How has that come about? The answer is that it is the result of a famine of agricultural tenancies.
  We are told that landlords were deterred from creating tenancies because of the introduction of succession of tenancies in 1976; many hon. Members have said that. If that is true, why have landowners not taken the opportunity to let more land since 1984 when the succession provisions became optional for new tenancies? The truth is that the famine began long before 1976. Its cause lay in the level of returns that landlords and their advisers felt they should get from rents. Institutional owners, an important source of let land, felt that they could get a better return on their investment elsewhere and individual owners were advised that they would make more profit from taking their farms in hand.
  The House should remember that open market rents were built into agricultural holdings legislation from 1947 to 1984. Under the operation of that formula and before the introduction of succession, the supply of tenanted land seriously diminished. Open market rents failed because the demand for farms outstripped supply and the rent that many new entrants were prepared to pay was in excess of what could be supported by the productive capacity of the farm. Those entering tenancy agreements with high rents lived in the hope that inflation would rise to reduce the cost of their rent in real terms. In many cases, they badly

  101
  miscalculated and disaster befell them. It is to be seriously doubted that there can be such a thing as an open market for agricultural tenancies.
  If the Country Landowners Association is to be believed, following this legislation, there will be an initial rush of privately owned land offered up for rent. After approximately five years, the flow of new tenancies will have slowed down and the turnover will be mainly in existing tenanted farms. If, as seems likely, we witness at the same time a further restructuring of UK farms, with amalgamations and multiple-ownership arrangements, the demand for tenanted whole farms will, predictably, increase and the supply will either begin to decline again or will remain static. The inevitable result will be to drive up rents.
  Furthermore, all the bidders for a single tenancy will not be starting with the same advantages. A neighbouring farmer who estimates that he can run a nearby farm without increasing his labour force by using his own buildings and by making greater use of his existing range of machinery can offer a higher rent than an efficient newcomer who proposes to run the farm as a self-supporting enterprise. Similarly, applicants with sources of income from outside agriculture will tend to distort the market for the normal working farmer.
  The difference between conditions 30 years ago and the conditions that will apply after the Bill becomes law is that having forced the rent as high as he can get it, with or without arbitration, the landlord will always be tempted at the end of the term to seek an even higher rent from a new applicant. The way will be clear for him to repossess the farm.
  During the debate, we were told with monotonous frequency that the package has been agreed with the whole industry, including organisations representing the interests of tenants. We know, however, that the Farmers Union of Wales has maintained its opposition to the proposals throughout.
  Also, in October 1992, the National Farmers Union and the National Federation of Young Farmers Clubs were clear as to the points that they were aiming to secure in their discussions, following the publication of the Government's consultation document. They considered it vital that a legal framework be maintained, to ensure that tenancies were let on fair and reasonable terms. They demanded a minimum term for the letting of not less than 15 years, with two years' notice of termination after the term was ended. They asked that an existing tenant who had proved suitable be given the option of continuing his or her tenancy when the fixed period came to an end. They said that wide statutory provisions were needed, relating to the payment of compensation at the end of the tenancy. They expressed total opposition to freely negotiated rents at open market values.
  What has changed since those demands were made? Few of them feature in the legislation and the National Farmers Union has slipped quietly into line behind a triumphant Country Landowners Association. Significant numbers of their members have misgivings, however.
  One of the strong points persuading the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association to accept the package was that existing agricultural lettings would not be affected by the introduction of farm business tenancies. In our opinion, however, they should not be too complacent. On the face of it, existing tenants are safe from threat, but as the Bill becomes law, the landowner will have an even
  102
  greater incentive to engineer the termination of old arrangements, or—in the case of pre-1986 agreements—to persuade the tenant's children to give up their rights of succession. Cash bribes are an obvious approach, but the tenant must also watch for the stealthy move—for example, sending a farm business tenancy agreement for the son or daughter to sign when the father is on his deathbed, in the knowledge that, for succession to operate, the successor must apply to the agricultural land tribunal to have the tenancy assigned to him or her. A tenant might be moved to a larger or more productive farm on the estate, on the condition that he or she entered into a farm business tenancy. The landlord might even accompany the transfer with an unenforceable verbal promise that the tenant's son would succeed him to the tenancy when the time came.
  At all times, existing tenants will be well advised to be watchful. They should also not assume that their rents will be unaffected by the operation of the collateral open market for farm business tenancies. Rents on new lettings, which will inevitably be higher, due to competitive tendering in an undersupplied marketplace will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) said, be used as comparables in traditional rent reviews, in much the same way as residential rents are quoted for farmhouses.
  On the supposed principle that the parties to a farm business tenancy agreement are free to come to their own understanding as to the terms that are to apply to the letting, it is true that neither party is forced to enter into an agreement, but beyond that the landlord has the asset and will create the terms under which the property is let. In most cases, the tenant will come to the negotiation as a supplicant.
  If tenants are young, they will be keen to farm, eager to prove themselves, full of optimism and prepared to give the enterprise everything that they have got. The terms of the tenancy will be offered to them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Even if they take legal advice and are told the extent of their obligations and the precariousness of their position under the agreement, they will still sign because there will be only one thought in their minds—they want to farm more than anything else in the world.
  That is hardly a negotiation between equals. The landlord, or his agent, will rely on the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors model agreement, appropriately modified by counsel to suit the needs of his estate. From his point of view, the landlord is merely being prudent. He may not know the potential tenant and will want to be able to escape from the agreement and repossess the farm, if the going gets difficult. He will be looking for no more rent than his land agent has told him that he can expect and he does not want the farm to deteriorate, but he also does not want to use his capital to carry out improvements for which he can expect the tenant to pay. If the tenant is young, the landlord will want to keep the farm on as tight a rein as possible, within the terms of the agreement.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: I apologise for not being here at the start of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I hate to interrupt, given the exciting nature of what he is saying, but his theme assumes the present situation—no competition and no farms to let elsewhere. He is stating the present situation—the result of a Labour Government's

  103
  legislation—in which there is a virtual monopoly. If there were plenty of farms for the hypothetical young man to rent, none of the problems that he describes would exist.
  Mr. Jones: I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not at the meeting about Lloyd's, or at least is not affected by it. He misses the point. The supply of land is limited, no new farms are being created, and existing tenants will hang on to their tenancies, so we are talking about a small number of farms. Had the hon. Gentleman been here at the beginning of my speech, he would have heard the number that I expect. Sadly, he was unable to be here.
  The inequality between landlord and tenant has been recognised by Parliament in the letting of domestic housing, and tenants have been given protection under the Housing Acts. Until the introduction of this Bill, Parliament recognised the multiple problems that can arise between landlord and tenant and sought to give the tenant adequate safeguards and protective rights in a series of Acts of Parliament from 1887 onwards. All that is now turned aside and the agricultural tenant is told that he must look out for himself.
  On a wider point, there are other problems with the Bill. I refer to the duties of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as set out in section 17 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. It seems strange that a Minister with such a wide-ranging duty to balance countryside interests has drafted a Bill to cater almost exclusively for the interests of agriculture. That is a dangerously myopic approach to a set of long-standing problems. It is in the best interests of both landlords and tenants to be able to enter into new tenancies and leases that permit the widest possible use of rural land, bodies of water and other natural and man-made resources in the countryside. The Minister may contend that a new, wider set of definitions will confuse rather than clarify, but such an assertion only ossifies definitions that are increasingly outmoded and limiting to rural enterprises and associated employment opportunities.
  The Agricultural Tenancies Bill should cover all agricultural, silvicultural, natural, man-made, heritage, conservation and environmental land management uses and other related uses. New definitions should cover all existing and foreseeable enterprises and uses of rural land, buildings and bodies of water, including keeping livestock for the production of medical products; growing crops for industrial purposes; conservation; preservation; and enhancement of the countryside environment.
  If the current, narrow definitions are not expanded, all other rural tenancies and leases must come under the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Acts, principally the 1954 Act. That general legislation was not designed to cater for such uses and enterprises. Indeed, the 1954 Act specifically excluded agricultural holdings. The result may be that, where a landlord and tenant agree to a variety of uses for rural land and buildings, they must enter into more than one type of tenancy or lease to comply with the legal requirements of their overall agreement. That duplication of professional charges and paperwork is far from the efficient and economic framework which the Government purport to introduce.
  Over the coming years, we shall monitor the position closely. Inevitably, the lack of security of tenure for farm business tenancies will lead to disappointment,
  104
  disillusionment and hardship. Landlords are being given back the full range of power and privilege that they exercised in former years. We shall expect them not always to seek perfection in their tenants, to be compassionate with tenants who become ill or meet misfortune and be understanding when tenants are no longer young. The function and exercise of the power returned to them is larger than the matter of pure economics.
  The Opposition solemnly repeat our commitment to the family farm as the unit that has shown most resilience throughout the devastating economic storms that have swept through the history of agriculture. That unit is most in harmony with the rural environment. We also repeat our commitment to farm tenancies for the working life of the tenant. Such tenancies encourage good husbandry, and give the tenant confidence in dealing with his land and dignity in dealing with his landlord.
  As the farming and landowning organisations have reminded us in discussions on the proposals, the economics have changed, as have the needs of agriculture since 1947, or even within the past 20 years. The economics and the science of economics may have changed, but the countryside changes more slowly and human nature changes even more slowly, if at all. The need for social justice was one of the guiding principles behind the now-to-be-disregarded agricultural holdings legislation. We shall not forget that fact when we look at the workings of this legislation when we are in government in years to come. It was enlightening to see many Conservative Members intimate that most people outside the House reckon that we shall be in government after the next election. Why else would they be so concerned about our stance on the Bill?
  9.29 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jack): One could hardly describe the speech of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) as riveting. If that was an example of new Labour, it shows that the Opposition must undertake much more modernising.
  I thought that the idea of a wind-up speech was to reply to the telling points of hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West did not reply to any of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) and for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland). All we heard was a dirge of despair and depression about the future.
  Mr. Marland: Luddite.
  Mr. Jack: That exactly sums up the Opposition's approach to the matter. The doomster approach was backed up by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who in his opening dragged along as much of the luggage of agricultural history as he could. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) dallied in a dilettante way with the classical approach to agriculture, and I think that the best that we can say to him is, "rhubarb".

  105
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was supportive, for which I thank him.
  Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jack: Not until I have finished my little review. The hon. Gentleman has had his entertainment; it is now my turn.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made some interesting points, which I shall discuss later, as did the hon. Members for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
  I was interested in a press release that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East issued on 18 November 1994, in which he said:
  "Security of tenure is essential for the family farm"
  as though that was a newly discovered truth, which had not dawned on the Conservative Benches for many a long year. I was surprised that neither he nor his hon. Friends mentioned the construction of the Bill in clauses 1, 5, 6, 7, 16, 23, 24 and 25, all of which concern various aspects of security that are central to the subject of agricultural tenancy.
  Dr. Strang indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he wants to challenge me at the Dispatch Box, I shall be delighted to receive a specific challenge on those clauses.
  Dr. Strang: I shall not intervene again, but I think that it is a question of terminology. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) may agree with us. It is one thing to compensate the tenant for his improvements; in so far as the Bill ensures that, we support that. I have no doubt that we shall even try to make that stronger. However, when we talk about security of tenure in relation to agricultural tenancy legislation, we talk about tenure. and a minimum term was quoted.
  There was a time when, as several hon. Members said, the National Farmers Union supported a minimum term. I am sure that the Minister understands the Bill, which proposes no minimum term, so when it becomes law someone could have a tenancy of three years or five years. We do not regard that as adequate security of tenure.
  Mr. Jack: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shows an inability to distinguish between the period of an agreement and the security embodied in that agreement. The Bill is drafted in terms of the definition of farm business tenancy: willing partners come together, in mutual interest, to define their rights and responsibilities, and to make very clear one with another the length of time that they agree that the tenancy should run. The Bill gives precise legal protection on the ending of the tenancy. Once agreed and signed, it is cast iron and copper-bottomed and provides excellent security of tenure. That is the whole basis and construction of the Bill.
  Dr. Strang indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he thinks that, by nominating a number such as 15, he will bring more land on to the market, he and his hon. Friends are in for a rude shock.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare opened with a full-frontal attack on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. He pointed out that, in his opinion, the
  106
  hon. Gentleman was anti-landlord, and certainly a flavour of that emerged from what the hon. Gentleman said. My hon. Friend made some telling points about the cost of entry into farming. I received a letter from Barclays bank on the subject, part of which read:
  "Having read the Bill through carefully and considered the implications for the bank's future approach to farm financing with my colleagues in Barclays, our opinion is that, should the Bill become law in its present form"—
  it would seem that the bank supports the Bill's enactment—
  "Barclays will continue to consider each application for farm finance on an individual, case by case basis."
  The letter continues:
  "We lend currently into situations ranging from lifetime tenancies to annual seasonal lets."
  The bank showed an understanding of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and rebutted the claims made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams rose—
  Mr. Jack: I shall not give way now.
  It is important to understand that banks take into account the costs of going into farming. They understand the various problems that are faced, especially by new entrants.
  I am glad that my hon. Friends have welcomed compensation mechanisms by agreement and the proper operation of the written agreement and notices, which are built into the framework of the proposed legislation.
  Hon. Members have questioned information about land availability. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury dealt with the point when he referred to the excellent survey of its members by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It is the institution's members who will determine the amount of additional land that will be available over five years. I have been asked by hon. Members when the extra land will come into the marketplace.
  We have never claimed that the floodgates will open. We are merely saying that a more flexible farm business tenancy will reflect farming in the modern world. Opposition Members often talk about strengthening the rural economy. They should realise that without the flexibility of the farm business tenancy to combine agriculture with other forms of economic activity, it will be difficult for the countryside to live. How can enterprise be fostered without that flexibility? The Government understand the need for flexibility; it is regrettable that Opposition Members do not.
  Compensation for milk and other forms of quota has been mentioned. As some of my hon. Friends have said, where additional quota has been bought during a tenancy it could be the subject of compensation arrangements with the landlord's permission. The rest of the quota would attach to the land. Sheep quota would move with the tenant. It is possible, as with all these detailed matters, for the landlord and tenant, in reaching an agreement, to define precisely where each party stands. That is an element of responsibility that the Government understand.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Selby spoke with authority and knowledge on behalf of the Church Commissioners, who are major landowners. Deprecating remarks were made by Opposition Members, who failed

  107
  to place due weight on my right hon. Friend's remarks. He made the telling point on behalf of the Commissioners, in welcoming the Bill, that it was a deregulatory and simplifying measure. My right hon. Friend also said—the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West failed to take up the point when he replied on behalf of the Opposition, as did the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—that the Opposition had not clarified their intentions for the future of this proposed legislation. Tenant farmers, young farmers, the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union will all have taken note. I shall have more to say about that later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud spoke with knowledge and qualification. He went into important detail on repairs, for which tenants will be able to claim compensation for improvements with the landlord's consent.
  On a number of other points I shall reply in detail in writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, as the details are important. He covered the central issue of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' code of practice, which will be very important in guiding people and in determining the nature of their tenancy agreement. That will be backed up by the professional information to which my hon. Friend adverted in his comments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked about compensation. Clauses 15, 16 and 17 adequately define compensation—not only the circumstances in which it can be claimed but the methodology that can be used to determine the amount payable. Arbitration mechanisms are available in statute to resolve disputes between landlord and tenant. I hope that my hon. Friend will find those clauses interesting reading, and I commend them to him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough rightly said that the current law is too complex and that it has inhibited the availability of land for rent. Many of my hon. Friends, in excellent analyses of the history of tenanted land, pointed out that there has been a long-term decline in the amount of land available for rent. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West tried to suggest that we are arguing that the availability of land declined only between 1976 and the present. We agree that it had been declining, but I must point out that the amount of land available dropped between 1976 and the present by a further 10 per cent., so the legislation must take some responsibility.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out that there was widespread support for the Bill. I am amazed that the Opposition do not feel deeply uncomfortable about that widespread support. Nobody would ever claim that there was not some disagreement in certain parts.
  Mr. Elliot Morley: All of Wales.
  Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I disagree.
  We do not disagree that people will have sensible questions to ask about the Bill, which will no doubt be explored properly in Committee, but the Opposition must surely feel uncomfortable about our success in bringing together the powerful players whom I have mentioned.
  108
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) who, sadly, is unable to be in his place, told us about the Evesham custom, which is no small matter in his constituency. I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to read the Official Report, because I want to reply in detail to the points that he made.
  The Bill is not retrospective. I am advised that when a tenant passes on a tenancy, under the Evesham custom a new tenancy arises, although it is not treated as such for the purpose of the rent review provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. Any new tenancies after 1 September 1995 will be covered by the Bill. Thereafter, the tenant will not be able to claim compensation on improvements that he installs without the landlord's consent. That will not affect the legal position of the tenant's existing tenancy. The Evesham custom applies—as I understand it—only where the tenant has served notice that he is leaving, so the decision to a certain extent is in my hon. Friend's constituents' hands.
  My hon. Friend fears that a tenant deciding to leave might have difficulty in finding a new tenant to reimburse him for his capital expenditure, but other options are open to him. One is for the tenant to remove his fixtures and buildings and relocate or sell them. Another is to suggest that the new tenant agrees suitable provisions with the landlord on how the matters are to be dealt with in the new farm business tenancy. These are complex matters, and I shall write in more detail to my hon. Friend. I hope that he understands that his principal concern about retrospection is not an issue about which his 420 constituents need to worry any longer.
  The House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury was knowledgeable, thought-provoking and probing—all in one speech. I congratulate him on what he had to say. My hon. Friend is a qualified chartered surveyor. He presented the plight of young farmers and he referred to the problem, to which I adverted, of the amount of tenanted land drying up following the passage of the 1976 legislation. He also gave a critique of the Opposition's views about the marketplace.
  In one document, the Opposition say that they are worried about the operation of the free market, but then Opposition Members say that they want what they describe as a "fair market rent". They cannot have their cake and eat it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said in his speech.
  My hon. Friend talked about clause 4 of the Bill—not the Labour party's clause IV, but our respectable clause 4—and he highlighted the fact that this key element of law stops retrospection. He knew that the Opposition were not prepared to give a similar commitment.
  My hon. Friend specifically picked out clause 4(1)(d) and asked whether it could be simplified. I will examine that clause in Committee. He also referred to clause 37 as defining "agriculture". I disagree with him on that point: we believe that it is an adequate description but, as always, I will consider carefully what he said about industrial crops and biomass. On his point about downward rent review, if he studies the detail in the relevant clauses he will find that, once an arbitrator is involved, the arbitrator can review either up or down and the terms under which that occurs are defined clearly in the Bill.

  109
  My hon. Friend raised the difficult and complex question of privity and I am grateful to him for giving me prior notice of his intention to do so. I think that he described accurately the long-term consequences for the tenant of the first party in relation to any liabilities that might ensue vis-à-vis assignment. With foreknowledge of the issue, it may be possible to design the agreement to cater for such circumstances—although that may not become a reality in view of the current limited time scale.
  I do not think that I can assuage my hon. Friend's concerns in that area. As he said, the Lord Chancellor's Department is examining the matter in the round. I believe that that very difficult problem should be dealt with in that way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and other hon. Members discussed the various aspects of planning permission. My hon. Friend outlined a scenario whereby the landlord could be forced to pay a huge amount in compensation for planning permission without having consented to the application for planning permission. That nightmare scenario will not occur under the Bill. The refusal of consent for planning permission cannot be referred to arbitration under clause 18. The Bill deals with planning permission carefully and it ensures that, if gain is made by the tenant, proper compensation is available, subject to the landlord's consent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, in an excellent review of the remarks of hon. Members on both sides of the House, asked about the nature of the farm business tenancy. I think that he was confused about the various briefings that he received on the subject. The Bill provides more scope for the types of non-agricultural business that can be developed during the lifetime of the tenancy.
  Initially, the tenancy must predominantly involve agricultural activity, but if the tenant develops a new business within the curtilage of the holding it will not obstruct the tenancy agreement that has been signed. The early clauses of the Bill deal with that subject very clearly. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for the Bill because he speaks from a practical and a knowledgeable base.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West made a wide-ranging speech, finally homing in on the heart of the matter. He welcomed the Bill's provisions for compensation. I will consider the Bill's approach to tenant right, which was mentioned by a number of my hon. Friends. That is a tricky subject but it can be covered by the terms of the tenancy agreement. There is an element of responsibility on the parties concerned to identify matters important to them and to specify them in the agreement.
  It would be churlish to spend all my time commenting on Conservative Members' excellent speeches and not remark on others. The hon. Member for Hemsworth, an expert on rhubarb and classics, entertained the House with an interesting speech.
  Mr. Enright: Will the Minister give way on the subject of rhubarb?
  Mr. Jack: No. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already given the House her views on that subject.
  The hon. Member for Hemsworth mentioned British Coal. My right hon. Friend the Minister had discussions about that matter with my right hon. Friend the President
  110
  of the Board of Trade. British Coal has written to the remaining tenants who have expressed interest. That matter is primarily for British Coal and the Department of Trade and Industry. We are closely monitoring the position and understand the sensitivity surrounding that matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman takes some comfort from that response.
  Mr. Enright: And allotments?
  Mr. Jack: As someone who also digs on an allotment every weekend, I appreciate the importance of allotments. We will carefully monitor those points.
  Mr. Waldegrave: Is there any rhubarb on my hon. Friend's allotment?
  Mr. Jack: Yes, a little—and, stewed at home, it is very nice.
  Mr. Enright: Is it forced rhubarb?
  Mr. Jack: No, it grows naturally in Lancashire. What they do in Yorkshire is their business.
  I welcome the support of the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Unlike some Liberals, he has not changed his mind since 7 December 1993, when he put on record his support for the measure. We must be charitable occasionally when we receive support. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman commented on the tax situation, which was a triumph of negotiation by my right hon. Friend, in responding to the genuine concerns expressed by farmers and landowners. It was important to ensure no fiscal barrier to more land becoming available.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who intervened briefly, cannot have his cake and eat it. The Bill is not about forcing county councils to sell smallholdings, although several of my hon. Friends advanced extremely good suggestions for ways in which councils could make use of those assets.
  The Bill will cover all forms of farm business tenancy from the beginning of September. I hope that answers the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. He commented also on the RICS survey, which indicated the source of additional land. I welcome his analysis, and we will examine his point about tenant right. He also attacked Labour's attitude to that issue, which shows unanimity across the House. We want to know more of Labour's thoughts about that matter. It is possible that some of the concerns listed by the hon. and learned Gentleman could be dealt with in the tenancy agreement.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—
  Mr. Foulkes: Pardon?
  Mr. Jack: At least I made an attempt to pronounce the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which is more than the mutterings from the Labour Front Bench suggested.
  The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy spoke about planning issues. Where consent for improvements has been given by the landlord, it is possible for compensation to be paid to the tenant. If the landlord! refuses consent, the tenant can refer the matter to arbitration. Clearly, there may be important issues of planning that reflect the tenant's own thoughts about developing the holding. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Bill, where those matters are dealt with in considerable detail.

  111
  The hon. Member for Lancashire, West and I share at least one thing—we both know Mr. Heyes of Mossborough hall. The hon. Gentleman knows him as a constituent; I know him from my former incarnation in the horticulture business and have done business with him. He is an excellent salad and vegetable grower. I, too, have spoken to Mr. Heyes, whose enthusiasm for criticising the Bill has perhaps matured with time. My noble Friend Earl Howe, the Parliamentary Secretary in another place, and I had a meeting with him, at which we listened carefully to what he had to say.
  The hon. Member for Lancashire, West mentioned the security of tenure. I refer him to clauses 1, 5, 6, 7, 16, 23, 24 and 25, all of which lock together a security of tenure once the landlord and the tenant have reached an agreement and which offer very good protection not afforded by many of the existing arrangements.
  I think that I have already dealt with the point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
  I now deal with some of the substantive comments made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. When I looked at the Opposition's approach to the matter, I could not believe my eyes. I read the document, "Encouraging new entrants into farming". I thought that it would be a voyage of discovery. Would there be some new truth in it that I had missed? I turned to the first page. One of its headings is, "Background". Then, "The Tory Response". It talks about "their"—the Tory—"plan". Clearly, Labour had not heard that the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union, tenant farmers, young farmers and many others had helped to write the Bill.
  I continued reading this illuminating document. The next thing that I found was, "Land Tenure Legislation at Present"—a sort of description. I thought that it would be a brief summary, but, no, it runs on for the next two pages—I am still nowhere nearer understanding what the great plan is. I finally got to, "The Labour Party's Tenancy Reform Strategy", followed by "Structural Support for New Farmers". We have heard much this evening about retirement plans. Where will the money come from? As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East said, the shadow Chancellor has not given him any right to spend anything, so any claims that the hon. Gentleman makes on that are as nothing.
  The first part of the document talks about compensation. Where is the money to come from? It is yet another false agenda from the Labour party. The next part of the great document deals with quotas. The Labour party wishes to take away from those who have and create some pool of new quota. That is not supported within farming. I went through the rest of the document: rent, European aid, county council aid—I am still searching for the great Labour plan, but nowhere can I find it. What it eventually says is:
  "the 1986 Act would be reformed and simplified".
  I think that I am getting nearer the holy grail, but where is the detail of the reform, the simplification, the improvement, the factors that will attract new, young blood into agriculture? I have waited for hours this evening to hear the answers to those questions and we still have not heard them. All we have heard is a tatty, second-hand critique of the existing situation, which is the Labour party's own legislation.
  112
  The present arrangements do not serve farming well, as Marie Skinner said in an article entitled "Talking Point", in the NFU magazine. She said:
  "Landowners cannot be forced to rent out land. They can be encouraged to do so".
  She also said:
  "There is a widely held misconception that security is vital if land is to be farmed well. However, the opposite is probably true. Too much security in an industry creates complacency and mediocrity."
  We have heard complacency and mediocrity from Opposition Members; I commend that article to them.
  As we reach the end of a thoughtful and well-argued debate, I am struck by the fact that members of the so-called new Labour party—the modernisers—are behaving like Luddites. Young people who want to hang on to the dream of going into farming need the support of Conservative Members: they are not getting it from Labour.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 129.

  Division No. 64]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Amess, David

  Evennett, David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Faber, David

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Ashby, David

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bates, Michael

  French, Douglas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Gallie, Phil

  Bellingham, Henry

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Booth, Hartley

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bowis, John

  Greenway, Hany (Ealing N)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Heald, Oliver

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Horam, John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Chidgey, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hunter, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Jack, Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Cran, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dover, Den

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan, Alan

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eletson, Harold

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  113

  Knight Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Legg, Barry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lidington, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  Maddock, Diana

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sykes, John

  Malone, Gerald

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Tyler, Paul

  Nelson, Anthony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Paice, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Willetts, David

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wood, Timothy

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Yeo, Tim

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sackville, Tom

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashton, Joe

  Darling, Alistair

  Austin-Walker, John

  Davies, Bryan (Oldharm C'tral)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Dixon, Don

  Battle, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Betts, Clive

  Eastham, Ken

  Blunkett David

  Enright, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Etherington, Bill

  Bradley, Keith

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fatchett, Derek

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

  Fisher.Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Byers, Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caborn, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Callaghan, Jim

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clelland, David

  Gunnel, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hall, Mike

  Coffey, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  114

  Hoyle, Doug

  Olner, Bill

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Patehett Terry

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Livingstone, Ken

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Redmond, Martin

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McAllion, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCartney, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  McFall, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Soley, Clive

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stevenson, George

  Madden, Max

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mahon, Alice

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mandelson, Peter

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Timms, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Turner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Michael, Alun

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Miller, Andrew

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Morley, Elliot

  Wise, Audrey

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Tellers for the Noes:

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Joe Benton

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  EDUCATION
  Ordered,
  That Dr Robert Spink be discharged from the Education Committee and Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Bruce Grocott be discharged from the National Heritage Committee and Mr. Roland Boyes be added to the Committee.—[Mr. MacKay.]

  M1
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  10.13 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads, who is to reply to the debate, and to his various predecessors since 1989 who have had to succumb to the blandishments of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright), who wishes to be associated with my remarks tonight. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, since the announcement in the White Paper of November 1989 that consideration would be given to widening the M1 between junctions 10 and 12, a shadow has been placed over the people who live in and around that part of my constituency and, especially, over those who are affected by the motorway. Some, of course, have lost their homes because the intended route will go through them. Some will lose parts of their gardens, with, in some cases, the motorway coming much closer to their homes. The majority will be affected not just by the increased traffic on the motorway, but by construction work in the area.
  My hon. Friend will know that, since that time, numerous public meetings have taken place and numerous representations have been made to me, not just by people in the Luton area, but by those outside it as well. I shall confine my remarks to people in the borough of Luton. A responsible action group, under Mr. John Neal, has been set up. Throughout this longish period of more than five years, those people have worked closely with me. I hope that I have worked closely with my hon. Friend and with the Highways Agency, which has been co-operative in its dealings with my constituents and me.
  Obviously, I have made numerous personal visits. Only last week, I visited some the homes of about a dozen constituents who are affected. It has been the dominant topic in that area for some time because, as I think even you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might realise, living close to a motorway of this intensity, and as busy as this one, makes life somewhat unpleasant from time to time.
  The motorway carries about 120,000 vehicles per day on its three lanes on either side. Some of the residents affected were in their homes before the motorway was built. It opened in 1959 to a mere trickle of traffic. Just one or two cars are seen in some of the early photographs. Even at that time, no one envisaged that it would carry the traffic that it carries today, and that it is envisaged to carry later this season and into the next.
  My constituents and their predecessors have been extremely tolerant of the terrible nuisance with which they have been afflicted. The amount of traffic has increased. There have been problems with noise and nuisance, the surrounding traffic going in and out of the motorway, accidents and pollution, and all the other factors that are associated with living near to what was for many years, and what probably still is, the major arterial road in our country. They have been extremely tolerant and, in many cases, badly compensated for what they have suffered.
  Throughout all those problems, and throughout the discussions that we have had since the White Paper first envisaged the road, the agency has been extremely co-operative. I would be happy if my hon. Friend would
  116
  pass on my best wishes and thanks to the agency for what it has done, with the obvious caveat that it will keep up the good work, and be even more tolerant and co-operative in the next few months and years.
  I should like to bring three small items to my hon. Friend's attention. I hope that he will answer them this evening or at a later date. The first relates to the timetable of events. Virtually 100 per cent. of the constituents affected accept that the road will go ahead and be built. We know that money has been put on one side for it. It has escaped all the savings that the Government will make on their roads programme expenditure.
  After some five years of discussion, those people want things to move on as quickly as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, the public consultation exercise will finish on 17 March, just over a month away. I shall be interested to know what sort of reaction he has had to that exercise.
  It is fairly obvious that there will be a public inquiry, but it would not be right for my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that inquiry or its outcome. I warn those listening outside who represent pressure groups which, understandably, take the view that the road is not necessary, that the money could be better spent elsewhere and that construction is environmentally unfriendly, to be sensible when giving evidence to the inquiry so as not to cause any further delay.
  Many of my constituents are elderly and have been in their homes for many years. That is especially true of those whom I visited recently, sonic of whom are in their late 70s and 80s or even in their 90s. To delay the road for another few years because of arguments about the route or whether it should be built at all would be unfair to them. In all the years that I have been involved in this debate, only a handful have believed that the road could be stopped. I am not saying that they want the road to be built, but the majority may now realise that it could perhaps be of some benefit to them. I should be grateful if the Minister could outline a more precise timetable; my constituents would certainly be happier.
  The project is running some six months late and, as we know, such things often tend to slip but it is important that my constituents have as firm an idea as my hon. Friend can give about the timetable so that they can plan their lives. Some, knowing that compensation could be forthcoming—mainly on blight notices—have not yet approached the Highways Agency. However, I have urged them to do so as quickly as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some idea of the future programme.
  The second and very important issue is the basis on which any compensation will be made. I know that this is going to be a thorny subject among the individuals affected, the local valuation officer and the Highways Agency. It would not be fitting for me, and certainly not for my hon. Friend, to enter into any financial negotiations or to talk about figures with individuals. I would not expect him to do so and, as he knows, I have never asked that he should.
  There is an anomaly involving those who have been living beside the motorway since before 1959, who are known as the forgotten people. There are only a few and they are, by definition, elderly and do not want to move. It is extraordinary that because they are in what I call the pre-1959 position, the compensation that they have received—bearing in mind how busy the road is now—

  117
  has been minimal. It has been nothing more than a bit of secondary glazing from the local council and possibly an easement of what used to he known as their rates.
  My hon. Friend will be familiar with the noise insulation regulations introduced in 1975, but my constituents have been left behind. I confess that I do not have high hopes of his reply, but those people must be taken into account. It is intolerable that people who bought their homes all those years ago will not get the compensation that those who moved in later will get because noise can now be measured and has increased. It sounds complicated, but the Minister knows exactly what I mean and I am sure that he is familiar with those regulations. I ask him with some passion to consider my comments and see whether some assistance can be offered.
  Some people might get compensation because of a very recent judgment made, I believe, in the House of Lords on compensation offered for the depreciation of property between junctions 9 and 10, a section of the motorway that is now almost complete. I realise that this is hot off the press, but my constituents are asking, rightly, whether my hon. Friend can say whether the judgment will make any difference to them. Some letters from the Highways Agency appear to hint that it could. If that is the case, I hope that my hon. Friend can clarify whether the judgment made in that case could affect my constituents. If money is available, I am anxious for them to get every bit of compensation possible because, by heaven, they deserve it for living next to that road.
  The third point, which is as important as any point that I wish to bring to my hon. Friend's attention, is the problem of noise and nuisance which inevitably goes with motorways. My hon. Friend has done his homework, so he will know that, right at the start, I pleaded that the noise barriers should be the most up to date. I appreciate that modern technology is improving sound barriers all the time, whether earth barriers, fence barriers or natural barriers. I do not want my hon. Friend to tell me tonight exactly what sort of barriers there will be and then to find myself standing here in two years' time, God and the electorate of Luton willing, saying to my hon. Friend, who will probably be in the Cabinet by then, or to his successor, that we asked for the most up-to-date barriers. It is important that work continues on that side so that when the road is built, we can say firmly that the barriers are the best available on an almost no-expense-spared basis. In a project of £400 million, a few extra million pounds spent on barriers for the comfort of my constituents is essential.
  If there is any opportunity within the logistics of building the road for some of the barriers to be in place while the construction work is going on, that must be done. I know that my hon. Friend has made promises and I respect them. It is, however, essential that while the work is going on, the noise and nuisance are kept to a minimum. Ironically, the noise from the construction work, some of which will go on into the night—my residents appreciate that because they want the job done quickly—will be worse than the noise generated by the motorway and will be almost incessant. We must have further reassurances that where possible—I admit that with earth barriers it may not be possible—some form of sound insulation will be provided while the work takes place. When it is completed, the noise barriers must be the most up to date.
  118
  The surface of the road should, again, be the most up to date and the quietest. I appreciate that this will be a matter of cost to an extent. Having said that, now that we can develop what is called whispering concrete—that sounds almost like a pop group, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I assure you that it is a form of tarmacadam—the noise will be lessened. Some 70 per cent. of the noise from motorways comes from tyres. Everything that we can do, therefore, to ensure that the surface of the road is the quietest possible, with the most up-to-date technology, will help. I hope that my hon. Friend may be able to give me some help on that point. The noise from the tyres is excessive, especially in the summer months when people sit outside in conditions that many of us who are fortunate enough to live away from roads can never really understand—unless we suffer them while visiting people who live bang beside motorways. A quiet surface is essential.
  I am glad that the predictions for noise in the majority of the area about which we are talking—we are all hanging on a string on this one—are that the level of noise could go down slightly. We are grateful for that and it will be of some comfort to my constituents. If we can get the noise level down even further by laying the right road surface, I hope that such a surface will be used.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will bring some comfort to my beleaguered constituents; I feel strongly about the matter. It is no fun living next to a major road with 120,000 vehicles a day going by virtually 24 hours a day. It is certainly no fun not to be able to sit in the garden in the summer or not to be able to open the windows. It is no fun hardly to be able to have a normal conversation in one's own home, let alone outside one's home, as happens in some cases. That is why I hope that my hon. Friend will bring them some comfort this evening.
  Secondly, I hope that the compensation that my hon. Friend offers, and continues to offer, to my constituents, either through his Department or elsewhere, will be more than adequate. It must be some sort of comfort, especially for the older generation who do not want to move from their houses, and it can give them some financial relief for the burden that many of them have suffered for about 40 years.
  Thirdly, if it is within his power—it is, to a certain extent—my hon. Friend must speed up the process as much as he can. If he can give me some comfort tonight, he will certainly have the gratitude of my constituents. I make no apology—this subject will not go away until the road is completed. Indeed, once the road has been built, there will undoubtedly be compensation claims for the noise levels. The quicker the process and the greater the compensation, the happier my constituents in that unfortunate area will be.
  10.30 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) on securing this debate and on his assiduous advocacy of the concerns of his constituents. There is certainly no need for any apology for continuing to bring those concerns to my attention, and that of the Highways Agency and of the House. I also thank him for his generous comments about the agency and its staff, which will be greatly appreciated.

  119
  I welcome the opportunity to discuss a number of important issues associated with the proposed widening of the M1 between junctions 10 and 15 and to tell the House of progress made by the Highways Agency, which handles the scheme on our behalf. My hon. Friend raised issues that concern people who live near the motorway and those who feel strongly about transport and its impact upon their environment. He set out his concerns clearly and thoroughly.
  As my hon. Friend reminded us, since it was built in the late 1950s, the M1 has become a heavily used strategic motorway route, linking London, the midlands and the north. In recent years, traffic flows have increased considerably and, between junction 10 and junction 15, the M1 carries flows of between 92,000 and 121,000 vehicles per day on different sections. Congestion occurs regularly, especially during peak periods or when there are accidents or incidents.
  Traffic is expected to continue growing, increasing congestion and making driving conditions on the motorway intolerable. If that is not dealt with, drivers will be tempted to divert to local roads, bringing more pollution and noise into local communities. That is particularly true of my hon. Friend's constituency, as he and his constituents know only too well.
  Long queues develop at peak times, especially near junctions. Widening is needed to relieve existing congestion and, for that reason, is one of the Highways Agency's priority 1 schemes.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 19 December that we are refocusing the roads programme to concentrate more on the improvement of the existing network, rather than on entirely new routes. The scheme for widening the M1 between junctions 10 and 12 is entirely in line with that philosophy.
  Proposals to widen the M1 between junctions 10 and 12, and on to 15, will bring substantial economic and safety benefits to road users. The widening will reduce the cost that congestion imposes on industry, reduce accidents, save time for road users and reduce urban congestion. By easing congestion, air quality will also improve, as traffic that is moving freely produces less harmful emissions than stop-start traffic.
  The Highways Agency also examines carefully the environmental impact of schemes and the measures needed to mitigate that impact. A considerable advantage in building on the existing network is that it limits intrusion. That is no reason why those living alongside existing routes should suffer from that policy. It is therefore very much our aim to improve the environmental context and level of protection, wherever possible. That is illustrated by this scheme.
  The widening solution uses a mixture of parallel widening, asymmetrical widening and symmetrical widening. The parallel and asymmetric techniques enable us to move the motorway further away from existing communities, with the benefits that that brings. The alignment through the southern part of Luton, in my hon. Friend's constituency, is an example and there are others further north within the scheme. The parallel technique also enables widening to take place with minimal interference to traffic during construction. Noise levels will naturally fall where the motorway is moved away
  120
  from properties, but we shall take other specific measures, including contouring and landscaping, for more general environmental protection.
  We are all too aware that existing traffic noise next to the motorway is generally very high. For most properties in Luton, existing noise levels fall in the range of 58 to 78 decibels, although for some properties levels are higher. The area around junction 11, Dunstable road, is very noisy where the motorway is elevated and traffic is heavy.
  The proposed widening includes extensive environmental protection: noise barriers are proposed throughout the built-up areas and at other sensitive locations along the route. In Luton, barrier heights will vary between 9.5 ft and 16.5 ft, depending on the local situation. The use of the best acoustically absorbent barriers where appropriate and justified will reduce reflected noise and offer significant benefits in the urban area. As they cost between two or three times the price of standard reflective barriers, we must be satisfied that the benefits are commensurate with the additional cost of using them.
  The overall aim is significantly to reduce existing traffic noise for people living near the motorway. Once statutory procedures are complete, and given the availability of funds, noise mitigation provisions that can be put into place before the remainder of the scheme is complete will be installed so that their benefits may be felt as soon as possible. For many properties, noise will be immediately reduced and our calculations show that, 15 years after widening has been completed, noise levels will still be significantly lower or no higher than now for some 2,350 properties in Luton close to the motorway. Over 100 properties in Luton will qualify for noise insulation from either traffic or construction noise, to which my hon. Friend referred in particular. The Highways Agency will approach those concerned in due course to arrange that.
  My hon. Friend referred to the proposals' blighting effect on some of his constituents' ability to sell their property. So far, the agency has bought 41 properties in my hon. Friend's constituency under the statutory blight legislation, where land will be needed for the scheme. It has also used the Secretary of State's discretionary powers to acquire a further eight properties and has, unfortunately, had to turn down 17 other requests for purchase. It will look at 11 of those again in the light of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Lieutenant Colonel Owen, to which my hon. Friend referred. New guidelines are being prepared urgently to reflect the implications of that judgment, and anyone who believes himself eligible under the new guidelines will be free to reapply and have his case reconsidered.
  My hon. Friend made a strong case for the "forgotten few"—those living in the area before the motorway was first built. I am sorry to disappoint him with regard to that small number of residents whose residence predates the opening of the motorway. Unfortunately, legislation does not provide for compensation in respect of existing noise nuisance. It provides only for compensation for noise arising from the widening proposals if it increases noise by at least 1 decibel to more than 68 decibels. Primary legislation would be necessary to provide relief for that group of residents, and I do not hold out the hope that such legislation will be forthcoming.

  121
  As with all our schemes, our procedures will provide a wide range of opportunities for those affected to contribute to the debate and raise their concerns. Public consultation exhibitions were held at local venues in November 1992. Individual members of the public and representative bodies took great interest in the proposals and made a number of suggestions and requests. En the light of local people's views and concerns, the proposals published by the agency last November included improved noise mitigation measures and further development of the design of the junctions to ease access for traffic and reduce the environmental impact.
  As my hon. Friend said, the opportunity for people to make representations about the environmental statement or to object to the draft orders does not expire until 17 March. The next stage is likely to be a public inquiry held before an independent inspector. The timing of that will depend on the issues that arise from that objection period.
  However, I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no undue delay on our part in taking that important scheme forward to a public inquiry. Following the inquiry, a decision would not be taken on the way forward until my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment had considered the inspector's report and the objections that had been raised.
  I am afraid that I cannot give any more definite idea of timing, because so many matters, especially the length of time that the inquiry will take, are not under our control.
  That scheme is important, affecting one of our most important motorways. We are taking account of the various events that bear on the road programme, but schemes such as that must continue to be developed. In doing so, we and the Highways Agency will be at pains to ensure that we redress the sufferings of individuals for the general good when we can, either by the design of the scheme or by the various means of compensation. If they
  122
  are still not satisfied, it will be open to them to express their opinions to us in writing or by seeking to appear at the expected public inquiry.
  My hon. Friend referred to road surfaces. Porous asphalt is often advocated to reduce surface noise, but in its current form it would have inadequate wearing characteristics for the volume of traffic that uses the motorway. The increased maintenance costs and the delays and disruption that frequent maintenance would lead to would, in such circumstances, make it economically unviable. However, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, development of materials may have improved the strength of noise-reducing surfaces sufficiently before the decision about the type of surface needs to be taken, and we shall keep the position under review so that if there are stronger, lower-noise materials available to us, we shall certainly give careful consideration to using them.
  My hon. Friend referred to whisper concrete. We are testing the use of whisper concrete on the M18 between junctions 5 and 6, and the preliminary results appear promising. I have seen an experiment on a new stretch of bypass in Derbyshire, where whisper concrete is also being applied.
  I have listened carefully to all the arguments made so well by my hon. Friend, and those arguments will be considered in greater detail by the Highways Agency. I hope that I have been able to give him some of the assurances that he and his constituents have sought, and I am sorry that I have not been able to offer him all the assurances that they would have wished to hear from me.
  However, my hon. Friend can be assured that, in proceeding with that important scheme, we shall take the fullest account of any measures that we can use to mitigate its impact on those who have to live near the M1 through Luton.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will reassess the performance criteria of permanent, deputy and under secretaries within the civil service.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No. My Department completed work to identify the core criteria for grades 1 to 3 in March 1994. A new annual performance review system for grades 2 and 3 was introduced from 1 January 1995 which included assessment against these criteria. The arrangements proposed for determining permanent secretaries' pay will also involve a system of formal annual appraisal.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will consider introducing policy target agreements and individual fixed term contracts for permanent, deputy and under secretaries within the civil service.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Senior managers in executive agencies work within the framework of the key targets set out in the organisation's framework document, while in core departments, senior managers work within the framework of policy objectives set out in each Department's published annual report.

  In the Command Paper, "The Civil Service: Taking Forward Continuity and Change" (CM 2748), the Government stated that they would proceed with the introduction of written contracts of employment for members of the new senior civil service. The Government do not favour using fixed term contracts generally for senior civil servants, a view which is shared by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in its report, "Role of the Civil Service".

  Performance Criteria
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps are being taken to clarify performance criteria and establish a clear division of responsibility between Ministers and their officials.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Framework documents for executive agencies and organisations working on next steps lines describe the division of responsibilities between Ministers and officials. Taken together with an agency's corporate and business plans they also set out the indicators and targets used to assess performance. Sixty-two per cent. of the home civil service work in agencies and the executive structures of the two Revenue departments. Another 17 per cent. are in functions identified as definite or possible agency candidates.

  In core departments, published annual reports already set out departmental aims, objectives and achievements against previous plans or targets. "The Civil Service:
  2
  Taking Forward Continuity and Change" (Cm 2748) builds on the arrangements already in place in sets out the Government's view that there should be an increasing emphasis on extending, throughout the civil service, many of the principles of next steps, including maximum clarity about objectives and targets.

  Ministry of Justice
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the grounds for rejecting proposals for a Ministry of Justice.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government consider that existing arrangements continue to be effective.

  A variety of proposals for a Ministry of Justice have been made, but the Government are not convinced that any of them have made a case for the significant and complex constitutional change which would be involved.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many non-departmental public bodies are currently in existence; and when the annual list of such bodies will be published.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  On 1 April 1994 there were 1,345 non-departmental public bodies—a fall of 44 since 1993. Since 1979, the number of non-departmental public bodies has been reduced by 38 per cent. from 2,167. Details can be found in "Public Bodies 1994" published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Sir Giles Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a copy of the evidence he has submitted to the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  A copy of my evidence has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government are committed to the principle that selection for public appointments should be made on merit by the well-informed choice of individuals who through their qualifications, experience and qualities match the needs of the public body and the post in question. The arrangements in place and the reforms already introduced by a range of Departments are all designed to emphasise, against a background of many different kinds of appointments, this overriding principle. It was, however, a concern that central guidance to Departments should be clearer and firmer on these issues that led the Prime Minister last May to request a review of the guidance on these matters.

  That review has now been completed by the Cabinet Office public appointments unit and I have submitted a copy of its report to the committee. The "Review of Guidance on Public Appointments" explains the varied nature of public appointments, the majority of them unpaid; describes a number of the initiatives which are being taken by Departments to improve procedures; and recommends ways in which best practice can be extended. The main focus of improvements is on greater openness about, for example, who holds posts and how people can apply for them, including the greater use of advertising. It also concentrates on arrangements to demonstrate probity; on sustained measures to promote equal

  3
  opportunities; and on reflecting citizens charter principles for accountability and responsiveness.

  The Government have accepted the recommendations of the review and I have asked that work be set in hand straight away to implement the review as we revise the central guidance. I have asked the committee for its views on the review and the new central guidance will be issued as soon as the Government have been able to consider its comments.

  Although I did not wish to anticipate or pre-judge the committee's deliberations on issues of conduct and propriety, I have provided in my evidence an overview of Government public service reforms as they apply to public bodies; and emphasised the high standards of impartiality, objectivity and financial integrity, including through codes of conduct for board members in public bodies and the national health service.

  The committee has written separately to the Cabinet Secretary about gifts and hospitality for Ministers and the rules which govern the employment of officials when they leave the civil service, and he has replied. I have also placed a copy of this correspondence in the Library of the House.

  I am making my evidence and the committee's correspondence with Sir Robin Butler generally available to interested parties.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the amount of Government assistance granted to research councils for each year since 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Government grant-in-aid to the research councils from the science budget since 1986–87 was as follows:

  £ million

  AFRC

  ESRC

  MRC

  NERC

  SERC

  1986–87

  57.1

  23.8

  128.3

  70.3

  316.2

  1987–88

  54.9

  24.8

  139.8

  73.3

  357.5

  1988–89

  61.1

  27.0

  149.6

  91.9

  367.6

  1989–90

  74.3

  31.5

  176.3

  115.0

  406.2

  1990–91

  88.4

  36.6

  185.7

  135.2

  440.8

  1991–92

  96.6

  35.6

  202.9

  122.6

  456.4

  1992–93

  105.4

  45.9

  227.6

  129.7

  523.0

  1993–94

  109.4

  53.2

  262.7

  140.3

  583.5

  Estimated outturn in 1994–95 is as follows:

  £ million

  BBSRC

  146.9

  EPSRC

  367.9

  ESRC

  58.9

  MRC

  269.3

  NERC

  153.5

  PPARC

  180.1

  Swindon Research Councils Pensions Scheme

  30.1

  The allocations of the science budget for 1995–96 will be announced on 2 February.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the rules and regulations in his 4
  Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Departments for which I have ministerial responsibility are not responsible for any regulation legislation and have, therefore, not withdrawn any such legislation in the last 12 months.

  Citizens Charters
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the sections of all citizens charters in operation which cover the public services used by elderly people.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Public services should be accessible to all those who need them, including elderly people. The 40 charters issued by public services are intended to help raise the standards and responsiveness of those services to all their customers, which include elderly people.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to establish a charter for the retired covering all services used by retired people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  There are no plans to introduce such a charter. Public services should be accessible to all those who need them, including retired people. In drawing up or revising a charter, a service provider should consult its customers and, as far as possible reflect their particular needs in the service standards and commitments which that charter sets.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electric Shock Equipment
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences have been granted for the export of electric shock equipment since 1988, for which countries and for how many devices.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether export licences have been granted for the transfer of electric shock equipment to Saudi Arabia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It would be possible to establish whether any export licences had been sought for such exports only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what stocks of shock batons were supplied directly of indirectly to Saudi Arabia(a) under the Al Yamamah programme and (b) in any other transaction in the period (i) three years before and (ii) six years after the signing of the Al Yamamah deal (1) by the British Government, (2) by British companies or (3) by arrangement with any company with offices in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: Both British Aerospace and the Ministry of Defence have denied that any electric batons were supplied under the Al Yamamah programme. It would be possible to establish whether any export licences had been sought for such

  5
  exports only at disproportionate cost. Deals not involving export from the UK require no licence.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with ICL Technical Plastics about the sale or export of electro-shock equipment; and what support his Department has provided.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]: There is no record of support to ICL Technical Plastics for this purpose. My officials have spoken to representatives of the company who have denied the allegations in the Channel 4 television programme "Dispatches" on 11 January 1995.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received about the export of electric shock batons and other equipment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am aware of the allegations made in the channel 4 television programme "Dispatches" on 11 January 1995. The companies concerned have made public denials of the allegations.

  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions his Department has had with BAe Royal Ordnance about the sale of electric shock batons to(a) Saudi Arabia and (b) other countries.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My officials contacted British Aerospace following the screening of the Channel 4 television programme "Dispatches" on 11 January 1995. The company has denied the allegations made in the programme.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are his criteria for judging whether an anti-personnel mine reaches sufficiently high standards to be judged self-destructing of self-neutralising so as to be allowed to be exported.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Decisions on whether or not to grant a licence for the export of such mines would involve a number of considerations, only one of which would be an assessment of failure rates. The munitions lists in part III group 1 of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 are modelled on the former COCOM munitions list headings and contain no standards for land mines; all mines are controlled.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications he received in 1994 for export licences for self-destructing or self-neutralising anti-personnel mines; by whom they were manufactured; which applications were approved; and for which countries the mines were destined.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  None.

  Unsolicited Mail
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received from Birmingham city council about unsolicited direct mail offering business opportunities, profitable gambling or football pool plans and other money-making schemes, purporting to offer substantial profit from very little effort or expenditure; and whether he will seek to amend the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 and its amendment of 1975 to prohibit the distribution of such unsolicited literature.
  6
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have received no such representations. I have no plans to amend the Unsolicited Goods and Services Acts to prohibit the distribution of unsolicited literature.

  Lloyd's
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what timetable he envisages for the 1995 solvency test for Lloyd's of London

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In previous years the statement and certificates demonstrating Lloyd's solvency, which are required by part IV of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, have normally been received towards the end of August. I have no reason to expect the timetable to be different this year.

  Ferries, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to revisit the inquiry into ferry fares and services to and from the Isle of Wight.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trading is due to review the market for the supply cross-Solent ferry services this year, as requested by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in 1992 following publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.

  Arbitration Bill
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received during the consultation period that followed the publishing of the White Paper on the draft Arbitration Bill of February 1994; and what conclusions he has drawn as a result of these representations.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Some 158 often extremely detailed submissions were received during the consultation period that followed the publication in February 1994 of the consultation document on the draft Arbitration Bill. These are currently being considered. A Bill taking account of the responses will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  A list of those rules and regulations withdrawn in the past 12 months follows. The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are completed. The implications for the Department's overall manpower will not be significant, and will be taken into account in the Department's MINIS round, the results of which are published annually.

  Rules and Regulations withdrawn in the last twelve months

  The Insolvent Partnerships Order 1986 (SI 1986/2142)

  The Insolvency Regulations 1986 (SI 1986/1994 amended by SI 1987/1959, SI 1988/1739, SI 1991/380)

  7

  The Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/445)

  The Insurance Companies (Cancellation No. 2) Regulations 1993 (SI 1993/1092)

  The Insurance Companies Regulations 1981 (SI 1981/1654)

  The Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1982 (SI 1982/675)

  The Insurance Companies (Advertisements) Amendments (No. 2) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/396)

  The Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985/1419)

  The Insurance Companies (Amendment) Regulations 1988 (SI 1988/673)

  The Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) (Applications for Authorisation) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1160)

  The Insurance Companies (Credit Insurance) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990/1181)

  The Insurance Companies Regulations 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 1991 SI (1991/1999)

  The Insurance Companies (Linked Contracts) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991/2511)

  The Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1985

  The Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Safety) Regulations 1980

  The Plugs and Sockets etc. (Safety) Regulations 1987

  The Low Voltage Electrical Equipment (Safety) Regulations 1989

  The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 Section 36(2)

  Weights and Measure Act 1963 (Dentifrices) Order 1974

  The Benzene in Toys (Safety) Regulations 1987

  The Novelties (Safety) Regulations 1980

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions departmental officials met representatives of Ian Greer Associates(a) formally and (b) informally on 26 January to discuss matters relating to its clients' interests.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: In so far as we have been able to establish there were no meetings between departmental officials and representatives of Ian Greer Associates on 26 January.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Donhoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department spent during 1994 on recruiting staff to his Department and its executive agencies; and how many staff were recruited.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 27 January 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry, and its executive agencies, spent £554,959 recruiting 108 staff during 1994.

  Business Link
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will set up an independent evaluation of the progress to date on the business link network.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry is currently commissioning an independent evaluation of the business link network. The evaluation will begin in March and is due to be completed in autumn 1995.
  8

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1994,Official Report, column 299, if the United Kingdom company that is licensed to explore for oil and gas in the East Timor gap has been granted an export licence under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1981.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 10 January 1995]: It has been the practice of successive Governments not to reveal details of export licences or applications for licences unless the requirements of confidentiality are outweighed by the public interest.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, column 299, if the United Kingdom company that is licensed to explore for oil and gas in the East Timor gap requires an export licence under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1981.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 10 January 1995]: A licence is required under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended, to export from the United Kingdom goods identified in the schedules to that order, unless the goods are specified in article 3(b) to (e) of the order.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ellesmere Port Magistrates Court
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what plans he has to replace the Ellesmere Port magistrates court;

  (2) what representations he has received regarding the suitability of the Ellesmere Port magistrates courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The provision of magistrates courthouse accommodation is a matter for the magistrates courts committee concerned in conjunction with the local paying authority; there is no requirement of notification or representation to the Lord Chancellor. A local authority that is aggrieved by a decision of the magistrates courts committee to close a courthouse has the right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor. In the absence of such an appeal the Lord Chancellor has no locus in the matter.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to allow private sector funding for the development of magistrates courts.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Accommodation for magistrates courts is the responsibility of local authorities albeit substantially funded by central Government grants. The decision whether to use private sector funding is therefore primarily a matter for individual local authorities. My Department is, however, keen to support the private finance initiative, and for PH solutions to be followed where practicable.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for each of the area
  9
  advisory committees on justices of the peace in the Greater London area, how many applications were received to become a JP in each of the last three years for which statistics are available; how many of these applications were from ethnic minority applicants; how

  Area Advisory Committee

  Number of applications received

  Number of appointments

  Number of ethnic minority applicants appointed

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Inner London

  140

  173

  149

  75

  88

  72

  9

  21

  11

  City of London

  23

  23

  12

  10

  10

  6

  2

  0

  1

  South west London

  93

  84

  73

  24

  32

  35

  4

  3

  1

  South east London

  96

  71

  83

  33

  19

  23

  3

  2

  3

  North east London

  166

  132

  111

  37

  48

  42

  8

  9

  8

  Middlesex

  262

  103

  162

  97

  29

  56

  4

  11

  16

  No figures are available to show how many of the total applications were from ethnic minority applicants.

  Community Charge Payers
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recourse to compensation exist for those community charge payers wrongly committed to prison; and what action is to be taken against the magistrates who committed them.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Legal proceedings may be taken against a magistrate only if he has acted outside his jurisdiction and if it is proved that he has acted in bad faith. The Lord Chancellor does not intervene in judicial matters and there are no grounds for him to take action.

  Posthumous Pardon
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) if he will list the main principles governing the release of documents held in the Public Record Office relating to the trials and executions for murder in British gaols on application by next of kin or their legal representatives for the purpose of pursuing a case for posthumous pardon;

  (2) what is his Department's policy in relation to the application of the 75-year-rule, and requests made for reducing it with regard to papers held in the Public Record Office relating to the trial and execution for murder in British gaols, by the next of kin for the purpose of pursuing the case for a posthumous pardon; what policy his Department has on charging for photocopying of such records for such purposes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  All assize records over 30 years old and closed for 75 years are being re-reviewed in line with the provisions of the White Paper on open government, chapter 9. Dependent on the nature of the inquiry from the next of kin, documents are either made available to them, or they are invited to visit my Department to read the file. Public Record Office charges for photocopies from files and my Department follows the same course of action. After review, and where sensitivity has passed, files are being released into the public domain.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his Department received the application to supply copies of the papers relating to the trial for the murder of Lily Vo1pert, and execution in Cardiff gaol in 1952 of Mahmood Hussein Mattan: on what date the records were located at the Cardif Public
  10
  many of the total applications were accepted; how many of these were from ethnic minority applicants.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The figures for each of the advisory committees on justices of the peace in the Greater London area for the last three years are as follows:

  Record Office; and on what date the Mattan family and their solicitor were informed of their existence.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A letter dated 2 September 1994 was received by the Court of Appeal on 6 September 1994, and passed to my Department's record section for action. They requisitioned Mattan's case file from the Public Record Office at Kew on 8 September 1994, and supplied copies of documents from the file to the solicitors under cover of a letter dated 16 September 1994.

  Legal Aid Fund (Barristers' Fees)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will name those barristers paid more than £200,000 from the legal aid fund in 1992–93 and 1993–94 and the amount each individual was paid in each year.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) what steps he takes to avoid a statutory instrument(a) being made or (b) coming into force before the making of any separate statutory instrument without which it would be ultra vires;

  (2) what steps he takes to avoid a statutory instrument being approved before the approval of any separate statutory instrument without which it would be ultra vires.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: The guidance in "Statutory Instrument Practice" reminds Departments of the need to ensure that provisions in subordinate legislation are intra vires.

ENVIRONMENT

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place a copy of the final agreement
  11
  programme for objective 1 for Merseyside in the Library; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have placed a copy of the objective 1 single programming document for Merseyside in the Library today.

  The programming which the single programme's document sets out provides an important opportunity for Merseyside. It includes a broad range of measures which will improve the competitiveness of local industry, increase the skills and employment opportunities for local people and enhance the quality of life. These measures give effect to a strategy agreed with the European Commission and prepared in partnership between the Government and others active locally: the local authorities, the training and enterprise councils, statutory agencies such as English Partnerships and the Merseyside development corporation and participants from institutions, further and higher education and the voluntary sector. I welcome the constructive and pragmatic spirit in which all concerned in the local partnership have driven forward planning for the Merseyside objective 1 programme, which will continue to have the Government's full support.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies have been carried out by his Department into the long-term storage of radioactive waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since 1981 my Department has carried out the following studies into the long-term storage of radioactive waste. These are available through the Library of the House:

  A Design Study of Long Term Storage and Underground Disposal System for Highly Active Waste.

  W. R. Burton and J. R. Griffin

  Pre-disposal Storage, Transport and Handling of Vitrified High-Level Waste.

  T. F. Kempe and A. Martin

  Surface Storage of Vitrified High-Level Radioactive Waste in Reinforced Concrete Casks.

  H. Beale, M. W. George and T. Robertson

  Implications of Long-term Surface or Near-Surface Storage of Intermediate and Low Level Waste in the United Kingdom.

  N. Murray, D. Vande Putte and R. J. Wade.

  Long-term Storage of Radioactive Solid Waste Within Disposal Facilities.

  M. Wakerley and J. Edmunds

  Assessment of Best Practicable Environment Options (BPEOs) for Management of Low and Intermediate-Level Solid Wastes.

  In addition, over the same period, there have been a number of studies into short-term storage.

  Local Referendums
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of giving powers to local authorities to hold local referendums.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend has made no such assessment.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds are available through his 12
  Department in the current financial year for coastal protection and repair.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department has no specific funds in respect of work on coastal protection and repair.

  Where the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food expect to issue credit approvals for capital expenditure in respect of such work these credit approvals will be taken into account in calculating standard spending assessments. Consequently local authorities will receive a contribution through the revenue support grant towards the borrowing costs associated with the balance of capital costs of approved schemes net of other grants.

  Local authorities also receive contributions through their revenue support grant entitlements in respect of revenue expenditure which they undertake for coastal protection and repair.

  Disabled Persons
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has regarding legislation or other action to ensure that the needs of the disabled are provided for in decisions on planning applications.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Guidance on access issues is contained in my Department's planning policy guidance note 1 "General Policy and Principles" and in planning policy guidance note 3, "Housing". This guidance encourages developers and local authorities to consider access issues at an early stage in the design process. In general, however, the needs of disabled people to have access to buildings are secured through the Building Regulations. Part M of these regulations now define the access requirements to all storeys of non-domestic buildings and to most extensions. On 12 January, my Department issued a consultation paper proposing that the scope of the regulations should be extended to cover access for disabled people to all new dwellings.

  Education Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures for the education standard spending assessment for Hertfordshire for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96 and the percentage change between the two years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The figures are:

  £ million

  1994–95 Unadjusted

  1994–95 Adjusted1

  1995–96

  Change (b/c) per cent.

  a.

  b.

  c.

  d.

  351.155

  361.089

  371.417

  +2.9

  1 The adjusted figure takes account of net income from recoupment in 1994–95, so as to make it broadly comparable with the SSA for 1995–96.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what recent consultations he has undertaken on proposals to reform homelessness legislation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what further consultations he plans in advance of legislation on homelessness; and if he will undertake to consult all the responders to the Green Paper "Access to Local Authority and Housing Association Tenancies".
  13
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We consulted extensively during the early part of last year, and our conclusions were announced to the House on 18 July 1994 by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction. Since then my Department has sought views on certain matters of detail from a number of key organisations interested in this subject. The policy remains as announced last July, and we have no plans for any further general consultation.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. McAllison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what specific tasks and objectives each senior regional director and staff member of Government offices for the regions have been and will be set for the years ending 31 March 1995 to 31 March 1996.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government have given the Government offices for the regions the role of working in partnership with local people to maximise the competitiveness, prosperity and quality of life of each region. The central objectives of the offices are to:

  Meet the operational requirements of Departments and Ministers

  Contribute local views and experience to the formation and communication of Government policy

  Promote a coherent approach to competitiveness, sustainable economic development and regeneration using public and private resources and through the exercise of its statutory responsibilities.

  Develop the skills of staff and methods of working to achieve these objectives and to demonstrate their success in doing so

  Develop partnerships with and between all the local interests to promote and secure these objectives

  Provide a single point of contact for local people and deliver high quality services on citizens charter principles.

  Detailed objectives for the offices for 1995–96 will be set out in GO-MINIS management planning documents which will be published in the spring.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following list shows the 27 statutory instruments revoked by this Department during 1994.

  The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are completed. The manpower implications will be taken into account in the Department's central manpower plans which will be published in the Department's annual report in March.

  DOE Regulations revoked during 1994

  The Billing Authorities (Alteration of Requisite Calculations) (England) Regulations 1992 SI 1992/2429

  The Housing Renovation etc., Grants (Reduction of Grant) Regulations 1990 SI 1990/1189

  The Housing Renovation etc., Grants (Reduction of Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 SI 1991/897

  14

  The Housing Renovation etc., Grants (Reduction of Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 SI 1992/705

  The Housing Renovation etc., Grants (Reduction of Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1993 SI 1993/551

  The East Anglian Water (Capital Powers) Order 1972 SI 1972/2050

  The East Anglian Water (Capital Powers) Order 1977 SI 1977/295

  The East Anglian Water (Capital Powers) Order 1985 SI 1985/240

  The Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988 SI 1988/1562

  The Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Amendment Regulations 1988 SI 1988/1790

  The West Hampshire Water Order 1919 1919c.cix

  The Building (Prescribed Fees etc.) Regulations 1985 SI 1985/1576

  The Building (Amendment of Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1986 SI 1986/2287

  The Building (Amendment of Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1988 SI 1988/871

  The Building (Amendment of Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1989 SI 1989/1118

  The Building (Amendment of Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1990 SI 1990/2600

  The Building (Prescribed Fees etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 1992 SI 1992/741

  The Building (Amendment of Prescribed Fees) Regulations 1992 SI 1992/2879

  The Compulsory Purchase of Land Regulations 1990 SI 1990/613

  The Oil Fuel (Sulphur Content of Gas Oil) Regulations 1990 SI 1990/1096

  The Local Government (Publication of Manpower Information) (England) Regulations 1983 SI 1983/8

  The Valuation for Rating (Plant and Machinery) Regulations 1989 SI 1898/441

  The Central Rating Lists (Regulations 1989 SI 1989/2263

  The Central Rating Lists (Amendment) Regulations 1990 SI 1990/502

  The Central Rating Lists (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1990 SI 1990/1566

  The Central Rating Lists (Amendment) Regulations 1993 SI 1993/166

  The Opencast (Compulsory Rights and Rights of Way) (Forms) Regulations 1987 SI 1987/1915

  Community Charge
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities that have illegally prosecuted people unable to pay the community charge; and what action his Department will take to compensate those concerned.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Community Charge (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 include provision for an authority to apply for a warrant of commitment against a debtor where other enforcement measures have been unsuccessful. It is for the magistrates court to consider any such application. The court may issue a warrant only after it has inquired of the person's means, and is satisfied that the failure to pay is the result of wilful refusal or culpable neglect. It has discretion to remit all or part of the outstanding amount.

  Gipsy Sites
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total amount provided by his
  15
  Department for the construction of gipsy sites in Devon in each year since 1993; and how much will be provided in (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department has neither made nor will make any payment of gipsy site grant for sites in Devon in the financial years 1993–94 to 1996–97, because no local authority application for grant for sites in that area has received or is awaiting approval to proceed to tender.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will allow Devon county council to use the grant from his Department, originally designated for a gipsy site at Tamerton Foliot, for an alternative gipsy site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The application from Devon county council for gipsy site grant for a site at Tamerton Foliot was rejected by my Department on the ground of excessive cost. No grant has therefore been allocated for that site. Section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which came into force on 3 November 1994, repealed the Secretary of State's power to approve grant other than for applications received before commencement date.

  Regional Operations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff his Department employs on a regional basis in each standard English region; what is the cost of running these regional operations; what was the total budget for each region in the latest available year; and what are the main purposes for which the budget is used.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department currently employs the following number of staff in each of the Government offices for the regions:

  Countryside commission regions and counties

  Number of countryside Stewardship agreements, and period of agreements (1994 figures provisional)

  1 October 1991–30

  1 October 1992–30

  1 October 1993–30

  1 October 1994–30

  September 2001

  September 2002

  September 2003

  September 2004

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  9

  20

  15

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  22

  37

  22

  18

  Lincolnshire

  17

  29

  46

  21

  Norfolk

  43

  44

  48

  19

  Suffolk

  37

  36

  31

  25

  Midlands

  Derbyshire (part also in North West region)

  35

  49

  29

  22

  Hereford and Worcester

  11

  43

  23

  28

  Leicestershire

  9

  26

  11

  22

  Northamptonshire

  9

  41

  23

  15

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  8

  10

  12

  Shropshire

  15

  12

  20

  23

  Staffordshire

  6

  15

  15

  11

  Warwickshire

  6

  5

  6

  11

  West Midlands

  2

  4

  5

  3

  Northern

  Cleveland

  3

  2

  4

  10

  Cumbria

  41

  33

  21

  39

  Durham

  8

  18

  9

  16

  Northumberland

  33

  51

  47

  30

  Tyne and Wear

  2

  0

  5

  5

  16

  Number

  Government Office for the North East

  99

  Government Office for the North West

  164

  Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside

  134

  Government Office for Merseyside

  65

  Government Office for the West Midlands

  120

  Government Office for the East Midlands

  104

  Government Office for the Eastern Region

  71

  Government Office for the South West

  77

  Government Office for the South East

  90

  Government Office for London

  131

  These figures exclude regionally based Property Holdings, Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and rent assessment panel staff.

  Information about the cost to my Department of running each office, the activities carried out by the offices and the programme budgets of each office was given in my replies to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), Official Report, 25 January 1995, columns 210–12.

  Countryside Stewardship Sites
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by county for countryside stewardship sites, the date when each site was designated and the date when each site's designation is due to be terminated.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: The countryside stewardship scheme is operated by the Countryside Commission. Agreements under the scheme begin on 1 October of the relevant year, and normally run for ten years. Information supplied by the Countryside Commission on the sites currently under agreement in each of their administrative areas, together with the date of the commencement and termination of each agreement, is given in the table. Information on agreements entering the scheme in 1994 is provisional.
  17

  Countryside commission regions and counties

  Number of countryside Stewardship agreements, and period of agreements (1994 figures provisional)

  1 October 1991–30

  1 October 1992–30

  1 October 1993–30

  1 October 1994–30

  September 2001

  September 2002

  September 2003

  September 2004

  North West

  Cheshire

  14

  19

  19

  30

  Greater Manchester

  6

  7

  6

  10

  Lancashire

  26

  39

  46

  72

  Merseyside

  4

  1

  3

  5

  South East

  Berkshire

  7

  8

  9

  11

  Buckinghamshire

  18

  18

  10

  15

  East Sussex

  16

  18

  9

  10

  Essex

  23

  18

  8

  16

  Greater London

  4

  10

  8

  9

  Hampshire

  30

  18

  27

  24

  Hertfordshire

  13

  16

  4

  11

  Isle of Wight

  15

  13

  8

  12

  Kent

  21

  36

  33

  46

  Oxfordshire

  10

  17

  8

  21

  Surrey

  11

  15

  8

  13

  West Sussex

  22

  13

  5

  4

  South West

  Avon

  8

  24

  15

  6

  Cornwall

  46

  73

  35

  9

  Devonshire

  35

  100

  52

  55

  Dorset

  38

  30

  10

  1

  Gloucestershire

  26

  33

  20

  6

  Somerset

  27

  25

  20

  8

  Wiltshire

  43

  32

  18

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Humberside

  20

  20

  23

  15

  North Yorkshire

  76

  102

  50

  10

  South Yorkshire

  1

  14

  10

  1

  West Yorkshire

  2

  10

  15

  3

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crime Victims
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Attorney-General to what extent victims are taken into account when a decision to prosecute is taken by the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Solicitor-General
  When taking a decision to prosecute, the interests of the victim are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.

  Appeals
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the procedure of ensuring equity to people who appeal against a decision of an earlier court.

  The Solicitor-General
  The procedures are well established and effective in ensuring justice.

  Combat 18
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General what action he is taking in respect of members of Combat 18.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has not yet received a report from the Metropolitan police, whose investigation into Combat 18 continues.
  18

  Asil Nadir
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the handling by the Serious Fraud Office of the Asil Nadir case.

  The Solicitor-General
  A warrant has been issued for the arrest of Asil Nadir. The Crown is ready to proceed when he returns or is returned to the jurisdiction.

  Departmental Review
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make it his policy to instigate an independent review of the administration of his Department to facilitate decision making and accountability.

  The Attorney-General: I have no plans to commission such a review.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to review the operation of the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  On 1 February 1995, I received the report of the consideration of merger group on the merits and feasibility of merging all or part of the fraud divisions of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office. I shall take my decision after consulting colleagues.
  19

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) if he will seek to prosecute ICL Technical Plastics for breaches of section 5(1) (b) of the Firearms Act 1968 for selling electro-shock equipment;

  (2) if he will seek to prosecute ICL Technical Plastics for breaches of section 5(1) (b) of the Firearms Act 1968 for manufacturing electro-shock equipment without his authority;

  (3) if he will seek to prosecute ICL Technical Plastics for breaches of section 5(1) (b) of the Firearms Act 1968 for the possession of electro-shock equipment.

  The Attorney-General
  Decisions about prosecution can be taken only on the basis of evidence gathered during the course of a criminal investigation. It is for the relevant chief officer of police to decide in relation to the alleged offences whether such investigation is warranted. I understand that the Strathclyde police are investigating certain matters arising from a recent television documentary programme about ICL Technical Plastics Limited, which is a Glasgow-based company. Any evidence which may justify the institution of criminal proceedings will be considered by the independent prosecuting authorities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the numbers, role and cost of European Union monitors in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Goodlad
  There are 60 EU monitors in Bosnia, of whom five are British. Their primary role is to monitor political opinion, military capabilities, humanitarian aid supplies, human rights and the economic situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  In 1994 the total budget for the EU monitoring mission in former Yugoslavia was D28 million or £11.6 million.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the objectives, time scale, staff and budget of the EU administration of the city of Mostar; and what plans there are for similar initiatives elsewhere in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The European Union was asked by the Bosnian-Croat and Muslim communities to administer the city of Mostar for two years, beginning July 1994. The EU's objective is to foster reconciliation and reunite the divided city. The EU administrator is Mr Hans Koschnik—German—who has a multi-national staff of experts to assist him, including several British nationals. This year's budget is 32 million ecu or £25 million. Next year's budget is still to be finalised.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what opinion of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in respect of land mines has been conveyed to him; and if he will make a statement.
  20
  Mr. Goodlad
  The Secretary-General of the United Nations has called for a complete ban on the use, production and transfer of anti-personnel land mines in his proposals for an agenda for development and an agency for peace which were published recently.

  No detailed discussions of the Secretary-General's proposals have yet taken place at the United Nations.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if United Kingdom policy at the review of the United Nations inhumane weapons convention supports the mapping and marking of minefields in all circumstances.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We support a prohibition on the emplacement of anti-personnel land mines without a self-destructing capability outside perimeter-marked areas monitored by military personnel. We also support proposals for the location of all minefields and mined areas to be recorded.

  Sexual Offences (Children)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have been prosecuted for sexual offences involving children outside the United Kingdom for each year since records have been kept.

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been 135 reported cases of British citizens prosecuted outside the United Kingdom for sexual offences since 1974. Our records do not show which of those cases involved children.

  Year

  Number of cases

  1974

  1

  1981

  1

  1982

  1

  1983

  2

  1986

  2

  1987

  15

  1988

  24

  1989

  17

  1990

  15

  1991

  17

  1992

  16

  1993

  15

  1994

  9

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of countries which have announced their support for an international ban on the production, stockpiling, sale and use of anti-personnel mines.

  Mr. Baldry
  The following countries have announced their support for an international ban on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel land mines: Australia, Belgium, Cambodia, Columbia, Ireland, Mexico and Sweden.

  The 49th session of the General Assembly adopted by consensus a resolution supporting further international efforts to seek solutions to the problems caused by

  21
  anti-personnel land mines, with a view to their eventual elimination.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the International Committee of the Red Cross in respect of United Kingdom proposals to control the international use of anti-personnel mines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  No such representations have been received.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Jovan Zametica is covered by the travel curbs imposed by the United Nations on the Bosnian-Serb leadership; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The list of those Bosnian Serbs whose movements would be restricted under Security Council resolution 942 remains under consideration in the UN Sanctions Committee. We cannot comment on which individuals might be included until the Committee's consideration is completed.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those persons included in the travel curbs imposed by the United Nations on Bosnian-Serb leaders and others residing in Pale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The list of those Bosnian Serbs whose movements would be restricted under SCR 942 remains under consideration by the UN Sanctions Committee.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those persons who have been permitted to represent in the United Kingdom the interests of the Bosnian Serbs led by Dr. Radovan Karadzic over the past four years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  The Bosnian Serbs have no official representation in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how often, and on what basis, Jovan Zametica has communicated with General Sir Michael Rose during the past eight weeks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  UNPROFOR is in regular contact with all parties, including the Bosnian Serbs. Mr. Zametica, as a spokesman for the Bosnian Serbs, is a regular interlocutor.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office issues very few rules and regulations. Secondary legislation is made by Order in Council. In 1994 at least 27 orders were revoked. The majority of these related to the lifting of the United Nations arms embargo on South 22
  Africa. There were no implications for the Department's manpower. The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are completed.

  Humanitarian Medical Treatment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 1069, what arrangements have been made to assist Llandugh hospital with suitable security arrangements for the duration of the treatment of defected Iraqi army Major Safa Al-Battat for thallium poisoning.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We wrote to Llandugh hospital on 31 January following an inquiry from it about arrangements for press interviews for Major Al-Battat, the victim of thallium poisoning by the Iraqi regime. We discussed access for the press with the hospital administration, and recognised that it was for the hospital to judge whether the media should be allowed access to the patient.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 1069, if he will list the general principles governing Her Majesty's Government's approach to requests for urgent humanitarian medical treatment for those injured in civil wars or uprisings against(a) the Iraqi regime and (b) other conflicts.

  Mr. Goodlad
  All cases are considered on their individual merits.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, Official Report, column, 1069, if he will provide details of the arrangements for the acceptance on urgent medical humanitarian grounds of entry clearance of defected Iraqi army Major Safa Al-Battat for anti-poisoning treatment at Llandugh hospital, South Glamorgan.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We condemn the Iraqi regime's efforts to poison Major Al-Battat. This is another example of the continuing brutality in Iraq, and yet more evidence that the regime is still involved in terrorist activities. We are therefore glad to have been able to help the Iraqi National Congress arrange Major Al-Battat's treatment here, and to ensure that his visa application was given prompt consideration in accordance with normal immigration rules.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 February, Official Report, column 1069, what representations he has received concerning that arrangements for the treatment at Llandugh hospital, South Glamorgan of defected Iraqi army Major Safa Al-Battat for thallium, poisoning.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We discussed the arrangements for media access to Major Al-Battat with the hospital administrators and officials in the Welsh Office.
  23

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid
  Mrs
  Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the level of overseas aid.

  Mr. Baldry
  The aid budget for the current year is some £2.2 billion.

  Know-how Funds
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the contributions of British know-how funds relative to other aid given to the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe.

  Mr. Baldry
  The know-how fund is an important contributor to the transition process in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. The fund has a deservedly enviable reputation in the region.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work is being undertaken by the know-how fund in Albania.

  Mr. Baldry
  The know-how fund is supporting a range of activities in Albania. At present the main emphasis of the programme is health care and local government reform. Projects are also under way in many other fields, including agriculture, small business and the environment.

  World Bank
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the work of the World bank inspection panel.

  Mr. Baldry
  The World bank's independent inspection panel became operational last August. To date, it has received one request for an inspection. We hope the panel will prove a useful addition to the existing systems of control provided by the board of directors and by bank management.

  Reproductive Health Care
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what work the Overseas Development Administration is doing to improve reproductive health care.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Overseas Development Administration's strategy to improve reproductive health is expressed in its children by choice, not chance policy. It focuses on improving access to good quality contraception; helping to prevent and treat sexually

  Round table conference for Rwanda UNDP summary of funds pledged (US millions of dollars)

  Donor

  Sub-Programme 1

  Sub-Programme 2

  Sub-Programme 3

  Outside round table document1

  Total

  Bilateral

  Austria

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1.7

  Belgium

  12.4

  2.7

  20.5

  —

  35.6

  Canada

  7.7

  —

  9.5

  —

  17.2

  France

  —

  —

  —

  —

  determined

  Germany

  —

  14.0

  66.0

  —

  80.0

  Ireland

  0.6

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  1.6

  24
  transmitted infection, including HIV; and making pregnancy and childbirth safer. The ODA expects to have committed at least £100 million over 1994 and 1995 to reproductive health programmes.

  Indonesia
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support he is giving to the democratic trade union movement in Indonesia.

  Mr. Baldry
  Our aid programme to Indonesia does not include any financial support to the trade union movement.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present amount of aid funding being given to Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Baldry
  On present plans we expect to spend some £8.94 million on bilateral aid projects for Sri Lanka in 1994–95.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to widen the scope of aid to the Baltic states.

  Mr. Baldry
  The know how fund will continue to provide rapid and flexible assistance to the reform process in the Baltic states. The countries concerned very much welcome our support.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the United Nations development programme-sponsored conference on Rwanda in Geneva that has just concluded; how much was pledged by each of the participants; and for what purposes.

  Mr. Baldry
  Participants at the UNDP round table welcomed the priorities set out in the Government of Rwanda's programme of national reconciliation and socio-economic rehabilitation and recovery. They pledged almost $583 million in support of the programme and related activities. Individual pledges are set out in the table. The United Kingdom has also pledged a further £4 million to the United Nations consolidated inter-agency appeal for Rwanda, to meet emergency needs within Rwanda and in the region. Since April 1994, Britain has committed £66 million in emergency and rehabilitation assistance bilaterally and through the EU to help Rwandans affected by the crisis.
  25

  Round table conference for Rwanda UNDP summary of funds pledged (US millions of dollars)

  Donor

  Sub-Programme 1

  Sub-Programme 2

  Sub-Programme 3

  Outside round table document1

  Total

  Italy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  to be announced

  Japan

  —

  22.5

  —

  —

  22.5

  Netherlands

  19.5

  —

  13.5

  —

  33.0

  New Zealand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  to be announced

  Russia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  to be announced

  Spain

  n/a

  —

  4.5

  —

  9.5

  Sweden

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  3.0

  Switzerland

  0.8

  —

  12.0

  —

  12.8

  United Kingdom

  1.5

  —

  1.5

  —

  3.0

  USA

  6.5

  —

  35.0

  18.3

  59.8

  Sub-total

  49

  39.2

  162.5

  18.3

  279.7

  Multilateral

  African Development Bank

  20.0

  —

  30.0

  —

  50.0

  European Union Commission

  49.2

  —

  68.4

  9.6

  127.2

  International Fund Agricultural Development

  —

  —

  15.0

  —

  15.0

  International Monetary Fund

  13.0

  —

  —

  —

  13.0

  Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries

  —

  —

  —

  12.9

  12.9

  United Nations Agencies

  —

  —

  10.0

  —

  10.0

  World Bank

  45.0

  —

  30.0

  —

  75.0

  Sub-total

  127.2

  —

  153.4

  22.5

  303.1

  Total-funds pledges

  176.2

  39.2

  315.9

  40.8

  582.8

  Funds requested

  189.6

  273.7

  300.9

  —

  764.1

  Notes

  1 Government of Rwanda's programme of national reconciliation and socio-economic rehabilitation and recovery.

  Sub-programme 1: financial support.

  Sub-programme 2: reintegration of refugees and displaced-some duplication with consolidated inter-agency appeal.

  Sub-programme 3: rehabilitation/development.

  Pledges by Austria, Ireland, Spain and Sweden remain to be allocated into specific sub-programmes.

  Thus the total of funds allocated to sub-programmes do not add up to the total.

  Dams (Ecological Effect)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what study his Department is making of the ecological effect of dams.

  Mr. Baldry
  The only study which the ODA has in progress concerns the prediction of reservoir sedimentation rates. Guidance on how to take account of the ecological effect of dams is covered in the ODA's "Manual of Environmental Appraisal", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Gynaecological Departments
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses there are in gynaecological out-patient and in-patient departments in the Northumberland health authority and Cheviot and Wansbeck hospital.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available centrally is shown in the table. For more information the hon. Member may wish to contact the vice-chairman of Northumberland health authority, Mr. David Wright, and the chairman of Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS trust, Mr. Roger Baker.
  26

  Nursing and midwifery staff (excluding agency) in the gynaecology area of work as at 30 September 1992
  Whole-Time Equivalents
  Cheviot and Wansbeck Hospital∗
  Northumberland District Health Authority 10
  Source:
  PD(Stats)B non-medical workforce census.
  Notes:
  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents.
  ∗denotes values of 5 and under.

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the Royal College of Surgeons to discuss the regulating of cosmetic surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have had no such meeting.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physical assaults on staff and patients, including self-inflicted injuries, occurred on psychiatric wards in London in the last year that figures are available.

  Mr. Bowis
  National health service trusts and other providers of in-patient psychiatric services will collect information on assaults and self-inflicted injuries by patients to help them monitor the quality of service they provide. Health authorities and other purchasers can
  27
  obtain details through the contracting process. We do not require information to be submitted to the Department.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the bed occupancy rate for psychiatric wards in national health service hospitals and trusts in(a) London, (b) Birmingham and (c) Manchester; and what is the method by which the bed occupancy rate is measured.

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities and providers of acute psychiatric services are familiar with the concept of bed occupancy and the Department has not sought to specify the method they should use to calculate occupancy rates. Average bed occupancy rates can be agreed as part of the contracting process and will relate to local circumstances. We do not require information about bed occupancy rates to be submitted to the Department.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what mechanism her Department monitors the effectiveness of mental health care services in London, Birmingham and Manchester; how often data are collected; what measurements are used; and how long after any data are collected they are published.

  Mr. Bowis
  The North Thames and South Thames, West Midlands and North West regional offices of the National Health Service Executive monitor the effectiveness of mental health services in London, Birmingham and Manchester respectively by working closely with district health authorities which are responsible for assessing the health needs of their local population and securing an appropriate range of services to meet those needs.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accident and emergency departments there are in the United Kingdom at present; and what was the corresponding figure in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals have had accident and emergency facilities in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is shown in the table. Since 1991–92 information has been collected on the basis of national health service trusts and directly managed units with accident and emergency facilities. Before that, information was collected on an individual hospital basis. Comparable information for earlier years is not therefore available.

  Trusts1 and directly managed units with Accident and Emergency departments2 England

  Year

  Number

  1991–92

  238

  1992–93

  226

  1993–94

  218

  1 A trust or a directly managed unit may consist of a number of hospitals each with its own A and E department.

  2 With medical staff on site and where the intention is to open 168 hours per week.

  The provision of information about accident and emergency services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  28

  Regional Health Authorities
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the functions currently carried out by regional health authorities; and who will be responsible for each function after the implementation of the Health Authorities Bill.

  Mr. Malone
  The transfer of functions currently carried out by regional health authorities has already been determined in all but two significant areas, in which detailed discussions are still under way.

  National Health Service Executive headquarters, with advice from regional offices, will set the strategic framework, make revenue allocations to the new health authorities and make appointments to health authorities and NHS trusts. NHS Executive regional offices will be responsible for performance management of health authorities and NHS trusts and for admissions to the general practitioner fundholder scheme and allocations to GP fundholders. Regional offices will also be responsible through postgraduate deans for commissioning postgraduate medical education and training, for medical work force planning and for GP vocational training.

  Consortia of health authorities and NHS trusts will take on responsibility for commissioning non-medical education and training and for non-medical work force planning. They will be supported, especially initially, by the regional offices and by a national strategy set by headquarters. Health authorities will take on purchasing of most specialised services and most public health functions, often on a lead purchaser basis or in consortia. Health authorities will also take on supervision of midwifery practice and responsibility for current RHA functions under the Mental Health Act 1983.

  The contracts of junior doctors are under discussion with the profession. Future arrangements for handling complaints will be announced shortly in the light of the Government's response to the report of the Wilson committee.

  Full details are contained in the Government document "Managing the New NHS—Functions and Responsibilities in the new NHS" published in July 1994.

  NHS Treatment (Non-UK Citizens)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the cost to the NHS of providing NHS treatment to non-UK citizens who are not entitled to receive it.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance issued to health authorities and national health service trusts sets out the procedures to be followed in obtaining payment where patients are not exempt from charges for NHS hospital treatment under the NHS (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989 (as amended). Those who believe they have evidence of such fraudulent behaviour should contact the chief executive of the NHS unit concerned.

  Private Sector Contracts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts have been awarded by(a) health authorities and (b) local authority social services departments to the private sector in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend
  29
  the Secretary of State for the Environment for information on local authority social services department contracts with the private sector.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she gives to local health authorities for the treatment of rnyalgic encephalomyelitis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The production of guidance on the treatment of what is increasingly being referred to as chronic-fatigue syndrome is a matter for the health care professions and not for the Department. The Department may however commend to purchasers guidelines which have been accepted by all the professional bodies.

  The national task force on CFS/PVFS—post-viral fatigue syndrome—ME which is autonomous of the Department of Health, has produced a report. With a view to securing progress and promoting the development of a professional consensus, the chief medical officer has invited the conference of colleges to consider the report. A response from the conference is not expected until spring.

  Maternity Wards
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many maternity wards have been provided in hospitals in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information about the number of maternity wards is not available centrally. However, data on the number of available beds in maternity units are contained in the publication "Bed Availability for England—Financial Year 1993–94", copies of which are available in the Library.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fundholders have overrun their budgets; and by what level.

  Mr. Malone
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which audited information is available, 147 general practitioner fundholders overspent their budgets. The overspend was £9.8 million or 1.2 per cent. of total fundholder budgets.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of general practitioner fundholding practices and the total number of general practitioners who are fundholders.

  Mr. Malone
  There are currently 2,040 general practitioner fundholding practices and 8,760 general practitioner fundholders in England.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average budget for fundholders in 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 and the comparable budget held by district health authorities for non-fundholders in those years.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply the then Minister for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), gave the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 20 June 1994, columns 26–27.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the average waiting times for fundholders and 30
  non-fundholding general practitioners' patients; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  It is not possible to calculate separate average waiting times for patients from general practitioners fundholders and non-fundholding GPs from centrally held data.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average time taken for the London ambulance service to arrive at the scene following an emergency 999 call.

  Mr. Sackville
  London ambulance service figures show that following an emergency call the average time taken for an ambulance to arrive at the scene is 14.5 minutes.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the rules and regulations in her Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which her Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on her Department's manpower.

  Mr. Sackville
  We withdrew three sets of regulations in 1994 relating to medicines control. A good deal of deregulatory activity consists of amending or replacement regulation, or new and better guidance, rather than withdrawal. For example, we have amended regulations to allow more medicines to be sold over the counter without the need for a prescription; issued new guidance on welfare inspections of independent boarding schools and on regulation of day care for young children, reduced the number of boarding schools required to register as children's homes; and widened choice of venue for people getting married. The Department is continuing to consider rules and regulations for possible withdrawal or simplification. Details will be announced as and when consultations are completed.

  There are no manpower effects for the Department, but we are committed to reducing staffing in the central Department by 21 per cent. by April 1997.

  NHS Trusts (Borrowing)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those trusts that have received either(a) a loan from her Department or (b) an overdraft guarantee in each year since their inception, indicating (i) the amount concerned and (ii) the reason for its allocation.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on loans and guarantees will be placed in the Library. No information is available on the reasons why loans are drawn. Trusts borrow principally to support their capital investment activities, but may also borrow to cover working capital requirements. All the borrowing detailed was within agreed limits. Trusts use overdrafts to cover very short-term working capital requirements. The purpose of overdraft guarantees is to reduce the cost of this borrowing from the trusts' bankers.

  Health Care, East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings she expects to result from the
  31
  abolition of the Anglia and Oxford regional health authority; and how many of those savings will be put into health care in East Anglia.

  Mr. Malone
  By 1997–98, total annual savings from the abolition of regional health authorities are expected to be around £100 million. These substantial savings will be retained by the national health service and thus will be available to be reinvested in patient care.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the regulations concerning the provision by the NHS of out-of-hours dental cover for (a) patients registered with an NHS dentist and (b) patients not registered with an NHS dentist; and if she will make a statement on the content of those regulations.

  Mr. Malone
  The regulations concerning the provision of out-of-hours emergency dental cover, for both registered and unregistered patients, are contained in the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992.

  The terms of service for general dental practitioners contained in these regulations require dentists to make reasonable arrangements to ensure that patients registered with them for capitation or continuing care can get treatment in an emergency.

  Regulation 14 of these regulations enables family health services authorities to make arrangements for treatment in urgent cases of patients who have difficulty obtaining treatment. FHSAs organise emergency sessions at health centres at weekends and bank holidays, mainly for unregistered patients.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list by family health services authority the arrangements which exist for emergency dental cover out of hours; and what procedures are in place to monitor the extent and quality of these arrangements.

  Mr. Malone
  Emergency dental services for registered patients are the responsibility of their dentists. For non-registered patients, information about emergency dental services is obtained in an annual survey of family health services authorities in England and Wales. The results for 1993–94 are available in the Library. It is for each FHSA to manage the general dental service locally, and this will include monitoring the extent and quality of such emergency arrangements.

  Cervical Smears
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the percentage of United Kingdom women being offered cervical smears three-yearly or less.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally for England. Information relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is issued to hospitals in respect of charging for cervical smears if done more frequently than every five years; and what is the recommended charge.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is for individual health authorities to negotiate contracts with hospitals to provide 32
  a cervical screening service for their resident population, in accordance with national guidelines.

  Computerisation
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the expenditure on computerisation in primary care in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  Reimbursement of the costs for computerisation in general practice are shown in the table. The amount reimbursed in 1990–91, when the scheme was introduced, includes claims for the years 1989–90 and 1990–91.

  Year

  £ million

  1990–91

  17.5

  1991–92

  34

  1992–93

  40.2

  1993–94

  38.4

  Drug Dispensing (Qualifications)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what qualifications are required for staff dispensing drugs in a general practitioner's dispensing practice.

  Mr. Malone
  The responsibility for ensuring the competence of staff dispensing drugs in general practitioners' practices lies with the doctor who is subject to the enforcement provisions of the Medicines Act 1968.

  General Practitioners (Administrative Costs)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the administrative costs of all general practice per general practitioner.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has on the maximum waiting time for repair of an aortic aneurysm.

  Mr. Malone
  It is not appropriate to have a maximum waiting time for repair of an aortic aneurism. Each case is different and it must be for the clinician to decide whether surgical treatment is appropriate and when surgery should be performed. Patients are placed on a waiting list only if, in the opinion of a clinician at the time of assessment, their condition is judged to be stable.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total of days patients have waited in each of the last five years for treatment in NHS hospitals.

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested cannot be derived from waiting time data available centrally.

  Resuscitation Facilities
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the availability of resuscitation facilities at (a) King's College hospital and (b) other hospitals while invasive cardiac investigations and treatments are being undertaken.

  Mr. Sackville
  Full resuscitation facilities are available at King's College hospital, Denmark Hill, in all areas
  33
  where invasive cardiac investigations are undertaken. Full resuscitation facilities are also available on the King's College hospital, Dulwich, site although no invasive cardiac procedures are carried out there. Resuscitation facilities are generally available in other specialist hospital departments where risk of cardiac arrest is high.

  Infectious Material (Postal Services)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health(I) what evidence she has that human tissue and infectious material sent through the post has posed a health hazard; how many cases arose in the last year; and what the hazardous material was;

  (2) what guidance she has on the packaging of human tissue samples and infectious material when sent through the post; and what status this guidance has.

  Mr. Sackville
  No such cases were reported last year. There is a range of measures to safeguard against infection as a result of the postal transport of pathology specimens. There is no evidence that these measures are inadequate. The Post Office guide sets out the requirements under the Post Office Telecommunications Act, 1969–revised 1981–for sending specimens through the post, and carriage by rail or road is covered by new Health and Safety Executive regulations on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous goods for carriage by road and rail, 1994. The transportation of certain pathogens listed in the Health and Safety (Dangerous Pathogens) Regulations 1981, all the provisions of which have been subsumed into the new Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994, requires prior notification to the Health and Safety Executive which will notify the appropriate Health Minister. The Health and Safety Commission's health service advisory committee guidance on safe working and the prevention of infection in clinical laboratories 1991 refers to the procedures which laboratories should observe in dispatching material. In all work situations, the potential for exposure to infection from material either in transit or under examination has to be assessed under COSHH and the appropriate safe working procedures adopted.

  Prescribing Costs
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the prescribing costs of (a) a dispensing general practitioner and (b) non-dispensing general practitioner.

  Mr. Malone
  Information is contained in the annual report of the Prescription Pricing Authority for the period 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Accumulated Assets
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount of accumulated assets of trust hospitals and directly managed units in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities did not account for fixed assets, and there were no trusts, prior to 1991–92. Information for 1991–92 to 1993–94 is shown in the table.
  34

  Accumulated assets

  DMUs1

  NHS trusts

  £

  £

  1991–92

  15,028,465,000

  2,651,111,000

  1992–93

  12,268,968,000

  6,465,354,000

  1993–94

  Note 1 refers

  12,464,800,000

  Source:NHS Summarised accounts.

  1Directly Managed Units.

  Notes:

  1. In 1993–94 district health authorities were not required to provide a separate figure for DMUs.

  2. The 1993–94 figures are provisional.

  3. The figures represent the total assets employed by DMUs and NHS trusts—fixed assets plus net current assets.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what distinction she makes between (a) community care and (b) care in the community; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Community care, as used in the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, refers to the provision of services and support which people who are affected by problems of aging, illness or disability need to be able to live as independently as possible in their own homes, or in residential care. Care in the community is a term used specifically to refer to policies for mentally ill people and people with learning disabilities which enable them to live as full, independent and normal lives in or as near to the community as possible.

  Bereaved Relatives
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is available for the treatment of relatives of patients who die within (a) King's College hospital arid (b) other hospitals; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Guidance, which applies to all hospitals, is contained in HSG(92)8, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff her Department employs on a regional basis in each standard English region; what is the cost of running these regional operations; what was the total budget for each region in the latest available year; and what are the main purposes for which the budget is used.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested on staff employed in each of the standard English regions is shown in the table. Information about departmental running costs by region is not available. Details of the Departments' gross running costs are provided in the Department's annual report for 1994–95, Cm 2512.

  Region

  Scotland

  —

  Northern

  14

  Yorks and Humberside

  896

  North West

  679

  East Midlands

  55

  West Midlands

  120

  Wales

  —

  East Anglia

  —

  35

  Region

  South East

  2,894

  South West

  19

  Northern Ireland

  —

  Overseas

  —

  Source: MANDATE returns to Treasury from Chessington Computer Centre.

  Notes:

  1. Figures include inward loans and secondments, fixed term appointments and staff in Agencies.

  2. Figures exclude casual and industrial staff and outward loans and secondments.

  Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if she will list the hospitals or trusts in respect of which she has been formally consulted about partial or complete closure in the last three years;

  (2) pursuant to her answer of 19 December, Official Report, column 983, what information is held regarding the number of accident and emergency departments currently threatened with closure or that have closed since April 1991;

  (3) what information is provided to her Department by district health authorities, trusts, regional health authorities and NHS Executive on (a) hospital closures, (b) ward closures, (c) accident and emergency department closures, (d) reducing NHS beds and (e) increasing private beds and bed units;

  (4) pursuant to her answer of 19 December, Official Report, column 983, how many hospital closures in England since April 1991 are known to her Department following objection to a proposed closure from a community health council;

  (5) pursuant to her answer of 19 December, Official Report, column 983, what information her Department does not collected which is collected by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland offices on the number of hospitals closed since April 1991 or the number of accident and emergency departments currently threatened with closure.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]The Department does not routinely collect information on hospital, ward or accident and emergency department closures. Information is available centrally on proposals to close, or change the use of, health service facilities which are referred to Ministers for decision following objections from a community health council. A list of such proposed closures referred to Ministers in the period 1992–94 is available in the Library.

  The Department collects information on the number of national health service beds which is published annually in the booklet "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. Information on private beds in NHS hospitals is not collected centrally. However, information on the number of private non-NHS beds is collected and published annually in "Private Hospitals, Homes and Clinics Registered Under Section 23 of the Registered Homes Act 1994", copies of which are also available in the Library.

  Information collected by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland offices on hospital closures and accident and emergency departments threatened with closure is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State
  36
  for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

DEFENCE

  Operation Granby
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what indications there were that (a) chemical and (b) biological weapons were used by the Iraqi forces, or anyone under their command, during Operation Granby.

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive CBDE to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 6 February 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking him what indictions there were that (a) chemical and (b) biological weapons were used by the Iraqi forces, or anyone under their command, during Operation GRANBY has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. There are no indications or evidence to suggest that the Iraqi forces or anyone under their command used chemical or biological weapons against the British Armed Forces during Operation GRANBY.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to reply to the letter of 7 December 1994, from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, concerning the death of Fusilier G. Riley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will reply shortly.

  Land, Scotland
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many acres of land are currently occupied by(a) the Army, (b) the Royal Air Force and (c) the Royal Navy in Scotland; what proposals he has to acquire more land, in Scotland; for any of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  At 31 March 1994, the latest date for which records are available, the land occupied by the Armed Forces in Scotland was(a) the Army—20,883 acres (b) the Royal Air Forces—9,482 acres and (c) the Royal Navy—16,116 acres. There are no proposals to acquire more land in Scotland at this time.

  HMS Andromeda
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for HMS Andromeda; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is planned to sell HMS Andromeda and initial negotiations, by the Disposal Sales Agency with a friendly overseas navy, are in train. It is not our practice to discuss details of such negotiations in the interests of customer confidentiality.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last refit of HMS Andromeda took place; and what was its cots.
  37
  Mr. Freeman
  The last refit of HMS Andromeda was undertaken between August 1990 and December 1991 at a total cost of some £27 million.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent valuations have been placed on HMS Andromeda.

  Mr. Freeman
  Valuations of HMS Andromeda form part of the negotiations being considered on her sale. It is not our practice to discuss details of such negotiations in the interests of customer confidentiality.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department is playing a full part in the deregulation initiative. As a non-regulatory Department, the Ministry of Defence has focused its efforts on relieving unnecessary administrative burdens on its suppliers; streamlining contracts procedures; and improving communications with industry.

  Whitehall Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total annual expenditure on Whitehall organisations included in the Defence budget,

  Strength of the Army Regular Reserves (Male and Female)

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  Thousands 1986

  Regular Reserves

  126.9

  133.1

  137.4

  140.1

  138.2

  143.2

  150.2

  153.9

  Territorial Army1

  59.4

  63.3

  69.6

  69.1

  72.8

  71.4

  73.7

  77.7

  Ulster Defence Regiment2

  7.6

  7.4

  7.4

  7.2

  7.1

  6.7

  6.4

  6.5

  Home Service Force3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.3

  0.9

  3.0

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Thousands 1994

  Regular Reserves

  160.4

  167.7

  175.3

  183.5

  187.7

  188.6

  190.1

  192.5

  Territorial Army1

  78.5

  74.7

  72.5

  72.5

  73.3

  71.3

  68.5

  65.0

  Ulster Defence Regiment2

  6.6

  6.3

  6.3

  6.2

  6.1

  6.0

  —

  —

  Home Service Force3

  3.3

  3.1

  3.0

  3.2

  3.3

  2.9

  0.2

  —

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the annual level of defence expenditure relating to the protection of the Falkland islands for each year since 1983; and what is his estimate of the current annual level of defence expenditure per household for(a) the Falkland islands and (b) the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  The annual cost of defence expenditure relating to the protection of the Falkland islands is as follows:

  £ million

  1983–84

  637

  1984–85

  644

  38
  for each year since 1979, expressed in 1994 prices and broken down by organisation.

  Mr. Soames
  The information is not available in the form requested and could not be compiled without disproportionate cost.

  Trident
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the potential savings which would be made by reducing the number of warheads developed, purchased and maintained for the Trident nuclear weapons programme, to the average of the number of Polaris-based nuclear warheads deployed between 1984 and 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. Our plans are based on sustaining through the life of Trident, the minimum deterrent capability required for the security of the United kingdom.

  Army Reserve
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the(a) total manpower and (b) the cost of supporting the United Kingdom Army Reserve for each year since 1979 in 1994 prices.

  Mr. Soames
  The total manpower of the United Kingdom Army Reserve for each year since 1979 is as follows.

  The costs of supporting the United Kingdom Army Reserve are spread out among a wide variety of budgets and cannot therefore be identified in the form requested.

  £ million

  1985–86

  572

  1986–87

  402

  1987–88

  229

  1988–89

  102

  1989–90

  68

  1990–91

  66

  1991–92

  72

  1992–93

  58

  1993–94

  67

  The cost to each United Kingdom household of defence expenditure in the Falkland islands was approximately 637 £2.90 in 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available.
  39
  The total defence cash limit for the United Kingdom in 1994–95, is £22,735,585,000 representing a cost to each United Kingdom household of approximately £981 this financial year.

  No statistics are held by the Ministry of Defence that would enable the calculation of Defence Expenditure per household in the Falkland islands.

  Telephone Line Rentals
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money was paid in advance to BT for telephone line rentals in each of the last five years; if his Department included in its calculations the interest lost in this process; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  As reported in paragraph 63 of the report, entitled "Ministry of Defence: Management of Telephones" (HC 637), some £30,000,000 a year was paid in advance to BT for telephone line rentals in the period prior to financial year 1993–94. This practice of paying yearly in advance was discontinued in 1993–94, and such bills are now paid quarterly in advance, representing a substantial saving to the Exchequer in additional cost of borrowing that would otherwise have been required.

  Inhumane Weapons Convention
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 842, what proposals for additions to the inhumane weapons convention have been made; by which other countries; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of each of these proposals.

  Mr. Soames
  Sweden and the International Committee of the Red Cross have proposed that the revised UN weaponry convention include a new protocol on blinding weapons. Sweden has also proposed a new protocol on naval mines; and Switzerland has proposed a new protocol on small calibre munitions. Our main aim remains the strengthening of the restrictions on the use of anti-personnel landmines, and we would not wish to see discussion of proposed new protocols detract from that objective. However, the United Kingdom is studying each of these proposals closely, and will make a final decision on them in good time for the review conference later this year.
  40

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 548, if he will give details of the experiments carried out under (a) mild, (b) moderate, (c) substantial and (d) unclassified project licences currently in effect at his Department's establishments; if he will identify the animals involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The types of studies carried out under the project licences currently in effect at the Department's establishments by categories are as follows:

  (a) mild: These include studies of the influence of stress on the toxicity of potential CW agents, the effectiveness of skin protectants and decontaminants, the use of transdermal techniques to administer medical countermeasures and the acceleration of healing in chemical warfare agent induced injury.

  (b)moderate: These include studies of the mechanism of action, pharmacology and treatment of chemical and biological warfare agent poisoning and infection, detection and identification of biological agents, the control of infection in wounds, improved techniques for military surgery and trauma studies and exposure to different pressures of air or oxygen for varying durations.

  (c)substantial: These include studies of the mechanism of action and treatment of chemical and biological warfare agents.

  (d)unclassified: These include studies of the attenuation of impact loads.

  It would involve a disproportionate amount of effort to identify the animals involved.

  Otterburn Training Area
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which civil servants or military personnel have met representatives from the campaign against the national park regarding the Otterburn training area in the Northumberland national park.

  Mr. Soames
  Although civil servants and military personnel from my Department come into contact with members of the campaign against the national park, no official meetings have been held with the organisation.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial or other support has been given by his Department or the Army to the campaign against the national park regarding the Otterburn training area in the Northumberland national park.

  Mr. Soames
  None.
  41
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken or will take to ensure that all interested local authorities as well as individuals and groups fully understand the proposed developments regarding possible new military training at the Otterburn training area in the Northumberland national park.

  Mr. Soames
  While formal consultation about the proposals which are eventually to be submitted by my Department will be a matter for the local planning authority, our environmental consultants have already sought the views of statutory bodies as well as a large number of voluntary sector groups and local people. In addition, my officials have provided general briefings to all local parish councils as well as Tynedale and Alnwick district councils.

  Conducted tours of the ranges have also been provided to, amongst others, the Council for National Parks, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, the Northumberland and Newcastle Society, the Northumberland Wildlife Trust, Friends of the Northumberland National Park and the Northumberland National Park Committee. The national park officer has also been briefed on my Department's AS90 and multi-launch rocket system proposals for Otterburn training area.

  Finally, arrangements are in hand to provide a static exhibition which explains fully our proposals. The exhibition, which we expect to be available in the spring, will be placed in a number of key locations in the local area.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by how many the number of civilian posts at the Otterburn training area is expected to rise or fall(a) if the proposed development regarding the AS90 and multi-launch rocket system proceeds and (b) if the proposed development does not take place.

  Mr. Soames
  We do not expect there to be any change in the number of staff employed at Otterburn training area if my Department's current proposals regarding the AS90 and multi-launch rocket system do not proceed. Up to 15 additional staff may be required, however, if the training area is developed as proposed.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are involving the cessation of military training at the Otterburn training area.

  Mr. Soames
  Otterburn training area provides essential training facilities which could not be dispensed with or easily replicated elsewhere. Consequently, we have no plans to reduce or phase out military training at the Otterburn training area.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions he has met representatives of the campaign against the national park regarding the Otterburn training area in Northumberland national park; whether he has been invited to any meeting on the issue; and when representations regarding this organisation and its aims were made to him and by whom.

  Mr. Soames
  No official meetings have taken place with members or representatives of the campaign against the national park and no invitations have been received from the organisation. My officials received a request from the CANP last year for a briefing on AS90 and the multi-launch rocket system, in relation to the proposed developments at Otterburn.
  42
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department or the Army have been consulted by the campaign against the national park regarding the Otterburn training area in the Northumberland national park.

  Mr. Soames
  The campaign against the national park is one of a number of organisations which have made representations to my Department expressing their views about our proposals for the Otterburn training area.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits have been offered by his Department or the Army to their tenant farmers at the Otterburn training area on the basis of the proposed developments involving the AS90 and multi-launch rocket system proceeding.

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many full-time and part-time civilian posts exist at the Otterburn training area in Northumberland.

  Mr. Soames
  One hundred and ten full-time and 10 part-time civilian personnel are employed by my Department at Otterburn training area, together with 14 contractor's full-time personnel.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to reduce or phase out military training at the Otterburn training area should the proposed development concerning the AS90 and multi-launch rocket system not take place.

  Mr. Soames
  Otterburn training area provides essential training facilities which could not be dispensed with or easily replicated elsewhere. Consequently, we have no plans to reduce or phase out military training at the Otterburn training area if the proposed development does not take place.

  Service Doctors
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of doctors serving in the armed forces in the rank of wing commander or equivalent and in each of the ranks higher than wing commander or equivalent.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  Doctors in the Armed Forces medical services

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Surgical Commander/Lt. Colonel/Wing Commander

  80

  118

  99

  Surgical Captain/Colonel/ Group Captain

  231

  35

  21

  Surgical Commodore/Brigadier/Air Commodore

  —

  11

  11

  SRA/Major General/ Air Vice Marshall

  1

  2

  2

  SVA/Lt. General/Air Marshall

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  105

  166

  133

  1 The Royal Navy rank of Surgical Commodore is an appointment only—all are counted as Surgical Captain.

  Notes:

  1. Figures as at 1 February 1995.

  2. Figures include all doctors i.e., in clinical appointments (primary and secondary care), specialist staff, training and administrative/ HQ functions.
  43

  Medical Consultants
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the projected number of medical consultants in surgery and anaesthesia to be employed by his Department in(a) two years' time, (b) five years' time and (c) 10 years' time.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: The reorganisation of Defence secondary care recommended by "Front Line First" is due to be completed by April 1996. From that time, there will be a total of 74 posts for consultant surgeons, that is, burns and plastic surgery, ENT/ORL surgery, ophthalmology, oral surgery, general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and urology, and 36 for consultant anaesthetists. No further changes to the number of consultant posts are planned.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical consultants in surgery and anaesthesia have been newly appointed to the services in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: The information requested is provided in the table.

  Anaesthetists

  Surgeons

  ASCAB1

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  1994

  —

  4

  2

  1

  4

  2

  1993

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1992

  1

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  1

  1

  4

  3

  1990

  1

  4

  —

  3

  3

  1

  1989

  1

  3

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1988

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  1987

  1

  3

  —

  —

  4

  —

  1986

  —

  3

  —

  2

  3

  —

  1985

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  1 Armed Services Consultant Advisory Board

  Notes:

  1. Surgery includes the following specialisations: burns and plastic surgery, ENT/ORL surgery, ophthalmology, oral surgery, general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and urology.

  2. Information relating to numbers of consultant surgeons and anaesthetists is not held centrally but has been extracted manually from single Service sources. Figures relating to earlier years may not be precise.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical consultants in surgery and anaesthesia have left the services in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: The information requested is provided in the table:

  Anaesthetists

  Surgeons

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  1994

  3

  3

  —

  4

  1

  4

  1993

  2

  2

  3

  2

  5

  1

  1992

  2

  3

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1991

  2

  6

  2

  6

  3

  1

  1990

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  4

  1989

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  Anaesthetists

  Surgeons

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  1987

  —

  —

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1986

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1985

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Notes:

  1. Surgery includes the following specialisations: burns and plastic surgery, ENT/ORL surgery, opthalmology, oral surgery, general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and urology.

  2. Information relating to numbers of consultant surgeons and anaesthetists is not held centrally but has been extracted manually from single Service sources. Figures relating to earlier years may not be precise.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical consultants in surgery and anaesthesia have applied for employment to his Department in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: One only, an anaesthetist who applied to the RAF in both 1992 and 1993—he was selected but did not take up his commission.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical consultants in surgery and anaesthesia have been employed by his Department in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]: The information requested is provided in the table:

  Anaesthetists

  Surgeons

  Year

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  Royal Navy

  Army

  RAF

  1994

  8

  18

  8

  18

  29

  21

  1993

  8

  17

  11

  19

  26

  20

  1992

  8

  18

  11

  21

  31

  21

  1991

  8

  18

  12

  24

  31

  21

  1990

  10

  25

  11

  23

  30

  21

  1989

  9

  23

  9

  24

  27

  22

  1988

  8

  20

  9

  22

  28

  22

  1987

  8

  13

  6

  20

  26

  22

  1986

  8

  9

  6

  21

  22

  22

  1985

  8

  7

  7

  19

  19

  22

  Notes:

  1. Surgery includes the following specialisations: burns and plastic surgery, ENT/ORL surgery, ophthalmology, oral surgery, general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and urology.

  2. Information relating to numbers of consultant surgeons and anaesthetists is not held centrally but has been extracted manually from single Service sources. Figures relating to earlier years may not be precise.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people sit on non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland;

  (2) what is the current number of non-departmental public bodies operating in Northern Ireland; and what is their combined annual budget;

  (3) how many people sit on two or more non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland.
  45
  Sir John Wheeler
  There are currently 2,329 people sitting on 104 non-departmental public bodies operating in Northern Ireland.

  The total gross expenditure of non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland for 1993–94 was £2,300.4 million while the total budget funded by Government for 1993–94 was £1,856.2 million.

  Some 180 people sit on two or more non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland.

  Agricultural Census
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the rate of response in each of the past five years to the June agricultural census in Northern Ireland; and when was the last prosecution for failure to return the June census forms.

  Mr. Ancram
  The rate of response in each of the past five years to the June agricultural census was:

  Year

  Response rate (Per cent.)

  1990

  78

  1991

  78

  1992

  79

  1993

  77

  1994

  78

  No prosecutions for failure to return the June census form have been brought during the past 25 years. Nor am I aware of any prosecutions before this but to check the relevant records would entail disproportionate cost.

  Industrial Development Board
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs have been provided in the district councils areas of(a) Down and (b) Newry and Mourne in each of the past five years as a result of assistance from the Industrial Development Board; and when the Industrial Development Board last arranged a visit to each of these council areas by a potential inward investor.

  Mr. Ancram
  Information on jobs promoted with assistance from the Industrial Development Board in the Down district council and the Newry and Mourne district council areas is set out in the table. The last visit by potential inward investors, arranged by the IDB, was on 8 December 1994 in the case of Down district council and on 18 November 1994 to Newry and Mourne district council area.

  Jobs promoted with IDB assistance

  Down

  Newry and Mourne

  1990–91

  —

  79

  1991–92

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  75

  1993–94

  50

  364

  1994–95 (to 31 December)

  —

  18

  Total

  50

  536

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the rules and regulations in his
  46
  Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Ancram
  A list of the statutory rules and regulations revoked in the 12-month period ending December 1994 has been placed in the Library.

  Work is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are completed.

  The manpower implications are taken into account in the central manpower plans which will be published in the Northern Ireland expenditure plans and priorities in March.

  Irish Language Schools
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what plans he has to establish schools that will teach through the medium of the Irish language or to support such schools set up by other bodies;

  (2) what plans he has to set up bilingual schools in English and Irish in Northern Ireland or to support similar institutions set up by other bodies.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government have no power 10 establish directly any type of school. However, they are prepared to consider soundly based proposals from other bodies for either Irish language or bilingual schools. As is the case with any new school, that consideration will, however, have to be in the context of ensuring effective and efficient use of resources.

  Three Irish-medium primary schools are presently in receipt of 100 per cent. recurrent and capital grants.

  Private Clegg
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration was given to charging Private Clegg with manslaughter; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I have been asked to reply.

  Careful consideration was given by the prosecuting authority to the appropriate charges in this case. It was concluded that in relation to the death of Karen Reilly the proper charge on the available evidence was murder.

EDUCATION

  Education Assets Board
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will list the decisions taken by his Department following recommendations from the Education Assets Board relating to the educational establishments listed in his answer of 18 January,Official Report, columns 513–14; and when those decisions were made.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Since 18 January 1994, my right hon. Friend has issued final directions in respect of the
  47
  following cases that were referred by the Education Assets Board:

  Grant-Maintained Schools

  Wymondham College, Norfolk

  Direction: that a debit balance in the authority's books of account did not transfer to the governing body of the school.

  Date: 22 February 1994

  Epsom and Ewell High School, Surrey

  Direction: that the liability for a leasing agreement did not transfer to the governing body of the school.

  Date: 20 December 1994

  Higher Education Institutions

  University of West of England/Bath College of HE

  Direction: no provision in the loan agreement to be concluded between the Avon Authority and the EAB in respect of the institutions concerned for the loans to be secured. No amendment relating to the repayment period and the terms on which the loans are repaid.

  Date: 25 February 1994

  In addition, my right hon. Friend has issued "minded to" directions in respect of the following cases:

  Grant-Maintained Schools

  Great Barr School, Birmingham—26 September 1994

  Dartford Grammar School for Girls, Kent—11 November 1994

  Abbotswood School, Hampshire—25 November 1994

  Pate's Grammar School, Gloucestershire—23 January 1995

  Further Education Institutions

  Lincolnshire College of Agriculture and Horticulture—September 1994

  A further referral from the Education Assets Board involving a dispute between Thamesview school and Kent county council was withdrawn as a result of the parties involved reaching agreement.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the membership of the Education Assets Board and indicate whether its deliberations and reports are made public.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The membership of the Education Assets Board is as follows:

  Mr. R. Suddards CBE, DL (Chairman)

  Mr. B. Arthur CBE

  Mr. K. Bridge

  Ms K. Buckley

  Mr. H. Couch

  Mr. M. Edwards CBE, QC

  Miss A. Lees

  Mr. P. Lewis

  Mrs. M. Ryding

  Mr. A. Soames

  Mr. A Salomons

  Mr. S. Hoare (Chief Executive and ex-officio member)

  The board's deliberations are not made public. Its decisions are reported to the parties directly concerned. There is nothing to prevent them from making the board's decisions public.

  Bath University
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what representations she has received about her Department's decision to withdraw funding from the postgraduate translation and interpretation course 48
  at Bath University; and how many of these included offers of funding from commerce and industry;

  (2) what considerations underlay the withdrawal of funds from the postgraduate translation and interpretation clause at Bath university; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received three letters about the withdrawal of bursary support for students undertaking the postgraduate diploma in language studies—interpreting and translating—course at Bath university. No offers of funding from commerce or industry have been received.

  The decision to withdraw funding was taken as part of the review of public expenditure for 1995–96 in which my right hon. Friend takes account of demands and priorities for spending.

  Staffordshire Local Education Authority
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the annual increase in central Government payments to Staffordshire local education authority in each of the past 10 years; what would have been the increase required to remove the effect of inflation; and what approximate savings he expects to have arrived as a result of the transfer of schools to local management.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The system of local government finance before 1990–91 was different in structure and coverage to the present system of standard spending assessments on which central Government payments to Staffordshire county council are mainly based. The table sets out the annual underlying change in each of the years since 1990–91 in Staffordshire's education standard spending assessment, after allowing for local authority changes of function and inflation. Savings which schools and local education authorities may have made specifically as a result of the introduction of local management of schools are not readily quantifiable by the Department.

  Year

  1990–91 to 1991–92

  increase of 9.3 per cent.

  1991–92 to 1992–93

  increase of 2.6 per cent.

  1992–93 to 1993–94

  decrease of 0.5 per cent.

  1993–94 to 1994–95

  increase of 0.6 per cent.

  1994–95 to 1995–96

  decrease of 2.0 per cent.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the rules and regulations in her Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which her Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on her Department's manpower.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has not withdrawn any rules and regulations in the last 12 months, other than through the legal process of revocation and replacement. We have, however, reduced the amount of detailed prescription in the revised national curriculum to be introduced from August 1995 and have amended the assessment arrangements to reduce the amount of time required of teachers for this purpose.
  49
  The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are completed.

  The manpower implications are taken into account in the Department's manpower plans which will be published in the Department's annual report in March.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the annual cost of extending nursery provision to all three and four-year-old children in the United Kingdom based on the current average cost of such provision; and what provision there is within her Department's budget for such an extension of nursery education for each of the years(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99.

  Mr. Forth
  Costs would depend on the type of provision and the balance between full-time and part-time provision. Funding will be determined as part of the development of detailed proposals on how to achieve the target for expansion of pre-school provision set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  The Department's expenditure plans for 1995–96 do not include provision for the extension of nursery education. Provision for future years will be considered during the 1995 public expenditure survey.

  Student Loans Company
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans the Student Loans Company has to purchase a new computer facility; what companies have been invited to tender; what advantages the new system will have over the existing system; what is the estimated cost of the new system; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Regional Operations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many staff her Department employs on a regional basis in each standard English region; what is the cost of running these regional operations; what was the total budget for each region in the latest available year; and what are the main purposes for which the budget is used.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department as currently constituted does not operate on a regional basis; its headquarters functions are carried out in offices in London and Darlington. The Department's only executive agency, the Teachers Pensions Agency, which is responsible for administration of the teachers' superannuation scheme, also operates from the Darlington site.

  In 1993–94, the latest year for which firm figures are available, the Department's overall staff number—including the TPA—was 2,101 of which 1,214 were based in London and 887 in Darlington.

  In 1993–94, the total net provision for running costs was £94.3 million, with final outturn of £88.4 million. Of this expenditure, approximately £59 million was attributed to London and £29.4 million to Darlington.
  50

  Ofsted
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what costs have been incurred in furniture and fittings at Ofsted's new offices in London; and what were the removal costs from its old offices.

  Mr. Forth
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the independent Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

TRANSPORT

  European Union
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet his counterparts in the European Union; and what is on the agenda for the meeting.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I expect to meet my European colleagues at the Transport Council in Brussels on 13 and 14 March. The Council will cover a range of transport issues, primarily in the rail, road and maritime sectors.

  Buses
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding standardisation of buses within the European Union and the implications for passengers.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  My Department has received a number of representations, mainly from manufacturers and operators, about the implications for the United Kingdom bus industry and its customers of an EC proposal for a draft directive on bus construction.

  Red Routes
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made with red routes in London.

  Mr. Norris
  The red route pilot scheme in north and east London has been running since 1991. The traffic director is progressively implementing the rest of the 315-mile red route network with the objective of having it operational by the year 2000.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the cost of red routes.

  Mr. Norris
  The total cost of design, development and implementation of red route measures is estimated to be around £130 million at 1995–96 prices. This is in addition to the expenditure of some £5 million at outturn prices on the pilot red route.

  A34
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his plans for the provision of a bypass for Newbury on the A34.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The scheme for an A34 bypass of Newbury remains in the road programme. However, against the background of continuing public concern I wish to be quite sure that the present proposal is the right one. I have therefore put the scheme on hold and asked the
  51
  Highways Agency to look again at the plans for relieving congestion at Newbury and to report back as soon as possible.

  Relief Road, Birmingham
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the implications of the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessments report on the Birmingham northern relief road project.

  Mr. Watts
  After considering the Government's response to the SACTRA report on generated traffic and the Department's formal guidance, the BNRR public inquiry has been provided with a statement identifying how the Department views the impacts of SACTRA's findings. It is now for the inspector to consider that statement and the results of the on-going work which it identifies.

  I am satisfied that the inquiry is the proper forum to consider any implications.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the impact rail privatisation will have on the Network SouthEast, south central division.

  Mr. Watts
  Privatisation is designed to halt and reverse the decline in railway use. For the first time there will be a contractual commitment to specified levels of service. Details of passenger service requirements for Network SouthCentral will be released later this year.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that bids by private sector organisations to operate train services are considered with efficiency and speed by his Department, the Rail Regulator and the Franchising Director.

  Mr. Watts
  The consideration of proposals from private sector organisations to operate train services is primarily the responsibility of the Rail Regulator and, for franchised services, of the Franchising Director. Both are aware of the need to deal efficiently and quickly with proposals, subject to taking the steps necessary to fulfil their statutory functions and duties.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the directors of Scotrail to discuss the proposed privatisation plans; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend met directors of British Rail's 25 train operating units, including Scotrail, on 27 January. He has no immediate plans for further meetings with Scotrail.

  Cross-border Rail Services
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with British Rail regarding cross-border services between Scotland and England.

  Mr. Watts
  Anglo-Scottish rail services is one of a number of subjects which have been discussed at regular meetings with British Rail.
  52

  A41
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the A41 Aston Clinton bypass.

  Mr. Watts
  Recently we have received the inspector's report following a small public inquiry at the end of November 1994. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for the Environment are considering the inspector's recommendations and will announce their joint decision in due course.

  Northern Line
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Northern line will be provided with renewed signalling and electrical apparatus.

  Mr. Norris
  The timing of individual schemes within their overall investment programme is a matter for London Underground. I understand that both these items are in the future programme, and that detailed design work for a new signalling system is under way.

  Railway Development, Stratford
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last visited Stratford in east London to discuss railway developments.

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Stratford promoter group on 2 February. It is my intention to visit Stratford in response to the hon. Member's invitation.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what review he has undertaken of the relative contributions to road safety from(a) wire-rope and (b) solid motorway central barriers.

  Mr. Norris
  The wire rope safety fence and the solid motorway central barrier—that is, the vertical concrete safety barrier—have performed satisfactorily, both in trial testing and in-service, contributing to the overall safety of road users.

  No specific comparative review of the two systems has been carried out as the two designs are not equivalent alternatives in total performance terms. The deployment of any type of vehicle restraint system is dependent on the requirements and constraints of the particular site, and this may also include consideration of prevailing weather and environmental conditions. The Highways Agency, however, has a continuing commitment to keep their performance under review.

  London Underground
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the final route for the new Chelsea to Hackney underground line.

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that London Underground Limited plans to consult on alternative options for the line. Following consultations, it may then apply to the Secretary of State to amend the route as currently safeguarded.
  53

  Heathrow
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had on the implications of a proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow airport for the inhabitants of south west London.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Highways Agency has consulted local authorities, residents and other interested organisations on trunk road improvements which it considers necessary if the proposed Heathrow terminal 5 goes ahead. I have had no other consultations on implications of the proposed terminal.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what responsibilities he has in relation to the Forth rail bridge.

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack assumed responsibility for the Forth rail bridge when it was established as a Government-owned company.

  Nuclear Waste Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an assessment of the relevance for the future shipment of vitrified high level radioactive waste to Japan of the report, a copy of which has been sent to him.

  Mr. Norris
  The report is being considered.

  Interlogic Control Engineering
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates there have been meetings, correspondence or telephone conversations between British Rail officials and civil servants in his Department about(a) the privatisation of Interlogic Control Engineering and (b) the closure of Interlogic's York office.

  Mr. Watts
  Department of Transport officials are in touch with counterparts at the British Railways Board from time to time to discuss a range of issues, including businesses such as Interlogic Control Engineering.

  British Rail Redundancies
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) compulsory and (b) voluntary redundancies have been made by BR in each of the last five years; and how many it expects to make in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Watts
  The number of redundancies made in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1989–90

  1,505

  1990–91

  792

  1991–92

  670

  1992–93

  7,951

  1993–94

  7,273

  All the redundancies were voluntary. Around a further 5,000 voluntary redundancies are expected by the end of 1994–95. There are no figures available for 1995–96.

  Agricultural Vehicles
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the regulations currently in force 54
  to prevent of agricultural vehicles from leaving large amounts of mud on public roads.

  Mr. Norris
  Sections 148 and 161(1), of the Highways Act 1980 make it an offence to deposit any thing, including mud and manure, on roads. Section 149 of the Highways Act 1980 enables highway authorities to take action against anyone who deposits anything on the highway that constitutes a nuisance or danger. Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes it an offence to cause anything to be left on the road if it would be obvious to a reasonable person that to do so would be dangerous.

  Coaches
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 588, what will be the baseline for the comparative casualty data.

  Mr. Steven Norris
  Detailed data relating to accidents on motorways for at least the last 10 years are kept in the national accident database. The precise baseline is likely to include the years 1994 and 1995 but a longer time series is available, if needed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 588, if he will estimate the fatal and serious injuries relating to the risks of lane changes, and of the incidence of harsh braking for crashes in the outside lane of two lane, three lane and four lane carriageways.

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost. A detailed examination will be made in due course as part of the assessment of the outside lane ban.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 January, column No.588, if the Wootton Jeffrey report has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Norris
  Yes.

  Airports
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ease pressure on Heathrow and Gatwick by(a) extending existing airports or developing new ones in the south-east and (b) transferring traffic to existing regional airports.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 2 February at column 861–62.

  Vehicle Excise Prosecutions
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the changes to the procedures for VED prosecutions over the last six months; and if he will list the vehicle registration office areas to which these changes apply.

  Mr. Norris
  There have been no changes to procedures for VED prosecutions over the last six months.

  Health and Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 881, how many employees of his Department (a) have applied for facility time to attend health and safety courses, and (b) have applied for facility

  55
  time to act as health and safety representatives in the financial years (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95 to date.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department does not keep a central record of health and safety representatives and those who have attended training courses. Duly appointed safety representatives are permitted time off with pay to attend basic training facilities approved by the TUC or further training similarly approved where such training is necessary to meet changes in relevant legislation.

  The Department also permits duly appointed safety representatives to take such time off with pay during working hours as is necessary for performing their functions under section 2(4) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Safety Representation and Safety Committee Regulations 1977, as amended.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 881, if he will (a) list and (b) place in the Library all documents which refer to the reduction of stress levels and sick absences amongst his staff.

  Mr. Norris
  The complete information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I will, however arrange for the following departmental documents to be placed in the Library:

  —"What everyone should know about stress"

  —"Coping with stress—a guide for line managers"

  —"Coping with change"

  —"Coping with a major personal crisis"

  —"Stress: recognising and coping with stress"

  —Departmental Notices 19/92 and 19/94—Managing Sickness Absence

  Mrs. Dunwoody:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994,Official Report, column 881, if he will list the programmes listed under DVLA which apply to the vehicle registration offices.

  Mr. Norris
  The following health initiatives are available to staff working in the agency's vehicle registration offices:

  health screening

  smoking cessation help

  interest free loans for the purchase of bicycles for home to office travel.

  1993

  1994

  Vehicle Registration Office

  October

  November

  December

  October

  November

  December

  Manchester

  512

  525

  442

  498

  701

  413

  Sheffield

  363

  254

  161

  251

  187

  86

  Liverpool

  275

  233

  299

  275

  211

  114

  Bangor

  395

  243

  176

  191

  418

  252

  Chester

  259

  250

  254

  278

  147

  153

  Huddersfield

  156

  85

  132

  82

  87

  25

  Leeds

  484

  683

  383

  392

  509

  346

  Preston

  421

  686

  519

  309

  405

  282

  Hull

  151

  212

  114

  172

  170

  128

  Aberdeen

  45

  42

  29

  33

  50

  48

  Inverness

  40

  46

  41

  12

  45

  16

  Dundee

  62

  131

  133

  143

  117

  187

  Middlesbrough

  385

  302

  263

  372

  349

  267

  Newcastle

  491

  553

  393

  499

  546

  377

  Carlisle

  97

  77

  73

  89

  138

  76

  56
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1994, Official Report, column 881, if he will list for the financial years(a) 1992–93 and (b) 1993–94 the funds his Department spent on the "Look After Your Heart" programme; and if he will list the amounts he has allocated for this programme in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport's spending on the "Look After Your Heart" programme was £6,645 in 1992–93 and £2,317 in 1993–94.

  A total of £6,500 was allocated in 199–95 and £5,500 provisionally allocated in each of 1995–96 and 1996–97.

  In addition, between 1992 and 1995 the Department spent £80,527 on health screen programmes.

  Train Stations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when the results of the risk assessment study conducted by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate relating to the large stepping distances between the platform and train at certain stations with some vehicles will be published.

  Mr. Watts
  This work is expected to be completed by mid-1995. The results of the research will then be assessed to indicate what further action should be taken.

  Vehicle Registration Office
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the process by which casual staff are recruited in the vehicle registration office network.

  Mr. Norris
  Once a need has been identified, casual staff are recruited through the local job centre which supplies suitable candidates for interview by vehicle registration office managerial staff.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by vehicle registration office, the number of VED offences submitted for prosecution for each week from 1 October 1994 to 31 December 1994, and for the corresponding period in 1993.

  Mr. Norris
  Records are kept only on a monthly basis. The following tables show the figures for the last quarter of 1993 and 1994. They include a number of cases returned unheard by the courts and unsuccessful prosecutions which together represent less than 7 per cent. of the overall total.
  57

  1993

  1994

  Vehicle Registration Office

  October

  November

  December

  October

  November

  December

  Edinburgh

  317

  322

  226

  245

  179

  434

  Glasgow

  654

  537

  560

  301

  281

  238

  Luton

  413

  332

  401

  457

  624

  493

  Ipswich

  240

  327

  241

  268

  252

  201

  Chelmsford

  1,041

  1,040

  910

  1,164

  982

  836

  Norwich

  240

  267

  209

  256

  367

  246

  Haverfordwest

  49

  73

  43

  72

  57

  73

  Cardiff

  641

  954

  597

  634

  934

  631

  Swansea

  148

  279

  277

  383

  349

  373

  Taunton

  124

  131

  81

  82

  117

  72

  Truro

  98

  131

  98

  67

  66

  72

  Gloucester

  223

  250

  169

  254

  185

  260

  Exter

  446

  301

  289

  306

  483

  364

  Bristol

  474

  379

  514

  299

  465

  391

  Worcester

  208

  166

  180

  202

  157

  91

  Swindon

  333

  404

  395

  243

  244

  189

  Reading

  184

  301

  219

  247

  238

  147

  Portsmouth

  476

  589

  530

  541

  495

  393

  Oxford

  220

  161

  163

  153

  139

  150

  Brighton

  467

  415

  289

  399

  508

  447

  Maidstone

  285

  471

  359

  371

  538

  365

  Guildford

  286

  241

  249

  370

  191

  281

  Bournemouth

  165

  192

  138

  196

  146

  130

  Stoke

  441

  416

  405

  343

  585

  369

  Leicester

  373

  434

  226

  439

  442

  115

  Lincoln

  477

  229

  281

  532

  394

  357

  Nottingham

  500

  356

  318

  670

  487

  501

  Peterborough

  302

  341

  239

  259

  343

  207

  Northampton

  297

  303

  346

  271

  317

  304

  Birmingham

  716

  864

  1,622

  1,299

  1,159

  1,080

  Coventry

  278

  266

  314

  275

  214

  165

  Dudley

  95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shrewsbury

  140

  159

  168

  224

  96

  72

  London Enforcement Office (LEO)

  3,631

  3,587

  2,786

  3,797

  3,870

  2,943

  Disabled Staff
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the initiatives his Department is to undertake for disabled staff.

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport has a programme of initiatives for staff with disabilities. For 1995 the programme will include:

  —the continued provision of a budget for the purchasing of aids and equipment for staff;

  —publicity to ensure that all staff are aware of their responsibilities under the OPSS "Programme for Action to Achieve Equality of Opportunity in the Civil Service for Disabled People";

  —the maintenance of a register detailing the access arrangements and facilities available for staff in buildings used by the department;

  —the use of the Department's Disability Information Package in 1995 training events;

  —the facility to offer written information in braille or on audio cassette.

  Transport Research Laboratory
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to move or to alter the library of the Transport Research Laboratory.

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend will be considering the future of the library at the Transport Research Laboratory with his financial and other advisers in preparing the transfer of the laboratory to the private sector.
  58

  Railway Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway stations in the United Kingdom are inaccessible to wheelchair users.

  Mr. Watts
  The facilities available for disabled passengers vary from place to place. The leaflet "British Rail and Disabled Travellers" is designed to help disabled passengers plan their rail journeys and gives contact details for British Rail managers who will provide passengers with information about their nearest suitably designed and equipped station. A copy of this leaflet is available in the House Library.

  "London Direct"
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many copies of "London Direct" published by London Transport with the Evening Standard of 23 January, have been purchased by his Department.

  Mr. Norris
  None, apart from those included with copies of the Evening Standard purchased by the Department's library and press office.

  Coventry Airport
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 98, what considerations underlie the decision to allow the resumption of flights containing calves from Coventry airport before the completion of the inquiry into breaches of the Air Navigation Order of

  59
  flights containing calves from that airport in November and December 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  In view of concern about the safety of flights carrying calves from Coventry airport as a result of the Air Algerie crash on 21 December 1994, the Department' has taken additional steps to monitor the safety of any aircraft wishing to perform similar flights. Before considering any application, the Department has requested the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out an inspection of the aircraft in order that a check can be made to ensure that the aircraft can operate safely into Coventry airport and that the aircraft will be operated in accordance with international safety standards.

  Two applications for the carriage of calves have been received since the crash of the Air Algerie aircraft. Neither of these applications involved airlines which are the subject of the current inquiry being conducted by the Department into possible breaches in November and December of article 88 of the Air Navigation Order 1989. Before the Department considered these applications, the CAA was asked to inspect the aircraft to be used for the flights. In the first case, involving a Nigerian Boeing 707 aircraft owned by ADC Airlines, my Department decided

  Financial year 1994–95

  Regional Government Offices (Transport programmes)

  Staff numbers1

  Running costs budget (£k)

  Programme budget (£k)

  Government Office for the Eastern Region

  10

  302.5

  405.0

  Government Office for the East Midlands

  9

  243.9

  197.0

  Government Office for Merseyside

  3

  77.1

  55.0

  Government Office for London

  58

  2,460.0

  550.0

  Government Office for the North East

  21

  518.8

  56.0

  Government Office for the North West

  7

  243.1

  135.0

  Government Office for the South East

  13

  472.5

  82.5

  Government Office for the South West

  9

  288.1

  13.0

  Government Office for the West Midlands

  9

  299.4

  105.0

  Government Office for Yorkshire & Humberside

  8

  274.1

  45.0

  Programme Budget held centrally in reserve

  —

  —

  106.5

  Totals

  147

  5,179.5

  1,750.0

  1 According to personnel records.

  Travel Pass
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects an agreement to be reached between the London boroughs on details for a new travel pass for London's pensioners and disabled people; what details of it he can disclose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 17 January,Official Report, column 416.

  Dartford M25 Crossing
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when and by what means his Department ascertained the expected additional traffic movements of cars and lorries using the Dartford M25 crossing following the opening of the international station planned for Ebbsfleet in Kent.

  (2) what is the estimated number of additional car and lorry movements which are expected to use the Dartford M25 crossing in each of the first five years following the opening of the international station planned for Ebbsfleet, Kent.
  60
  not to grant any further applications by ADC Airlines until it had discussed the CAA's findings with the Nigerian authorities. In the second case, involving AN26 aircraft operated by a Russian airline Atlant Soyuz, a permit was granted only after some modifications had been made to the aircraft and the Department had been satisfied that the airline had met all the Department's normal requirements for cargo charter flights.

  Regional Operations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff his Department employs on a regional basis in each standard English region; what is the cost of running these regional operations; what was the total budget for each region in the latest available year; and what are the main purposes for which the budget is used.

  Mr. Norris
  The numerical and financial information requested is contained in the following table.

  The regional programme budget is used for statutory advertising associated with orders under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (£430k); provision of venues for public inquiries into orders under TCPA 1990 (£20k); and consultancies and studies (£300k).

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]Expected additional traffic flows on the Dartford-Thurrock river crossing on the M25 resulting from the opening of an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet were set out on Ove Arup and Partners' final report on Ebbsfleet traffic impacts, which was published in January 1994 at the same time as Union Railways' report to the Government on the channel tunnel rail link. I regret that the report does not provide the information in the form requested but the following figures show the number of traffic movements, additional to expected levels of traffic, generated by a station at Ebbsfleet:

  AM peak

  PMpeak

  2001:

  To Crossing

  77 (+1.4 per cent.)

  154 (+3.3 per cent.)

  From Crossing

  135 (+3.7 per cent.)

  173 (+3.8 per cent.)

  2011:

  To Crossing

  103 (+1.6 per cent.)

  205 (+3.8 per cent.)

  From Crossing

  180 (44.1 per cent.)

  231 (+4.3 per cent.)

  The expectation is that these movements will be almost entirely from non-lorry traffic.
  61

  Channel Tunnel Security
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who are the inspectors in his Department whom he referred to in his oral statement of 30 January on channel tunnel security,Official Report, columns 685–90; what are their terms or reference; under what powers they are appointed; and what are their statutory powers and responsibilities.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, under the terms of the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994, authorised officials from the transport security division of this Department to inspect the security arrangements in place to ensure that the required standards are, and continue to be, met. The responsibilities and powers of the inspectors are set out in article 28 of the order.

  InterCity
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many InterCity trains currently run daily each way Monday to Friday between(a) Paddington and Cardiff and (b) Paddington and Swansea; and how many will be guaranteed under the passenger service requirement for Great Western.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: The frequencies are set out in the table:

  Current timetable

  Draft PSR

  Paddington-Cardiff weekday services

  Westbound

  20

  at least 17

  Eastbound

  20

  at least 17

  Paddington-Swansea weekday services

  Westbound

  17

  at least 14

  Eastbound

  18

  at least 14

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many InterCity trains will run(a) to Carmarthen and (b) to Fishguard daily under the passenger service requirements for Great Western; and how many currently run to those stations.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: The future level of InterCity services to Carmarthen and Fishguard will be determined by the Great Western franchisee.

  The current number of InterCity trains to Carmarthen and Fishguard daily are set out in the tables:

  Current timetable

  Number

  Paddington-Carmarthen

  Weekdays:

  Westbound

  1

  Eastbound

  1

  Saturdays:

  Westbound

  1

  Eastbound

  1

  Sundays:

  Westbound

  0

  Eastbound

  1

  62
  In addition on summer Saturdays Carmarthen will be served by westbound and eastbound trains to Pembroke Dock.

  The Franchising Director will include regular services between Swansea and Carmarthen in the PSR for Regional Railways South Wales and West. These trains will provide good connections at Swansea with InterCity services to London.

  Current timetable

  Number

  Paddington-Fishguard:

  Winter Sunday-Monday (October to late May):

  Westbound

  Note 1

  Eastbound

  1

  Summer weekdays:

  Westbound

  11

  Eastbound

  12

  Summer Sundays:

  Westbound

  1

  Eastbound

  2

  Note 1: Through service operated on 12 days in the Christmas/New Year period.

  1Between mid July and early September

  22 between mid July and early September

  Accompanied Baggage
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what accompanied baggage restrictions will be placed on passengers travelling from Paddington to Fishguard following privatisation.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: Regulations relating to the carriage of passengers' baggage on trains are set out in the conditions of carriage. These conditions are currently being revised to maintain and improve passengers' rights on rail services provided by private sector operators.

  Trans-European Network
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Fishguard to Paddington railway line forms part of the Trans-European route network.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: Yes.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bicycles may be carried on behalf of passengers on trains running between Paddington and Fishguard.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: British Rail currently allows the carriage of three bicycles per Great Western high speed trains serving Fishguard and one bicycle per train on other trains serving Fishguard.

  BR Networker
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the principal subcontractors adversely affected by the cancellation of British Rail Networker order for 1995.

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: There has been no cancellation.
  63

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what tonnage of freight was carried on the inland waterways of the United Kingdom(a) in 1984 and (b) in 1994.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: Non-seagoing freight carried on inland waterways in the United Kingdom was 7 million tonnes in 1984 and 6.4 million tonnes in 1993, the latest year for which figures are available.

  A40(M)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what noise abatement measures have been taken to protect the residents of Ickenham from noise pollution at the point where the A40 (M) Western avenue passes between the junction of Long lane, Hillingdon, and Uxbridge circus; and what further measures are planned.

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency and I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Michael Shersby, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Minister for Transport in London, Steven Norris, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport what noise abatement measures have been taken to protect the residents of Ickenham from noise pollution at the point where the A40(M) Western Avenue passes between the junction of Long Lane, Hillingdon, and Uxbridge Circus; and what further measures are planned.
  There were a number of measures taken to reduce the level of traffic noise from the improved A40 trunk road near Hillingdon Circus. These were included in the design and were:-

  i) putting the new trunk road in deep cutting;

  ii) erecting a noise barrier between residential properties and the trunk road carriageway north of the new road;

  iii) providing noise insulation where properties qualify under the Noise Insulation Regulations; and

  iv) surfacing the new road in tarmac rather than concrete.

  Planting to soften the environmental effect of the new trunk road on its surroundings will be carried out this spring.
  Residents who consider that their property has depreciated in value as a result of increased traffic noise from the use of the new road, may be able to claim compensation under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The claim period starts in May this year when notices will appear in the local press.

TREASURY

  European Monetary Institute
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total capital and revenue cost of establishing and running the European Monetary Institute at the latest date for which figures are available; and how much of that cost has been incurred by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Nelson
  Article 16 of the protocol on the statute of the European Monetary Institute—EMI—annexed to the Maastricht treaty, provides for member states' central banks to make contributions towards the capital resources of the EMI. The resources will be used to generate an income necessary to cover the expenditure of the EMI. The share of the EMI's resources paid by each central 64
  bank is calculated according to each member state's population and GDP.—as set out in article 29 of the protocol on the statute of the European system of central banks.

  In accordance with article 16 of the EMI protocol, the Council of the EMI has determined that the total capital requirement needed to generate income sufficient to cover the EMI's budgeted expenditure is 615.6 million ecu. The Bank of England's share is 15.35 per cent. The Bank has accordingly contributed 94.5 million ecu—£72.7 million at the end-December 1994 exchange rate. Prior to the capital requirement being established by the council of the EMI the Bank contributed 3.0 million ecu—£2.4 million at the end-December exchange rate—towards the EMI's set-up and running costs during 1994.

  The Bank of England made its contribution to the EMI out of its own resources. The central banks of Germany, France and Italy have made larger contributions than the Bank of England.

  The budget for the EMI will be published in its annual report in April 1995.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations the Government have undertaken with the European Monetary Institute as provided for in article 109f(6) of the treaty on European Union.

  Mr. Nelson
  In accordance with article 109f(6) of the EC treaty the Government have notified the European Monetary Institute of a number of amendments to the Building Societies Act 1986, which are to be made by an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the European Commission and the European Monetary Institute to report to the European Council as required by article 109j(1) of the treaty on European Union; and what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the Commission and the EMI on the preparation of the report in respect of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nelson
  No date has been set for the reports from the Commission and EMI required by article 109j(1) of the treaty. But for the Council to make the decisions set out in article 109j(3) by 31 December 1996, reports will need to be prepared earlier that year. Her Majesty's Government have had no discussions with the Commission or the EMI about the reports they will prepare.

  Own Resources
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and which EEC members have ratified the own resources decision according to their respective constitutional timetables; and what information he has about the likely ratification dates of the remainder.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on Thursday 19 January,Official Report, column 606. Since then, I understand that Greece adopted the own resources decision on 29 December 1994 and the Republic of Ireland on 20 January 1995, in accordance with their constitutional requirements.
  65

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the number and grade of staff in his Department who are currently working on single currency issues.

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of officials involved in European monetary issues varies from day to day. No officials work exclusively on these issues.

  Private Finance Panel
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the members and main interests of the private finance panel; what expenses or other remuneration are offered to its members; and what is the frequency of meetings.

  Sir George Young
  The members and main interests of the private finance panel are:

  Mr. Malcolm R.Bates
  Deputy Managing Director, GEC; Non-executive Director, Enterprise Oil.

  Sir Christopher Bland
  Chairman, NFC plc, Life Sciences International plc and Hammersmith Hospitals trust

  Mr. Howard J.Davies
  Director General, CBI; Director, GKN plc; Member, NatWest International Advisory Board; Director, BOTB and Business In The Community.

  Mr. Allan Gormly CBE
  Chairman, Royal Insurance Holdings plc; Joint Deputy Chairman, Trafalgar House plc; Director, National Grid Co. plc, BPB Industries plc, Brixton Estate plc, Eurorail Ltd.

  Mr. Hugh R. Jenkins
  Chief Executive, Prudential Portfolio Managers; Director, Prudential Corporation; Member, DoE Property Advisory Group.

  Mr. Pen Kent
  Executive Director, Bank of England.

  Ms Sheila V. Masters
  Partner, KPMG Peat Marwick; Non-executive Director, Bank of England; Non-executive Member, Inland Revenue Management Board and NHS Policy Board.

  Sir Alastair Morton
  Co-chairman, Eurotunnel; Chairman, Kent TEC, National Youth Orchestra, and East Kent Initiative; Non-executive Director, National Power and Lucas Industries.

  Sir Brian Pearse
  Chairman, The Housing Corporation, Lucas Industries, British Invisibles and Young Enterprise; Director, Smith and Nephew plc, Financial Reporting Council, BOTB, London First Centre.

  Mr. Neville Simms
  Group Chief Executive, Tarmac plc; Non-executive Director, Courtaulds plc.

  Mr. Bob Dobbie
  Head of Industrial Competitiveness Division, Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Colin Reeves
  Director of Finance, NHS Executive.
  66
  Mr. Peter Mackay
  Secretary, Scottish Office Industry Department.

  Mr. Steve Robson
  Director (Finance, Regulations and Industry), HM Treasury.

  Mr. David Rowlands
  Principal Finance Officer, Department of Transport.

  Mr. Philip Fletcher
  Deputy Secretary (Housing and Urban), Department of the Environment.

  No expenses or other remuneration have been offered to panel members for their duties in connection with the panel.

  There is no set frequency for meetings of the panel, but there have been three meetings in the last six months.

  Revenue Adjudicator
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases have been referred to the revenue adjudicator as complaints arising out of the taxpayers charter; in how many cases the revenue adjudicator has upheld the complaint; what has been the total compensation awarded by the revenue adjudicator following complaints; and what actions have been taken by the adjudicator to monitor and improve the performance of the office in which complaints have been upheld.

  Sir George Young
  The adjudicator has received 3,794 complaints since her office opened on 1 May 1993. She has taken up 717 of these for full investigation. Of the 359 cases she has settled, she has found wholly or partly in favour of the complainant in 195 cases. She has recommended that the Inland Revenue pay compensation in 90 of these. The total compensation recommended was £37,181. The Inland Revenue has accepted all these recommendations. The adjudicator meets senior Inland Revenue managers on a regular basis to discuss her recommendations and views.

  It is for Inland Revenue managers to decide what actions need to be taken to improve performance in any particular area in the light of adjudicator's recommendations and views. The Revenue has assured me that it does attach great importance to improving performance where they have been at fault.

  The 3,077 cases which the adjudicator did not take up for full investigation were mainly ones where the complainant had not first tried to sort out the complaint through the Inland Revenue's own complaints system. In these cases, the adjudicator put the complainant in touch with the right person in the Inland Revenue, and where necessary helped the complainant clarify the terms of the complaint.

  Scotch Whisky
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the total receipts which have accrued to the Exchequer in each of the last five years from sales of Scotch whisky(a) abroad and (b) in the domestic market.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Firm data on duty receipts are available only for total spirits. Estimates can be made for all home-produced whisky and these are as follows:
  67

  Estimated duty and consequential VAT on whisky/whiskey

  £ million

  1989–90

  748

  1990–91

  835

  1991–92

  856

  1992–93

  814

  1993–94

  847

  Duty and VAT are not charged on sales of Scotch whisky abroad.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of expected receipts to the Exchequer from sales of Scotch whisky(a) abroad and (b) in the domestic market for the financial year 1994–95.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Firm data on duty receipts are available only for total spirits. The current spirits forecast for the financial year 1994–95 is £1.7 billion, this cannot be broken down to Scotch whisky.

  The Exchequer receives no income from sales of Scotch whisky abroad.

  Credit Unions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to modify the legislation and regulations governing(a) the management of credit unions, (b) their accountability to members and (c) the amounts of money loaned to members; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government announced two proposals on credit unions in January 1994. One extends categories of membership; the other increases the limit on the size of individual shareholdings and loans. A consultation document will be issued on these and other related measures. Subject to the response, the intention is to implement them through an order under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Power Generators (Share Sales)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the costs incurred so far on the proposed sale of Her Majesty's Government shares in National Power and PowerGen; and if he will estimate future costs associated with this sale.

  Sir George Young
  The costs of the National Power and PowerGen share offer will be reported to Parliament after the sale has been completed. Sales proceeds will be appropriated-in-aid of the expenses of the sale. Because a large proportion of the costs are dependent upon the strike prices obtained for the shares in the international offers, it would be potentially misleading to the House for me to estimate the total costs for this sale at this point.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the solicitors, banks, brokers, advertising agencies and public relations companies appointed to advise on the sale of Her Majesty's Government shares in National Power and PowerGen, with a statement of fees incurred so far in each case.

  Sir George Young
  The table shows, in the order of their appointment, the appointments of solicitors, banks, brokers, advertising agencies and PR companies made by HM Government for the National Power and PowerGen share offer. Fees paid to firms as part of the privatisation programme are treated as commercially confidential.
  68
  The National Audit Office expects to examine the sale in due course. If it does so and a report is published by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the total fees paid to advisers will be quantified.

  National Power and PowerCen share offer—solicitors, banks, brokers, advertising agencies and public relations companies appointed

  Month of appointment

  Company

  Role(s)

  March 1994

  Barclays de Zoete Wedd1

  Financial Adviser

  Kleinwort Benson1

  Global co-ordinator Global lead manager

  March 1994

  Slaughter and May2

  Legal advisers

  April 1994

  Dewe Rogerson

  PR/Marketing adviser

  May 1994

  Davis, Polk and Wardwell2

  US legal advisers

  July 1994

  WCRS3

  Advertising agency

  July 1994

  Lloyds Bank

  Lead receiving bank

  July 1994

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Receiving bank

  November 1994

  Lloyds Bank

  Interim registrar (National Power)

  November 1994

  Royal Bank of Scotland

  Interim registrar (PowerGen)

  December 1994

  Tsunematsu Yanase and Sakine2

  Japanese legal advisers

  December 1994

  Stikeman, Elliott2

  Canadian legal advisers

  December 1994

  Barclays de Zoete Wedd

  International manager

  December 1994

  Kleinwort Benson

  International manager

  December 1994

  Cazenove

  International manager

  December 1994

  Paribas

  International manager

  December 1994

  UBS

  International manager

  December 1994

  SG Warburg

  International manager

  December 1994

  Goldman Sachs

  North American manager

  December 1994

  Merrill Lynch

  North American manager

  December 1994

  JP Morgan

  North American manager

  December 1994

  NatWest Markets

  North American manager

  December 1994

  RBC Dominion

  North American manager

  December 1994

  Argentaria

  Rest of World manager

  December 1994

  Robert Fleming

  Rest of World manager

  December 1994

  Lehman Brothers

  Rest of World manager

  December 1994

  Mediobanca

  Rest of World manager

  December 1994

  Nikko

  Rest of World manager

  December 1994

  West LB

  Rest of World manager

  January 1995

  Bank of New York

  Interim depositary

  Notes1:

  Firms act jointly

  2Appointed by the Treasury Solicitor

  3Appointed by the Central Office of Information

  International Terminal, Ebbsfleet
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he, other Ministers or former Ministers or officials in his Department discussed matters relating to the international terminal at Ebbsfleet with representatives of Decision Makers at any function at No. 11 Downing street in June or July 1993.
  69
  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: There is no record of any function at No 11 Downing street in June or July 1993 at which representatives of Decision Makers were present.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when Ministers in his Department formally or informally met Mr. Mark Pennington and discussed Ebbsfleet.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 23 January 1995]: According to Treasury records, no Treasury Ministers have met Mr. Mark Pennington and discussed Ebbsfleet.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 February 1995]: The severance payments for which special advisers are eligible are related to their salaries. The salaries of advisers are negotiated individually in relation to their previous earnings and are confidential. The total severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years year are summarised in the table.

  Year

  £

  1990

  105,771

  1991

  28,078

  1992

  188,803

  1993

  34,446

  1994

  56,131

  Tax Loopholes
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the loss of revenue to the Exchequer resulting from exploitation of the capital gains tax loophole identified in clause 43 of the Finance Bill 1995; and; how much revenue annually he estimates would accrue following its closure.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 3 February 1995]: The known level of avoidance up to the closure of the loophole identified in clause 43 of the Finance Bill 1995 was low and the revenue loss is estimated to be negligible. However if not closed, this loophole would result in the loss of a significant amount of tax as the level of avoidance is expected to escalate once the loophole becomes well known. This loss could amount to many tens of millions of pounds.

SCOTLAND

  Council Housing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people are on waiting lists for council houses in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole; and what steps he is taking to provide public housing for such persons.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Reliable information on waiting list applicants is not held centrally. Substantial 70
  resources have been made available to local authorities to enable them to meet housing needs in their areas. In addition, Scottish Homes, through its development programme, supports the provision of new and improved houses by housing associations, housing co-operatives and private sector developers across Scotland.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many acute psychiatric beds are needed in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole to achieve an average bed occupancy of 85 per cent.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for health boards to determine levels of bed provision for their population based on consideration of local assessments of need.

  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  NHSiS—Psychiatric beds1; by area; year ending 30 September 1994

  Actual

  Estimated

  Average available staffed beds

  Percentage occupancy

  Average available staffed beds required for 85 per cent, occupancy4

  Scotdand

  14,399

  88.8

  15,043

  Strathclyde2

  6,228

  90.3

  6,613

  Inverclyde3

  268

  87.9

  277

  1Comprises mental illness, psychogeriatrics, child psychiatry, adolescent psychiatry, mental handicap.

  2 Comprises hospitals in Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire health board areas.

  3 Comprises Inverclyde royal hospital and Ravenscraig hospital.

  4 Assuming the number of patients on average is the same as in the year ending 30 September 1994.

  Source:

  Information Services Division

  Private Patients
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the income generated by the treatment and care of private patients in each trust hospital in 1993–94.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is provided in the following table:

  NHS Trust

  £000

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  504

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  0

  Caithness and Sutherland

  1

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  45

  Grampian Healthcare

  37

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  0

  Moray Health Services

  26

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  46

  Raigmore Hospital

  114

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  2

  Royal Scottish National Hospital and Community

  0

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  69

  Southern General Hospital

  417

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  33

  Victoria Infirmary

  17

  West Lothian

  29

  Yorkhill

  49

  71

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what surplus or loss has been accumulated by each NHS trust.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The surplus or loss accumulated by each trust to December 1994 is detailed in the table:

  Accumulated surplus/loss of each NHS trust to December 1994

  Name of NHS Trust

  £000

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  211

  Angus

  798

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  1,903

  Caithness and Sutherland

  560

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  104

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  1,520

  Dundee Healthcare

  908

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  3,403

  East and Midlothian

  1,304

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  2,156

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  -43

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  1,645

  Fife Healthcare

  2,294

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University

  3,419

  Grampian Healthcare

  7,499

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  835

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse

  879

  Highland Communities

  669

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  1,785

  Kirkcaldy Acute

  447

  Law Hospital

  756

  Monklands and Bellshill

  1,994

  Moray Health Services

  441

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  4,634

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare

  1,574

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  1,270

  Raigmore Hospital

  3,001

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  2,903

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  1,674

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  2,840

  South Ayshire Hospitals

  426

  Southern General Hospital

  3,351

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  1,455

  Stobhill

  2,481

  Victoria Infirmary

  -4,021

  West Lothian

  3,658

  Western General Hospitals, Edinburgh

  864

  West Glasgow Hospitals University

  1,602

  Yorkhill

  1,159

  Total

  64,358

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total amount of accumulated assets of NHS trusts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The net assets of each NHS trust as at 31 December 1994 are detailed in the table:

  Net assets ofNHS trusts as at December 1994

  Name ofNHS trust

  £000

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  136,383

  Angus

  45,595

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  55,902

  Caithness and Sutherland

  17,059

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  97,682

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  29,600

  Dundee Healthcare

  56,971

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  127,995

  72

  Net assets of NHS trusts as at December 1994

  Name of NHS trust

  £000

  East and Midlothian

  62,688

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  116,675

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  13,949

  Falkirk and District Royal University

  41,232

  Fife Healthcare

  69,557

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University

  141,467

  Grampian Healthcare

  189,569

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  138,752

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse

  50,813

  Highland Communities

  64,378

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  33,729

  Kirkcaldy Acute

  37,428

  Law Hospital

  34,118

  Monklands and Bellshill

  44,213

  Moray Health Services

  35,506

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  85,196

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare

  76,949

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  69,867

  Raigmore Hospital

  55,353

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  72,021

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  63,127

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  152,852

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  50,789

  Southern General Hospital

  65,893

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  46,165

  Stobhill

  66,434

  Victoria Infirmary

  43,869

  West Lothian

  95,528

  Western General Hospital, Edinburgh

  82,660

  West Glasgow Hospitals University

  101,757

  Yorkhill

  47,134

  Total

  2,816,885

  It should be noted that some of these figures are subject to final agreement of opening balances with health boards.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will state, in respect of the appointments of NHS trusts in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole the salaries awarded, the terms of office and the number of hours such appointees are expected to work each working week;

  (2) what time commitment is expected of (a) NHS trust chairman and (b) NHS trust non-executive directors.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Non-executives of NHS trust boards throughout Scotland are appointed for terms of up to four years. Chairmen are remunerated at one of three different rates—£15,125, £17,145 and £19,285 per annum—according to the size of the trust's budget. Non-executive directors other than chairmen receive £5,000 per annum. Trust chairmen are expected to commit two to three days per week to trust work and non-executive directors about three days per month, but many exceed those levels.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what hospital and related trusts have negotiated their own terms and conditions of employment, including pay, in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No hospital or trust in Scotland has yet introduced its own pay and terms and conditions of service for all its staff.

  Almost half of the 39 trusts in Scotland have departed to varying extents from the centrally negotiated terms and conditions of service for some groups of their staff.
  73
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to require NHS trusts(a) to hold meetings in public and (b) to publish minutes of all such meetings; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  NHS trusts are already required to hold one public meeting each year at which their audited accounts and annual. report are presented. It is a matter for trust boards to decide whether to hold more meetings in public.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the level of co-operation among hospital and related trusts in the provision of services in(a) Strathclyde and (b) the rest of Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The provision of services is a matter between the health boards and the NHS trusts. Providers will contract with the health board to deliver the best quality of care for the patients in the most effective, efficient and economical arrangement appropriate.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS trusts have confidentiality clauses in their contracts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of a contract of employment are matters for the employer and the member of staff concerned.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the NHS trusts in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole which have entered into formal agreements with Norwich Union Healthcare; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None of the NHS trusts in Scotland have entered into formal agreements with Norwich Union Healthcare.

  Any advertising material which claims such agreements is inaccurate.

  Long-stay Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many long-stay mental hospitals have been granted trust in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  With the exception of the State hospital, all long-stay mental hospitals in mainland Scotland enjoy the benefits of NHS trust status.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of people with(a) private dental insurance and (b) private medical insurance in (i) Strathcylde and (ii) Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No information is available on private health insurance.

  Life Sentences
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) men and (b) women currently serving a life prison sentence have been informed they will never be released from prison; and if he will make a statement.
  74
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has not informed any life prisoner that he or she will never be released from prison. A mandatory life prisoner may be released only on the recommendation of the Parole Board and after consultation with the judiciary. My right hon. Friend takes into account both risk to the public and criminal justice factors in deciding whether and when to refer any case to the Parole Board for its recommendation. Any recommendation made by the sentencing judge in open court as to the minimum period the prisoner should serve, including a natural life recommendation, would be a significant but not binding factor.

  Violent Assaults
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many violent assaults were inflicted upon(a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) other members of hospital and medical centre staff in (i) Strathclyde and (ii) Scotland in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held centrally.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) private nursing homes for the elderly and (b) residential homes for the elderly have been closed down and for what reasons in (i) Strathcylde and (ii) Scotland as a whole in each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  With regard to nursing homes, this information is not held centrally. This is a matter for individual health boards as registering authorities, which have the power under section 2 of the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938, as amended, to cancel registration at any time if they consider that standards are not being maintained.

  The information on the number of residential care homes is as follows:

  Local Authority

  Registered Private and Voluntary

  Total

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  Strathclyde

  0

  4

  4

  Scotland

  4

  18

  22

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  Strathclyde

  2

  3

  5

  Scotland

  4

  6

  10

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  Strathclyde

  9

  2

  11

  Scotland

  17

  7

  24

  Information on the reasons for these closures is not held centrally. The data are not necessarily indicative of the quality of care provided. Most residential homes in Scotland maintain high standards of service provision.
  75

  Credit Unions
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many credit unions are located in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole; and what is (i) the average membership and (ii) the total membership.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  While the Scottish Office provides financial support through the urban programme for some of the credit unions operating in Scotland, the Secretary of State has no overall responsibility for credit unions. I understand however, from the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd., that in June 1994 there were 79 credit unions in Scotland, of which 65 were in Strathclyde. There was a total estimated

  Number of pupils receiving school meals

  Number of pupils receiving free school meals

  Education Authority

  Nursery

  Primary1

  Secondary2

  Special

  Nursery

  Primary1

  Secondary2

  Special

  Borders

  —

  3,432

  1,535

  57

  —

  578

  130

  13

  Central

  122

  11,134

  7,857

  420

  44

  4,155

  1,312

  420

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  7,540

  5,443

  17

  —

  1,539

  546

  17

  Fife

  220

  16,767

  10,198

  459

  133

  5,642

  1,951

  339

  Grampian

  275

  21,810

  9,405

  604

  57

  4,174

  1,295

  111

  Highland

  —

  8,275

  5,843

  242

  —

  2,979

  1,107

  111

  Lothian

  802

  27,791

  13,339

  1,013

  337

  10,951

  3,200

  702

  Strathclyde

  1,305

  102,791

  57,141

  3,246

  686

  49,664

  19,058

  2,573

  Tayside

  435

  15,204

  8,885

  408

  146

  4,786

  1,392

  408

  Orkney

  —

  1,279

  938

  15

  —

  158

  47

  15

  Shetland

  —

  1,807

  1,074

  15

  —

  174

  47

  15

  Western Isles

  —

  1,519

  1,119

  12

  —

  352

  201

  12

  Scotland Total

  3,159

  219,349

  122,777

  6,508

  1,403

  84,970

  30,286

  4,820

  1 Includes 21 nursery and 16 special departments where data has been included in primary school figures.

  2 Includes 7 special departments where data has been included in secondary school figures.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Lang
  Between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, the Scottish Office has repealed the following regulations:

  The Rabies Virus Order 1979 (No. 135).

  The Control of Pollution (Licensing of WasteDisposal)(Scotland) Regulations 1977 and the Control of Pollution (Licensing of Waste Disposal) (Scotland)(Amendment) Regulations both superseded on 1 May 1994 by the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994.

  The Milk Marketing Schemes (Certification of Revocation)(Scotland) Order 1994.

  The Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 Part 1 (Certification of Cessation of Effect in Relation to Milk) Order 1994.

  The Poultry Meat (Hygiene)(Scotland) Regulations 1976, as amended.

  The Welfare and Livestock (Intensive Units) Regulations 1978. The Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987.

  The Welfare of Calves Regulations 1987.

  The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1990.

  The Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991.

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1992.

  As part of the deregulation initiative, the Scottish Office operates a continuing programme of review of the regulations, forms and rules for which it has responsibility, with a view to identifying areas where
  76
  Scottish membership of some 51,000 at that date. No separate figure for Strathclyde is available.

  School Meals
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils aged(a) under seven years of age (b) between seven and 11 years of age and (c) over 11 years of age, in each local authority area in Scotland, receive school meals; and what is the total number who receive free school meals.

  Mr. Lang
  Information on the number of pupils receiving school meals is not available for the age breakdown requested, but in respect of each school sector. Information, in respect of school meals census day in January 1994, is detailed in the following table:

  there is scope for repeal or simplification. Any proposals which arise from this process over the next 12 months will be announced as appropriate when relevant consultations are completed.

  Manpower implications for the Scottish Office are taken into account in the Department's central manpower plans which are published in the annual departmental report.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each independent school in Scotland covered by the assisted places scheme in descending order the amounts which each school received for the financial year 1994–95, the number of pupils on the school's roll, the number of pupils covered by the assisted places scheme, the proportion of the school roll covered by the assisted places scheme and the fees charged by each of the schools for assisted places pupils.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 26 January 1995, column 351–52]: The information requested is detailed in the following table. The assisted places scheme is administered and statistical information collected in respect of each school session and not by reference to financial years. The information provided relates to fee remission grant allocations for the 1994–95 school session and to pupil numbers in the schools in the autumn term of that school session:

  77

  Fee Remission Grant

  Total Numbers of pupils on school roll (i.e., Autumn 1994–95 term)

  Number of Assisted Pupils

  Proportion of Assisted Place pupils of Total School Roll

  Fees charged for Assisted Place Pupils

  School

  Allocation 1994–95 (£)

  Percentage

  (£ per annum)

  Daniel Stewart's and Melville College and the Mary Erskine School

  899,000

  2,550

  276

  11

  2,849–3,912

  George Watson's College

  747,000

  2,044

  249

  12

  2,802–3,876

  George Heriots School

  684,000

  1,491

  250

  17

  2,706–3,624

  High School of Dundee

  580,000

  1,143

  195

  17

  2,532–3,607.50

  Hutcheson's Grammar School

  452,000

  1,821

  146

  8

  3,389

  St. Aloysius College

  419,000

  1,082

  159

  15

  2,978

  Morrison's Academy

  405,000

  584

  140

  24

  3,162–3,351

  Merchiston Castle School

  330,000

  385

  65

  17

  5,391–6,480

  Glasgow Academy

  324,000

  1,010

  89

  9

  3,738–4,014

  Strathallan School

  299,000

  Autumn claim not yet received

  6,165–7,485

  Kelvinside Academy

  294,000

  546

  82

  15

  3,314–4,135

  St. Margaret's School (Edinburgh)

  260,000

  73

  670

  11

  2,939.41–3,894.69

  Glenalmond College

  258,000

  248

  41

  17

  5,687–7,575

  The Park School

  235,000

  284

  68

  24

  3,330–3,708

  Keil School

  234,000

  214

  66

  31

  3,795–,479

  Edinburgh Academy

  233,000

  902

  54

  6

  4,935

  Fettes College

  220,000

  475

  36

  8

  4,584–7,305

  Laurel Bank School

  217,000

  354

  63

  18

  3,825–4,014

  Dollar Academy

  211,000

  1,108

  69

  6

  3,251.04–3,719.04

  Loretto School

  205,000

  374

  33

  9

  5,560–7,235

  Wellington School

  197,000

  354

  51

  14

  3,951–4,290

  Kilgraston School

  192,000

  271

  54

  20

  3,726–4,161

  Robert Gordon's College

  190,000

  Autumn claim not yet received

  3,548

  Lomond School

  188,000

  493

  52

  11

  4,014–4,119

  Rudolf Steiner School

  186,000

  257

  56

  22

  2,715–3,549

  Rannoch School

  173,000

  250

  37

  15

  5,490

  Gordonstoun School

  171,000

  453

  31

  7

  6,690

  St. Leonard's School

  164,000

  329

  37

  11

  4,706–5,682

  High School of Glasgow

  139,000

  992

  47

  5

  3,060–3,987

  Craigholme School

  130,000

  498

  44

  9

  3,120–3,330

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  120,000

  174

  31

  18

  4,203

  St. Columba's School

  117,000

  571

  33

  6

  3,420–3,690

  St. George's School

  112,000

  886

  29

  3

  3,729.30–4,097.43

  Fernhill School

  79,000

  326

  29

  6

  1,773–2,768

  Belmont House School

  73,000

  382

  24

  6

  3,121–3,522

  Albyn School

  66,000

  415

  19

  5

  3,432–3,536

  St. Margaret's School, Aberdeen

  55,000

  405

  20

  5

  3,049.56–3,353.10

  Kilquhanity School

  46,000

  25

  12

  48

  2,430

  Beaconhurst School

  45,000

  238

  9

  4

  3,990–4,095

  Aberlour School

  37,000

  110

  9

  8

  4,875

  Crawfordton House School

  27,000

  45

  6

  13

  4,542

  Clifton Hall School

  27,000

  120

  6

  5

  4,827

  Lachallan School

  27,000

  120

  6

  5

  4,662

  Craigclowan Preparatory School

  25,000

  230

  10

  4

  3,495

  Hamilton College

  25,000

  742

  14

  2

  1,968.69–2,272.79

  Butterstone School

  23,000

  58

  5

  9

  4,930

  Cargilfield School

  23,000

  192

  4

  3

  5,695

  Croftinloan Preparatory School

  22,000

  81

  4

  5

  5,475

  Ardvreck School

  22,000

  147

  5

  3

  4,588

  New Park School

  19,000

  124

  4

  3

  3,951

  St. Mary's School

  17,000

  95

  4

  4

  4,536

  Belhaven Hill School

  10,000

  78

  2

  3

  5,039

  Drumley House School

  7,000

  106

  2

  2

  4,415

  Park Lodge School

  3,000

  No assisted place pupils as yet for 1994–95 school session

  2,694

  Enterprise Networks
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what annual budgets of each of the local enterprise companies were within the Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Island Enterprise networks in each of the years since these bodies were established.
  78
  Mr. Stewart
  [holding answer 2 February 1995]: The allocation of annual budgets to local enterprise companies is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise for their respective networks. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member.
  79

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister how many persons were recommended for consideration for an MBE, OBE or CBE in 1994; how many were proposed by members of the public via the new procedure; and how many awards in each category were made in 1994.

  The Prime Minister
  Some 3,000 recommendations were considered for the new year and birthday honours lists 1994, of which around 500 were supported by members of the public. It is not possible to break down the recommendations into categories, but the number of awards made were: CBE 201 awards; OBE 493; and MBE 1,202.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Prime Minister which Ministers and former Ministers have given evidence to the Scott inquiry.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [pursuant to the reply, 24 January, column 188]: I have been asked to reply.

  I wish to add the names of the following as Ministers who have given written evidence only to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry:

  The Baroness Denton of Wakefield CBE

  The right hon. Richard Needham

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 26 January to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw),Official Report, column 300, what were the total costs of operating the Government Departments and next steps agencies in the economic planning regions; what is the total budget at their disposal; and to which regions they are attached.

  The Prime Minister
  The running costs of civil departments in the United Kingdom totalled £14.6 billion in 1993–94.

  Information is not held by economic planning region and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  British Association of Sheep Exporters
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Prime Minister when(a) he last met and (b) he was last contacted by the chairman of the British Association of Sheep Exporters.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not met representatives of the British Association of Sheep Exporters and as far as I am aware they have not asked to meet me.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ex-carers
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government's measures to help the long-term unemployed back into work apply to ex-carers who have been claiming invalid care allowance and who may have been out of the job market for longer than two years.
  80
  Mr. Hague
  An ex-carer returning to work could be eligible for:

  Family Credit with the extra £10 premium if returning to work of 30 hours or more a week;

  the Back to Work Bonus if they had part-time earnings while on Income Support;

  the new benefit for couples and single people without children if they were within the pilot areas.

  The four-week extension of housing benefit, and the one-year national insurance holiday for employers, are aimed at people who have been continuously unemployed, or a lone parent, for the appropriate qualifying periods—six months for the housing benefit extension and two years for the national insurance holiday. Present plans are that periods in which income support was received while an ex-carer was exempt from the requirement to be available for work would not count towards those qualifying periods. I am considering this particular issue and will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Child Support Agency computer system was, or is planned to be upgraded, as mentioned in his answer of 21 July 1994,Official Report, column 617; what is the total number of client accounts; how many of these client accounts are in arrears; and how many arrears agreements are in force.

  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. Adam Ingram, dated 6 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of client accounts and arrears of child maintenance.
  The Child Support Computer System is being continually enhanced to reflect policy and operational changes and additional management requirements. Some of the information that you require is now available.
  As at the end of November the Agency was dealing with a total of 165,000 accounts that had been set up following the completion of a maintenance assessment for the collection of maintenance through the Agency collection service.
  In 26,000 cases the absent parent (AP) was up to date with their payments. In 58,300 they had not met their liability in full and in 70,700 no payments had been made.
  There are a further 134,000 cases where an assessment has been completed and the AP agreed to pay maintenance direct to the parent with care.
  In some cases, where maintenance has not been paid in full, an agreement with the AP has been reached that arrears of maintenance be rescheduled for payment at a future date. Information on the number of accounts in which there has been an agreement to re-schedule arrears is not currently available. Enhancements to the agency's information systems should provide for this information to be available by the end of the financial year.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to tackle the problems that the Child Support Agency is having in assessing and enforcing child support maintenance from absent parents who are self-employed.

  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.
  81
  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. Adam Ingram, dated 6 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about measures taken by the Child Support Agency to improve the assessment and enforcement of child maintenance from absent parents who are self-employed.
  The White Paper published by the Government on 23 January ("Improving Child Support"—cm 2745) includes proposals to create a new interim assessment for the self employed, together with other measures to address problems that have arisen when dealing with these cases.
  The Agency is also considering separately other options available to improve enforcement of maintenance assessments made against self employed absent parents.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) 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 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 waited (a) one month, (b) two months, (c) three months, (d) six months and (e) one year from the date of first application since the Child Support Act 1991 came into force to receive their first maintenance payment through the Child Support Agency; 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 3 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the time taken for parents with care to receive their first maintenance payment through the Child Support Agency.
  The precise information that you require does not need to be collected in the form that you mention, however, information that you may find helpful will soon be collected; I will write to you again once it is available.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the extra workload created by his recent proposals for changes to the operation of the Child Support Act 1991; what effect it will have on work backlog within the agency; and if he has any plans to recruit extra staff as a result.

  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 2 February 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the impact of the recently announced legislative and operational changes to child support on the Child Support Agency.
  We do not expect any effect on staffing or an increase in the overall workload or backlog of maintenance assessments following the operational improvements due for implementation in April 1995, over the year as a whole. The benefits arising from these changes are expected to balance out the extra work needed to implement them during this period. In the longer term they will have a beneficial effect on our operations.
  Details of the costs arising from the proposed primary legislation will be supplied in the financial memorandum to the Bill.
  82
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of deduction from earnings orders that have been issued for each six-month period since the setting up of the Child Support Agency; what consultations he has had with business organisations concerning the extra work involved for employers; and what are his proposals to compensate businesses, with particular reference to particularly small businesses, for the additional burden involved in compulsory employer processings of deduction from earnings orders.

  Mr. Burt
  The Child Support Agency issued 2,600 deduction from earnings orders in 1993–94. This figure cannot be broken down into six-month periods. Between 1 April and 30 September 1994 11,463 DEOs were issued.

  Discussions about DEOs were held with employers through the DSS employers' panel. The legislation relating to the operation of DEOs includes a provision for an employer to deduct up to £1 in respect of his administrative costs from the person's earnings each time a deduction in accordance with the DEO is made.

  Maxwell Pensioners
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what contingency plans he has to assist Maxwell pensioners who have deferred pensions when the Cuckney fund runs out in 1996; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have taken a number of exceptional steps to help the Maxwell pensioners, including the setting up of the Maxwell pensioners trust, now chaired by Mrs. Jane Newell. The trust is supporting pension payments while asset recovery work continues. We hope that parties to pensions disputes will now settle them quickly, which would extend the life of the trust and safeguard the position of many deferred pensioners. However, the Government cannot assume responsibilities which properly belong to others.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Two items of legislation for which this Department is responsible and which place an obligation on business or the general public have been withdrawn—as opposed to amended or replaced—during the past 12 months:From 10 October 1994, regulations 37, 38, 41 and 42 of the Industrial Injuries (Prescribed Diseases) Regulations 1985 were repealed. These required periodic medical examinations of people engaged in certain occupations involving a risk of pneumoconiosis. The savings to the Department was approximately £100.000 per annum in medical and X-ray costs.

  83
  The Occupational Pension Schemes (Friendly Societies) Regulations 1976 (SI 1976 No 598) have been revoked with effect from 7 February 1995. These were redundant following introduction of the Friendly Societies Act 1992 which allowed incorporated and registered friendly societies to carry out group insurance without approval.
  Neither had an impact on this Department's manpower.

  The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are completed.

  Departmental Administration Costs
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the total departmental administration costs for each year since 1979, in 1994 prices.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table:

  Expenditure since 1979–80 uplifted by current GDP deflators to 1994–95 prices

  Year

  £ million

  1979–80

  2,096

  1980–81

  2,271

  1981–82

  2,457

  1982–83

  2,488

  1983–84

  2,665

  1984–85

  2,751

  1985–86

  2,695

  1986–87

  2,835

  1987288

  3,398

  1988–89

  3,380

  1989–90

  3,471

  1990–91

  3,562

  1991–92

  3,793

  1992–93

  4,084

  1993–942

  4,350

  1994–952

  4,177

  Notes:

  1 Expenditure on total Departmental administration costs is included in table 1 of the Social Security Departmental Report.

  2 These figures will shortly be updated on publication of the Departmental Report in March.

  3The figures quoted in the table include the grants to Local Authorities for Housing Benefit and Community Charge administration and payment to Department for Employment for the administration of the Unemployment Benefit Office network. These payments were £629 million in 1986–87 and are anticipated to be in the region of £944 million in 1994–95.

  Benefits
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much his Department spent or expects to spend in Scotland on(a) income support for mortgage interest and (b) housing benefit in each year between 1991–92 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table. Information on expected expenditure for income support mortgage interest in 1995–96 will not be available until after the consultation exercise on the proposals announced in the Budget.
  84

  Estimated expenditure on income support mortgage interest and housing benefit in Scotland

  Year

  Estimated expenditure on income support mortgage interest £ million

  Estimated expenditure on housing benefit £ million

  1991–92

  33.1

  590

  1992–93

  32.4

  650

  1993–94

  32.6

  730

  1994–95

  32.6

  820

  1995–96

  n/a

  930

  Notes:

  Income Support Mortgage Interest figures:

  1. Source: Income Support Annual Statistical Enquiries, May 1991–1993 and Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1994.

  2. rounded to nearest hundred thousand.

  3. based on estimates on weekly amounts and number of recipients at time of survey.

  Housing Benefit figures:

  4. the figures underlie those that appear in the 1994 Social Security Departmental Report.

  5. figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the severance payments made to special advisers in each of the last five years indicating(a) the amount and (b) the date.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 1 February 19951: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fishing (Aid)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 452, on aid to the fishing industry in other EEC countries, if he will obtain from the commission and publish the full list of aid it has approved, along with a list of unauthorised payments it has checked or objected to.

  Mr. Jack
  A full list of aids to the fishing industry is compiled annually by the Commission, but not published because it contains information supplied by member states on a confidential basis. The UK has pressed for this restriction to be lifted. Some summary information is available in the Commission's periodic surveys of state aids in the European Community. The latest of these covers 1986 to 1990 and is available in the Library of the House.

  The Commission does publish details of aids in the Official Journal of the European Communities following their approval. This also contains details of unauthorised aids which the Commission is examining under the procedure set out in article 93(2) of the treaty of Rome, and the subsequent conclusions of such examinations.
  85

  Fishing (Conservation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 27 January,Official Report, column 452, on the application of conservation measures, if he will now request the Commission to progress new technical conservation measures to ban industrial fishing in British waters round the south-west and on the Dogger bank.

  Mr. Jack
  At the December 1994 Fisheries Council, the Commission agreed to bring forward by 30 June 1995 proposals to improve the technical conservation rules for western waters. The Commission has also been asked by the Council to review the technical conservation measures applying in the North sea. At my instigation, Community scientists are currently examining the effects of fishing and particularly industrial fishing, on the marine ecosystem.

  EU Fisheries Ministers will consider the outcome of this work, and appropriate action, at future meetings. I shall consider the UK position in relation to these matters in liaison with the industry.

  Coastal Protection
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funds are available through his Department in the current financial year for coastal protection and repair.

  Mr. Jack
  This Department offers grant aid to coast protection authorities for new or improved defences designed to protect land from erosion or encroachment by the sea. The supply provision in 1994–95 currently stands at £26 million.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the value of food and drink stocks held by the Government and by European Community bodies as a consequence of agriculture price intervention; and what are the annual costs involved in holding such stocks, including the costs of depreciation.

  Mr. Jack
  Details for the Community as a whole are contained in annexes 9 and 10 of the annual financial reports of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund guarantee section. Details of intervention stocks within the United Kingdom are contained in table 13 of the 1994 Department report by the Ministery of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board, Cm 2053. These publications have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total actual annual expenditure for his Department in each year since 1979 in 1994 prices; and if he will provide a breakdown of each figure to show expenditures on(a) price support measures and (b) set-aside schemes.

  Mr. Jack
  Information on this subject is contained in the annual appropriation accounts for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board executive agency. Information is also available in, "Agriculture in the United Kingdom", which has been 86
  produced since 1988 and, prior to then, in the annual review of agriculture White Papers. The data can be expressed in 1994 prices using the published retail prices index information. Copies of the above publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Veal Rearing Systems
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the representatives and the countries they represented that were present at the recent Agriculture Ministers meeting which agreed to bring forward the review of veal rearing systems from 1997.

  Mr. Jack
  The meeting in question was the January Agriculture Council and all EC member states were, as is usual, represented by their Agriculture Ministers, with the exception of Finland, which was represented by the Secretary General of its Agriculture Ministry. The European Commission was represented by Mr. Franz Fischler.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available in full the legal advice he has received as regards the use of article 36 of the treaty of Rome, to stop the export of calves to be reared in the crate system.

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food set out the conclusion which emerges from the legal advice, and the reasons for it, in his letter of 1 February to all right hon. and hon. Members.

  Regional Operations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff his Department employs on a regional basis in each standard English region; what is the cost of running these regional operations; what was the total budget for each region in the latest available year; and what are the main purposes for which the budget is used.

  Mr. Jack
  The Department's regional administrative organisation, consisting of nine regional service centres, employed a total of 1,610 staff as at 1 January 1995 with a budget provision for 1994–95 of £35.4 million, as published in the Supply estimates.

  The regional service centres handle the administration of grant and subsidy schemes, licensing and various other services provided mainly to farmers and growers. The present organisation into nine regions was adopted in 1992 and was designed to match the distribution of the fanning industry rather than the standard regions used by other Departments.

  Apart from the primary regional organisation, there are separate regional structures within the Department for the state veterinary service and various inspectorates, for which information in the form requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The executive agency, ADAS, also has its own regional structure.
  87

WALES

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken by his Department to improve the situation relating to provision of dental services in Gwynedd and in particular Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and the constituency of Caernarfon.

  Mr. Richards
  Following the Secretary of State's announcement of an extra £2.5 million for dental services in Wales, Gwynedd health authority, along with all other Welsh health authorities, has been invited to bring forward proposals to improve the quality and availability of dental services in its area. Already in this financial year, the Welsh Office has provided an additional £50,000 for the authority to purchase extra treatment sessions from the community dental service.

  Gwynedd family health services authority has permission to employ salaried dentists. The Welsh Office is funding all the costs associated with this salaried dental service including the recruitment campaign; the salaries of all staff employed; all other practice expenses; and the costs of converting and equipping dental suites at Caernarfon, Pwllheli and Llanfairfechan.

  Location incentive grants are also available from the Welsh Office to attract new general dental practitioners into Gwynedd.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when was his Department's last review of the provision of community dentistry in Wales; what were its fundings; how matters have proceeded since 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The subject of community dentistry may be discussed with each of the district health authorities as part of the normal annual review process by the Welsh Office, which assesses their performance jointly with family health services authorities. The district health authorities are responsible for commissioning community dental services in light of local needs and locally determined priorities. They are also responsible for monitoring services.

  General Practitioner Fundholders
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to ensure that in the periods of the three final months of the financial year, the patients of non-fundholders are not disadvantaged in respect of patients of fundholders in waiting periods for operations.

  Mr. Richards
  Hospital treatment for patients of non-fundholding GPs is purchased by district health authorities. The additional waiting times initiative funding of £4 million which my right hon. Friend announced last November should ensure that both the district health authorities and GP fundholders in Wales are able to meet the waiting times targets which they identified in their health plans for 1994–95.
  88

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many opted-out schools there are in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  Sixteen.

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Visit)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he visited the constituency of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy; what was the duration of the visit; and what was its purpose.

  Mr. Redwood
  I visited Meirionnydd Nant Conwy on 19 September to see the Ffestiniog railway, the A5 through Pont Padog and the set of the "White Knights" film.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost to public funds of the production, printing, distribution and advertising of the patients charter when launched(a) in 1991 and (b) in 1994; and how many copies were printed in each case.

  Mr. Richards
  The budget for the patients charter in 1991 was £250,000 and £45,000 for the 1994 edition. In 1991, 1,250,000 copies were printed, compared with 301,000 in 1994.

  Liquidations
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many businesses in Wales went into liquidation in(a) 1993 and (b)

  Mr. Richards
  Official estimates of liquidations are compiled for Wales and England combined and are not separately available for Wales.

  Estimates of total liquidations for England and Wales for 1992–93 and 1993–94 are 27,829 and 22,058 respectively.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many new businesses were set up in 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Richards
  Comprehensive information on the number of new business start-ups in Wales is not available. However, partial information is available from VAT data, though this excludes smaller new business start-ups. This shows that during 1993, the latest year for which data is available, there were some 7,200 registrations for VAT in Wales.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy towards signing Welsh language letters from his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend's policy is not to sign letters in languages he cannot understand. he replies to correspondence written to him in Welsh by sending a Welsh translation of his reply together with the signed English version.
  89

  Conversion Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the categories of grant available to convert existing shop premises to residential dwellings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  District councils may make available discretionary home renovation grants to convert empty buildings, including shop premises, into dwellings. Since 1991–92 I have made £19 million available which has created an additional 1,200 dwellings. A further £1.5 million is available next year.

  Shopkeeper Grants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the categories of grant available to shopkeepers in Wales to improve and modernise their premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Welsh Office funding of local authority regeneration projects and strategies, through the strategic development scheme, includes in some cases support for grant aid towards the renovation of shops and other properties. They are normally in designated commercial improvement or renewal areas. The Welsh Development Agency's town improvement grant may support external improvement of buildings, including shops, in urban areas. The Welsh Office-through Cadw, Welsh Historic Monuments—may also offer grants on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council for Wales towards the costs of repairs in buildings of outstanding historic or architectural interest.

  Grant may also be provided towards external repairs which would make a significant contribution to the enhancement of the preservation of the character of buildings within a conservation area, or form part of a designated town scheme, administered by the local planning authority.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of set-aside land there are in each of the Welsh counties.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following table shows the area of set-aside land by Welsh Counties as recorded in the agricultural census return of June 1994:

  Hectares

  Clwyd

  610

  Dyfed

  2,094

  Mid Glamorgan

  219

  South Glamorgan

  430

  West Glamorgan

  238

  Gwent

  838

  Gwynedd

  781

  Powys

  945

  Wales

  6,155

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sites for which opencast coal 90
  extraction planning permission has been applied for; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

  Council Tax Appeals
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales with reference to council tax appeals, if he will state how many appeals under council tax legislation in Ynys Môn(a) have been dealt with and (b) are outstanding; and what are the target dates for completion of those currently outstanding.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As at 31 January 1995 1,214 appeals had been settled and 636 appeals were outstanding. For Wales as a whole 41,630–77.2 per cent.—of initial council tax appeals were settled by 31 December 1994 against a target of 38,000–70 per cent. Around 90 per cent. of initial appeals will be cleared by 31 March 1995. Targets for the clearance of outstanding and subsequent appeals are under consideration.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Redwood
  The local Government (Publication of Manpower Information) (Wales) (Revocation) Regulations 1994 was withdrawn. The Department is continuing to review its rules and regulations and any which are to be withdrawn in the next 12 months will be announced as and when consultations are complete. The manpower implications are taken into account in the Department's central manpower plans which will be published in the Welsh Office departmental report in March. Most regulations are England and Wales or United Kingdom wide and do not fall to the Welsh Office to repeal. The Welsh Office has cut the number of forms sent to the health service by a third over the last year.

  Civil Service Jobs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the likely effects of the centralisation of civil service jobs in Wales on unemployment statistics.

  Mr. Redwood
  Changes in civil service job numbers are just one of many factors which influence unemployment statistics.

  A449
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the Abergavenney turn-off on the northbound section of the A449 between Newport and Raglan will be reopened following reconstruction.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Raglan junction on the A449 trunk road is now open.
  91

  Health Service Forms
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 31 January,Official Report, column 642, how long each of the forms scrapped has

  Forms to the NHS discontinued in 1994–95

  Form

  Description

  Information collected in present format since

  Number of times collected each year

  Financial returns—costing:

  HFR7/TFR8

  Catering, laundry and linen

  1987–88

  1

  HFR16/TFR6

  Ambulance services

  1987–88

  1

  HFR19

  Purchase of health care from non NHS bodies and grants to voluntary bodies

  1991–92

  1

  HFR20

  Joint Finance and Care in the Community

  1987–88

  1

  HFR24

  Care group analysis of health services purchased

  1991–92

  1

  HFR26/TFR7

  Analysis of stock

  1991–92

  1

  HFR27/TFR5

  Fixed assets

  1991–92

  1

  HFR28

  Artificial limb and Wheelchair Services

  1987–88

  1

  FFRO6

  FHSA revenue and capital income

  1987–88

  1

  FFR07

  FHSA administration

  1987–88

  1

  FFR08

  FHSA administration expenditure-capital

  1987–88

  1

  Financial returns—other:

  FIS(HA)4

  Superannuation forecast

  1993–94

  4

  FIS(FHS)5b

  Cash limited GMS; practice staff costs

  1989–90

  12

  FIS(FHS)6

  Suspense items

  1985–86

  12

  FIS(FHS)7

  Superannuation/PAYE/NI

  1977

  12

  —

  Incentive Bonus Scheme for ancillary staff

  1978

  1

  —

  Memo Trading accounts standards

  1992

  1

  Statistical returns:

  KA32

  Summary of Patients Journeys

  1987–88

  1

  KE85

  Estate Finance/Budgets

  1991–92

  1

  KH05

  Summary of Ward attenders

  1988–89

  1

  KH08

  NHs Operating theatres: availability and use

  1988–89

  4

  KH10a

  Inventory and Intended availability of radiotherapy equipment

  1988–89

  1

  KH10b

  Actual availability of radiotherapy equipment

  1988–89

  1

  KH10c

  Summary of radiotherapy machine activity

  1989–90

  1

  KH11a

  Diagnostic departments: pathology—unit values

  1988–89

  1

  KH11b

  Diagnostic departments: pathology—location of departments and equipment

  1988–90

  1

  KH13

  Diagnostic departments: Physiological measurement

  1988–89

  1

  SBH112(w)(MI)

  Return of mental illness facilities

  1970s

  1

  SBH112(w)(MH)

  Return of mental handicap facilities

  1970s

  1

  KO39

  Hospital Eye Service

  1988–89

  1

  SH9

  Patients receiving treatment under contractual arrangements

  Early 1980s

  1

  KC54

  Maternity services

  1990–91

  1

  LHS27/1

  Births

  Early 1970s

  1

  KM45

  Manpower joiners summary

  1987

  1

  KM46

  Manpower leavers summary

  1987

  1

  Recycling Collection Points
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many recycling collection points there were in Wales for (i) glass, (ii) save-a-can, (iii) aluminium cans, (iv) newspapers and magazines, (v) plastic bottles, (vi) plastic carrier bags, (vii) textiles and (viii) vending cups in(a) 1990 and (b)

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1990, there were 212 glass banks and 19 save-a-can sites. Figures for the other commodities are not available.
  92
  been in use; and how many times per annum completion was required by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information available is given in the following table. In many cases, when these forms were introduced they superseded existing returns of similar information.

  District Councils currently provide collection points for the public as follows:

  Waste type

  Collection points

  Glass

  449

  Cans (all types)

  253

  Paper and Magazines

  318

  Textiles

  252

  Information is not available in respect of plastic bottles, plastic carrier bags or vending cups.
  93

  Old Building Waste
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of, and percentage of, old building waste was used as hard core or aggregate in Wales in(a) 1985, (b) 1990 and (c)

  Mr. Redwood
  Accurate information is not available.

  Broadleaf Trees
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many upland sessile oakwoods have been planted in Wales in each of the last 10 years; and what plans he has to make available funds to encourage further planting of this broadleaf.

  Mr. Redwood
  The areas of upland sessile oakwoods planted each year are not recorded separately and the information requested is therefore not available. The Government provide grants for the establishment of broadleaved woodlands, including sessile oakwoods, under the woodland grant scheme.

  Education Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the education component of standard spending assessments per pupil, net of specific grants, in sub blocks five to 10 and 11 to 15 in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96 (i) in each Welsh local education authority and (ii) on average.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend does not set an education component within Welsh local authorities' standard spending assessments. It is for each authority to determine how much of its total available resources to direct to each of its services, including education, taking account of its statutory responsibilities and its perception of local needs and priorities.

  Recycling
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of all household waste is currently being recycled in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Accurate information is not available. The Government's target is to recycle 25 per cent. of the United Kingdom's household waste by the year 2000. Most district councils have now prepared recycling plans and the Welsh Office will be monitoring the progress they make toward achieving the target.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number and monetary value of supplementary credit approvals promised to Welsh local authorities to develop recycling projects since the launch of "This Common Inheritance".

  Mr. Redwood
  In Wales, resources, which include those for developing recycling projects, are unhypothecated and distributed on a formula basis. This allows individual authorities to determine their own priorities for capital expenditure. This arrangement has the support of the local authority associations. The most recent capital settlement for local authorities for 1995–96 show a good increase in permitted expenditure overall.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of households in each of the Welsh counties are covered by kerbside collection recycling schemes.
  94
  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is not available. However, I know that several district councils have been actively considering such schemes in the context of their recycling plans.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites of special scientific interest in Wales have been damaged by overgrazing in each year since 1985; what was the hectarage of each site; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Responsibility for the designation and monitoring of sites of special scientific interest rests with the Countryside Council for Wales. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many kilometres of hedgerows have been lost in Wales in each year since 1984.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, two sample surveys covering the periods from 1984 to 1990 and from 1990 to 1993 indicated net losses of hedgerows in Wales of 18,000 km and 5,500 km respectively at an average annual net loss of 2,570 km for the first period and 1,830 km for the second period.

  Bird Populations
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the population of(a) corn bunting, (b) grey partridge, (c) skylark, (d) curlew, (e) redshank and (f) snipe have been observed in Wales in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no annual data of sufficient quality for Wales.

  Data gathered by the British Trust for Ornithology between 1988 and 1991, however, shows the number of 10 km squares in Wales occupied by each species as follows:

  Corn Bunting: 5

  Grey partridge: 54

  Skylark: 203

  Curlew: 176

  Redshank: 60

  Snipe: 105

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list for each year since 1984(a) annually and (b) quarterly the number of people in Great Britain surveyed by the labour force survey who, although they are without a job, have looked for a job within the four weeks prior to their labour force survey interview or are waiting to start a job within the two weeks following their labour force survey interview, and the number of

  95
  people who are neither in employment nor unemployed on the International Labour Organisation measure but who said they would like a job.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information available from the labour force survey is shown in the following table, classified to the categories economically inactive and International Labour Organisation unemployed as defined by the international guidelines set out by the ILO.

  Up-to-date figures for the groups tabulated are published quarterly, in greater detail, in both the LFS "Quarterly Bulletin" and in the LFS helpline section of the Employment Gazette; these data show that the majority of people within the economically inactive group who say they want work but are not actively seeking it are students; looking after a family or home; or long-term sick or disabled. Although such detailed information about the economically inactive group was not collected prior to 1984, the available figures for spring 1979 show that 23 per cent. of the population of working age were economically inactive, compared with 21 per cent. in autumn 1994, the latest available figure.

  ILO unemployed and economically inactive people who would like a job

  Great Britain not seasonally adjusted

  Thousands

  ILO Unemployed1

  Economically Inactive2

  Quarter

  Wants job3 but not seeking work in past 4 weeks

  Wants job3 and seeking work but not available to start in next 2 weeks

  Spring 1984

  3,094

  2,198

  216

  Spring 1985

  2,968

  2,039

  227

  Spring 1986

  2,969

  2,106

  210

  Spring 1987

  2,879

  1,971

  209

  Spring 1988

  2,376

  1,985

  199

  Spring 1989

  1,978

  2,090

  224

  Spring 1990

  1,869

  2,011

  187

  Spring 1991

  2,302

  2,025

  220

  Spring 1992

  2,649

  1,906

  313

  Summer 1992

  2,797

  1,913

  277

  Autumn 1992

  2,801

  1,897

  231

  Winter 1992–93

  2,920

  1,945

  232

  Spring 1993

  2,804

  1,885

  310

  Summer 1993

  2,894

  2,003

  245

  Autumn 1993

  2,792

  2,036

  190

  Winter 1993–94

  2,737

  2,168

  206

  Spring 1994

  2,615

  2,059

  264

  Summer 1994

  2,679

  2,036

  225

  Autumn 1994

  2,470

  4—

  4—

  Source:Labour Force Survey

  1 The ILO definition counts as unemployed those people without a paid job who were available to start work within the next two weeks and had either looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview or were waiting to start a job they had already obtained.

  2 People who are neither in employment nor ILO unemployed according to the international guidelines of the ILO.

  3 According to responses to the LFS question.

  4 Not yet available.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many disabled persons registered with the Employment Service in the Durham district are actively seeking employment; and how many registered 96
  disabled persons in the current financial year, have (i) enrolled at job clubs in the Durham district and (ii) completed a course at a job club in the Durham district.

  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. Gerry Steinberg, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of disabled persons registered with the Employment Service and actively seeking work and disabled person attendance at Jobclub in the Durham District.
  I am unable to tell you how many people with disabilities are registered with the Employment Service in the Durham North District and are actively seeking work because we do not gather this information. However we do record the number of clients with health/disability problems who are placed in jobs by Jobcentres. I am pleased to be able to tell you that within the Durham North Employment Service District (covering the Durham City, Consett Stanley, Chester-le-Street and Spennymoor areas), 302 clients with health/disability problems have been placed into jobs during the period April-December 1994. This represents 4% of the total job placings for the ES Durham North District.
  Placing unemployed people with disabilities is a key activity of the Employment Service and is not the sole responsibility of our specialist staff such as Disability Employment Advisors (DEAs) or our Placing Assessment and Counselling Teams (PACTs). Not all ES clients with health and disability problems actually register as disabled persons under the Disabled Persons and Employment Acts 1944 and 1958.
  Some people are reluctant to disclose that they are disabled and many disabilities are not visible. Our services and help are available to any client with long term health or disability problems which affect the kind of work they can do, irrespective of whether they are actually registered as a disabled person. The ES Access to Work (ATW) scheme offers practical help and advice in a flexible way, tailored to suit individual need in individual jobs. ATW is only one of many programmes and special help provision available to clients with health problems.
  There are 7 Jobclubs within the ES Durham North District. During the period April-December 1994 there has been a throughput of 1060 clients including 79 people who though not necessarily registered disabled under the Acts, indicated that they have a long term health problem or disability which affects the kind of work they are able to do. Of these 1060 clients, 468 found a job but I am unable to say how many of these clients had previously had a health problem.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what impact this will have on his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Since 1 January 1994 the Department has revoked seven sets of workplace health and safety regulations and three sets of employment regulations. These are shown in the following list.

  The Department is continuing to identify rules and regulations for withdrawal. Those for withdrawal in the next 12 months will be announced when consultations are completed.
  97
  The staffing implications are taken into account in the preparation of the annual departmental report which will be published in March.

  The Construction (Notices of Operations and Works) Order 1965 No. 221. (Revoked by SI 994 No. 3140.)

  The Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging) Regulations 1993 No. 1746. (Revoked by SI 1994 No. 3247.)

  The Health and Safety (Dangerous Pathogens) Regulations 1981 No. 1011. (Revoked by SI 1994 No. 3246)

  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 No. 1657. (Revoked by SI No. 3246)

  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 1991 No. 2431. (Revoked by SI 1994 No. 3246)

  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 1992 No. 2382. (Revoked by SI 1994 No. 3246.)

  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1984 No. 824. (Revoked by SI 1994 No. 1886.)

  Section 59(1) (b) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1973

  The licensing requirements of the Employment Agencies Act 1973.

  The remaining employment provisions of the Shops Act 1950.

  Jobseekers
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether jobseekers allowance will be paid to an individual who is taking steps to carry out a reasonable direction for the purposes of seeking entitlement to jobseekers allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A benefit sanction will be imposed only if it is determined that a jobseeker has refused or failed to carry out a direction without good cause and that the direction was reasonable, having regard to his circumstances.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what rights of appeal jobseekers allowance claimants will have to an adjudicating officer if they feel they are being required to agree to something they consider to be unreasonable.

  Miss Widdecombe
  All labour market decisions will be made by independent adjudication officers. Clause 7(8) and 7(9) of the Jobseekers Bill provide for jobseekers to be able to refer the terms and conditions by a proposed jobseeker's agreement to an independent adjudication officer if they believe they are unreasonable. They will also have the right for the adjudication officer's determination to be reviewed by a second adjudication officer, and the right of appeal to a social security appeals tribunal.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what safeguards will be taken to ensure that, where directions are applied to a person seeking entitlement to the jobseekers allowance and which require a subjective opinion of a claimant's life style, appearance, or general physical, mental or emotional make up, the 98
  opinion held by the Employment Service officer issuing the directions will not in any way discriminate against the claimant concerned;

  (2) how the nature of discretion exercised by Employment Service officers will be held to be free from prejudice or ignorance in directing the claimant for purposes of entitlement to the jobseekers allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A jobseeker's direction must be reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the jobseeker. If the jobseeker refuses or fails to carry out a direction, an independent adjudication officer will determine whether the direction was reasonable and whether the jobseeker had good cause for failing to act.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what special provision will be made available for people who have transferred to jobseekers allowance from incapacity benefit.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Jobseekers will be able to restrict their availability to the type of hours of work they are prepared to take because of their physical or mental condition.

  Significant extra resources will be provided over the next three years to fund additional back-to-work help for those leaving incapacity benefit. The Benefits Agency and the Employment Service are working closely to ensure a smooth transition from incapacity to unemployment benefits for those who will be affected.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) who will be empowered in the Employment Service to judge that a direction issued to a claimant seeking jobseekers allowance is considered to be reasonable; and who is empowered to disqualify a claimant from benefit;

  (2) who will be responsible for deciding whether the amount of time provided for claimants to carry out directions issued by Employment Service officers for the purposes of seeking entitlement to jobseekers allowance is fair and reasonable;

  (3) who will determine that the advice given by Employment Service staff to direct claimants seeking entitlement for purposes of jobseekers allowance will be in the best interests of the individual and that this advice has been optimally matched to improve the claimant's chances of finding work.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Jobseekers Bill provides that a jobseekers's direction must be reasonable in the claimant's circumstances, and given with a view of assisting him to find or retain employment or improving his prospects of being employed. If the jobseeker refuses or fails to carry it out, an independent adjudication officer will take all the facts of the case into account in deciding whether to impose a sanction, including whether the claimant had good cause for his action.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what safeguards will be built into the jobseeker's allowance appeals process to ensure that claimants are not coerced into signing the agreement against their will.

  Miss Widdecombe
  If a jobseeker does not agree with the terms and conditions of a proposed jobseeker's agreement, he can refer it to an independent adjudication officer for a determination. He will also have the right to have that determination reviewed by a second adjudication officer, and the right of appeal to a social security appeals tribunal.
  99
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in what instances discretion will be held to apply in directing the claimant for purposes of entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance to take steps as provided in section 6(3) (a) of the Jobseekers Bill.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no provision under this clause to give direction to jobseekers. Jobseekers will be required to demonstrate that they are actively seeking employment. The steps which will constitute meeting this requirement will be set out in regulations.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment who will judge if the assessment for the purposes of entering into the jobseeker's agreement is accurate and a genuine reflection of an individual's skills, qualification and experience.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The employment officer and the jobseeker will seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement. If they cannot agree on the terms an conditions of the proposed agreement, it will be referred to an independent adjudication officer.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice and guidance will be given to Employment Service staff of the interpretation and execution of directions under section 6(3) (a) of the Jobseekers Bill; and what specific circumstances will be prescribed to fall within the jurisdiction of the definition of directions.

  Miss Widdecombe
  There is no provision under this clause to give directions to jobseekers. Jobseekers will be required to demonstrate that they are actively seeking employment. The steps which will constitute meeting this requirement will be set out in regulations.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the composition of the jobseekers allowance project team; how often it has met; and to whom it reports.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The jobseeker's allowance is jointly the responsibility of my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Social Security. An official group, chaired by the Employment Department, is accountable to them for implementation of the allowance. A project director is accountable for the implementation project to the implementation group and is assisted in the day-to-day management of the project by a project manager. The latter is assisted by a project management board, comprising himself, key managers within the project, and representatives of the ED, the Department of Social Security and their agencies. The board has met 12 times.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the term "direction" is to be defined in relation to the jobseeker's allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Jobseekers Bill defines in clause 15 the term "jobseeker's direction" as "a direction given in writing by an employment officer—with a view to achieving one or more of the following:

  (i) assisting the claimant to find employment;

  (ii) assisting the claimant to retain employment;

  (iii) improving the claimant's prospects of being employed.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether interpreters will be readily available for people seeking entitlement to jobseekers allowance whose first language is not English.

  Miss Widdecombe
  For those jobseekers whose first language is not English, and who need help with 100
  translation, as now, an appointment will be booked with an adviser with the appropriate language skills, where they are available. Alternatively, another member of staff with appropriate language skills will act as a interpreter. If neither of these is possible the jobseeker will be encouraged to bring a friend or relative to the interview to act as an interpreter. Jobcentres are also able to make use of local services offering interpreting facilities where there is a need.

  Mr.McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment which members of staff in the Employment Service will be empowered to issue directions to claimants seeking entitlement to jobseekers allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Jobseeker's directions will be given by staff who have appropriate training to do so.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what timescale will apply to claimants seeking entitlement to jobseekers allowance for carrying out directions as issued by Employment Service staff;

  (2) how long claimants seeking entitlement to jobseekers allowance will be given, in order that they may take steps to carry out a reasonable direction.

  Miss Widdecombe
  A jobseeker's direction will specify the action required of the claimant, and the time by which it is to be carried out. The Jobseekers Bill provides that a direction must be reasonable in the claimant's circumstances, and the independent adjudication officer will therefore take the required timescale into account in deciding whether to impose a sanction for the claimant's failure to carry out a direction.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how long in practice the assessment process will take for the purposes of entering into the jobseekers agreement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The process of entering into the jobseekers agreement will be handled as part of the new claim interview. Work is currently in progress to assess the impact of all new features of the jobseekers allowance, including the jobseeker's agreement, on the structure and nature of the new claim interview.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment has been made of future premises needs for the Employment Service after the introduction of the jobseekers allowance.

  Miss Widdecombe
  Work is underway as part of the implementation of jobseeker's allowance to assess the implications of JSA on the network of Employment Service jobcentres. This taking place alongside other development work with which it is linked, including in particular the detailed business processes through which the allowance will be delivered.

  "Connect"
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many issues there have been of the newsletter "Connect"; what is the circulation; and what has been the total cost of production.

  Miss Widdecombe
  At 3 February 1995 there have been three issues of the newsletter "Connect". The current circulation is 61,500 per issue, to staff in the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service, the Department of Social Security and the Employment Department. The total cost of production of the three issues has been £31,324.
  101

  Minister's Working Hours
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average number of hours worked in a week by(a) a Secretary of State, (b) a Minister of State and (c) a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in his Department.

  Mr. Portillo
  Ministers in the Employment Department work the hours necessary to complete all the ministerial and departmental tasks for which they are responsible. Ministers do not keep detailed logs of the hours per week which they work.

  MSc Courses
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) those MSc courses that are currently funded with money from the European social fund, (b) the criteria for the distribution of ESF money for MSc courses and (c) those MSc courses that have ceased to receive ESF money this academic year; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  MSc courses may receive support from the European social fund towards the costs of training eligible unemployed people. All such courses must lead to a recognised higher or degree level vocational qualifications.

  ESF funds are allocated on a calendar year basis, following a competitive selection process. The following list shows the courses which received approval for an element of ESF funding for 1994. Applications for 1995 funds are currently being processed.

  Information on courses that have ceased to receive funding during the last year could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Higher Education—European Social Fund Unit 1994 Recommended Masters Courses

  Institution Name

  Project Name

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  European Business MNGMT and IT Systems

  Canterbury Christ Church Collge of H.E

  Transnational MSC in IT

  University of Luton

  SEM D and M

  Nene College

  MBA (Europe)

  Nene College

  Office Systems and Data Communications

  Nene College

  Office Systems and Data Communications 025

  Huddersfield University

  Analytical Chemistry

  Huddersfield University

  Analytical Chemistry

  Huddersfield University

  Engineering

  Huddersfield University

  Software Development

  Huddersfield University

  Textile Technology for Textile Designers

  Huddersfield University

  Textile Technology for Textile Designers

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Clothing Design and Technology

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Food Manufacture

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Management in Manufacturing Industry

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Quality Assured Applied Chem Analysis

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  Science and Engineering

  Middlesex University

  Applied Informatics (Trans)

  Middlesex University

  Computing for Manufacturing Industry

  102

  Higher Education—European Social Fund Unit 1994 Recommended Masters Courses

  Institution Name

  Project Name

  Middlesex University

  ELEC Product Innovation and MNGMT

  Middlesex University

  Environmental Technology

  Middlesex University

  Microelectronic Tech and Application

  Middlesex University

  VT in Business Info Systems

  Middlesex University

  VT in Knowledge Engineering

  North London University

  Computing for Women

  Nottingham Trent University

  Integrated Environmental Control

  Nottingham Trent University

  Manufacturing Systems

  Nottingham Trent University

  PG Conversion in IT

  Portsmouth University

  ADV Manufacturing Technology

  Portsmouth University

  Advanced Manufacturing Technology

  Portsmouth University

  Advanced Manufacturing Technology

  Portsmouth University

  Design and Product Cultural Interact Dbases

  Portsmouth University

  Microwave Design Training

  Plymouth University

  Applied Marine Studies

  Plymouth University

  Applied Marine Studies

  Plymouth University

  Hydrographic Surveying

  Plymouth University

  Hydrographic Surveying

  Plymouth University

  MSC Applied Fish Technology

  University of Sunderland

  Applied Business Programme

  University of Sunderland

  Applied Computing Programme

  University of Sunderland

  Applied Environmental Programme

  University of Sunderland

  Applied Technology Programme

  University of Sunderland

  Combined Environmental Technologies

  University of Sunderland

  Combined Industrial Computing

  Wolverhampton University

  Applied Microbiology and Biotech

  Wolverhampton University

  Computing for Women Returners

  Wolverhampton University

  ENV. Sciences for U/E Grads

  Wolverhampton University

  PG MGT for Women Returners

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  Electronic Imaging

  Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art

  European Urban Conservation

  Edinburgh College of Art

  Urban Design

  Glasgow Caledonian University

  IT and Management Conservation

  Napier University

  Advanced Electronic Design ENG

  Napier University

  Business Info Management

  Napier University

  Control Engineering

  Napier University

  Electronic Engineer (Digital Systems)

  Napier University

  Electronic Engineer (Manufacture)

  Napier University

  Engineering Design Analyst

  Napier University

  Environmental Technology

  Napier University

  Info Systems Analyst

  Napier University

  Large Software Systems Development

  Napier University

  Manufacturing Systems Engineering

  Napier University

  Materials Analysis

  Napier University

  Quality Systems Management

  Napier University

  Software Analyst and Designer

  Napier University

  Software Engineer

  Napier University

  Systems Integration Engineering

  Napier University

  Water Resource Managements

  North of Scotland College of Agriculture

  Agricultural Biotechnology

  North of Scotland College of Agriculture

  Agricultural Technology

  103

  Higher Education—European Social Fund Unit 1994 Recommended Masters Courses

  Institution Name

  Project Name

  North of Scotland College of Agriculture

  Agro Food Technologies

  North of Scotland College of Agriculture

  Organic Farming Technologies

  Robert Gordon University

  Advanced Technologies

  Robert Gordon University

  Environmental Technology and ECO Design

  Aberdeen University

  Agro Industrial Technology

  Aberdeen University

  Applied Artificial Intelligence

  Aberdeen University

  Applied Artificial Intelligence

  Aberdeen University

  Applied Artificial Intelligence

  Aberdeen University

  Chemical Analysis

  Aberdeen University

  Engineering and Environmental Technology

  Aberdeen University

  Environmental Technology

  Aberdeen University

  Information Technology

  Aberdeen University

  Marine and Fisheries Techonology

  Aberdeen University

  Materials Tech/Industrial CHEM Analysis

  Aberdeen University

  Training in Biotechnology

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  Agriculture Genetics

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  Biotechnology Training (Physiology)

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  Biotechnology TRNG (Electronmicroscopy)

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  High Level Vocational Training IT

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  High Level Vocational Training IT

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  High Level Vocational Training IT

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  High Level VT Environmental Technology

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  High Level VT in Environmental Technology

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  High Level VT TRNG Young People Biotech

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  Information and Library Studies

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  Information Technology

  Aberystwyth Univ. College of Wales

  VT Environmental Technology

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  Advanced Chemical Lab Techniques

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  Animal Health and Production

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  APP Forestry and Wood Technology

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  APP Physics and GEOTECH Marine Technology

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  Applied Biological Sciences

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  Applied Marine Aquacultural and ENV TECH

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  Applied Plant Biotechnology

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  Electronic Engineering Technology

  Bangor Univ. College of North Wales

  Rural and Water Resource Management

  Birmingham University

  Applied Genetics Conserv Genetic Resource

  Birmingham University

  Applied Meteorology and Climatology

  Birmingham University

  Applied Radiation Physics

  Birmingham University

  Biochemical Engineering

  Birmingham University

  Cognitive Science

  Birmingham University

  Computer Science

  Birmingham University

  Construction Management

  104

  Higher Education—European Social Fund Unit 1994 Recommended Masters Courses

  Institution Name

  Project Name

  Birmingham University

  Electronics and IT

  Birmingham University

  Hydrogeology

  Birmingham University

  Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering

  Birmingham University

  Toxicology

  Birmingham University

  Water Resources Technology and MNGMT

  Bradford University

  ADV VT Environmental Technologists

  Bradford University

  VT Computer Systems Analysts and PROGRMRS

  Bristol University

  Crop Protection Training

  Bristol University

  Graduate Associate Programme (GAP)

  Bristol University

  PROF Updating CERT Women Returners

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Artificial Intelligence and ENG Application

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Civil Engineering

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Cognitive Science

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Computing (with Statistics)

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Data Process APPS Predictive Demography

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Electrical and Electromagnetic ENG

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Geotechnical Engineering

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Maritime Studies

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Structural Engineering

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Systems Engineering

  Dundee University

  Biotechnology for Young People

  Dundee University

  Biotechnology for Young People

  Dundee University

  Computer TECH for Young People

  Dundee University

  ENG and Material TECH for Young People

  Dundee University

  Environmental Monitoring 18–24 YR

  Dundee University

  Training in TECH for LTU

  Durham University

  Advanced Environmental Technology

  Durham University

  Advanced Geological Sciences

  Durham University

  Advanced Geological Sciences

  Durham University

  Advanced Geosciences Training

  East Anglia University

  Biocolloids

  East Anglia University

  Biotechnologists

  East Anglia University

  Chemical Instrument Technologists

  East Anglia University

  Hydrogeologists

  Edinburgh University, UnivED Technologies Ltd

  ADV Techniques in Animal Husbandry

  Edinburgh University, UnivED Technologies Ltd

  ADV Techniques of Environmental MANGMT

  Edinburgh University, UnivED Technologies Ltd

  Animal Breeding

  Edinburgh University, UnivED Technologies Ltd

  Spatial Data Handling

  Essex University

  Computer Applications in Business

  105

  Higher Education—European Social Fund Unit 1994 Recommended Masters Courses

  Institution Name

  Project Name

  Essex University

  Computer Applications in MNGMT

  Essex University

  Computer Science and Natural Lang Process

  Essex University

  Mathematics with Engineering

  Essex University

  Physical Sciences

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  ADV Mechanical ENG

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Advanced Chemical Engineering

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  APP. ENG. and PHYS. Science to Medicine

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Communications and Signal Processing

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Computer Science

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  CONV. Training in Composite Materials

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  CONV. Training Young UNEMP in TRANSP ENG

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Conversion Course in Control Systems

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Conversion for EMPLOY Semi-Conductor

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Conversion in Petroleum Engineering

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Environmental Analysis Assessment

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Foundations in Advanced IT

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Higher Level CONV. Training Civil ENG

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Mineral Exploration

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Petroleum Geology

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  Training Unemployed in Hydrology ETC

  Imperial College of Science Technology

  VT in Geological Engineering

  Keele University

  COMP. for GEOG and Business INFO Systems

  Keele University

  Computing in Earth Sciences

  Keele University

  Machine Perception and Neurocomputing

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  ADV TECH Training Skill Shortages

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  ADV Technology for LTU

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  Computer Sciences for GRADS

  Lampeter (Saint David's) University College

  VT in Multi-Media Management

  Leicester University

  Biotechnology

  Leicester University

  Cognitive Sciences and Manmade Machines

  Leicester University

  CONS and Interpret. ARCH. Sites Spain

  Leicester University

  CONS and Interpret, of ARCH Sites (Italy)

  Leicester University

  CONSV and History of Urban Environment

  Leicester University

  Geograph INFO Systems and COMP Cartography

  Leicester University

  High TECH Training for Unemployed

  Leicester University

  High Level Training for LTU

  Leicester University

  High TECH Training for Unemployed

  Leicester University

  High TECH Training for Unemployed

  106

  Higher Education—European Social Fund Unit 1994 Recommended Masters Courses

  Institution Name

  Project Name

  Leicester University

  High TECH Training for Unemployed

  Leicester University

  Techniques ADV Biotechnol.

  Leicester University

  TRANS Training CONS Cultural Heritage

  Liverpool University

  Advanced Scientific Computation

  Liverpool University

  High Level Training Engineering/Science

  Liverpool University

  Materials and Chemical Sciences

  Liverpool University

  New TECH APPLIC to Management and Admin

  Liverpool University

  New TECH APPLIC to Planning MGT

  Liverpool University

  Psychology

  Liverpool University

  VT Computer Sciences

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  Training in Medical Statistics

  Loughborough University of Technology

  Advanced Industrial Ergonomics

  Loughborough University of Technology

  Advanced Industrial Materials

  Loughborough University of Technology

  Advanced Plastics and Rubbers

  Loughborough University of Technology

  Computer Integrated Manufacturing

  Loughborough University of Technology

  Construction MGT Training

  Loughborough University of Technology

  CONTEMP. European Studies for Women

  Loughborough University of Technology

  European Construction ENG Training

  Loughborough University of Technology

  Industrial Mathematical Modelling

  Loughborough University of Technology

  INFO Technology Conversion

  Manchester University

  APPLIC of Physical and Computing Science

  Manchester University

  Biocomputing and Biomathematics

  Manchester University

  Engineering Conversion Course

  Manchester University

  VOC Train for LTU High Level QUALIF

  Newcastle Upon Tyne University

  Computing Science Conversion

  Newcastle Upon Tyne University

  European Property Development

  Salford University

  Advanced Engineering

  Salford University

  Advanced Manufacturing

  Salford University

  Computational Applications

  Salford University

  Environmental Management

  Salford University

  IT in Construction

  Salford University

  Radiation and Analytical Chemistry

  Southampton University

  Micropalaeontology for the Oil Industry

  Southampton University

  Operational Research

  Southampton University

  Training in Biochem Pharmocology

  Southampton University

  VT in Social Statistics

  St. Andrews University

  Information Technology

  St. Andrews University

  Information Technology

  Swansea (University College)

  European Training Development

  Swansea (University College)

  Management Training for Women

  Swansea (University College)

  VT in Design Engineering and IT

  Swansea (University College)

  VT in Electrical Engineering

  Swansea (University College)

  VT in IT

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Biotechnology and Bioreactor Systems

  107

  Higher Education—European Social Fund Unit 1994 Recommended Masters Courses

  Institution Name

  Project Name

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Chemical Technology

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Chemistry of Advanced Materials

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Computation

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Corrosion Science and ENG

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Information Systems Engineering

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Instrumentation and Analytical Science

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Machine Translation

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Manufacturing Technology

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Metallic and Ceramic Materials

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  MSC Textile Design Technology

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Paper Technology

  UMIST, Bursars Dept.

  Polymer Science and Technology

  UMIST, Bursars Dept

  VSLI Systems Engineering

  University College London

  Applications of Geographic INFO Systems

  University College London

  Biotechnology Training Scheme

  Warwick University

  Analytical Methods

  Warwick University

  Parallel Computers and Computation

  Institute of Occupational Medicine

  Occupational Hygiene Education

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost of keeping a prison inmate in prison in England and Wales as at 8 January.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, Dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the weekly cost of keeping an inmate in prison in England and Wales.
  The most recent published figures are for the financial year 1993–94 when the average cost per prisoner place per week was £437.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost at current prices of keeping a man in a high security prison.

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

  Letter for Derek Lewis to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the annual cost of keeping a prisoner in a high security prison.
  The annual average net operating cost per prisoner place in dispersal prisons in 1993–94 was £26,671.

  Temporary Release (Prisoners)
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward measures to ensure that prisoners will be considered for temporary 108
  release or home leave only if they have been declared as drug free.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Lady Olga Maitland, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about whether measures will be brought forward to ensure that prisoners will be considered for temporary release or home leave only if they have been declared as drug free.
  Instructions to Governors on the operation of temporary release and home leave require an in-depth risk assessment to be carried out before a prisoner is granted any form of release on temporary licence. The assessment requires full account to be taken of specific areas of concern such as drug abuse where these would increase the risk of re-offending or danger to the public.
  Mandatory drug testing is being introduced as part of the Service's initiative against misuse of drugs in prison. The results of the tests will be used for risk assessment purposes in the grant of temporary release and home leave. No prisoner found to be using drugs, who presents a risk to public safety or who is likely to re-offend, will be released from prison temporarily. Where a prisoner has tested positively and is not considered a risk to public safety, there will equally be a clear presumption to refuse temporary release or home leave, save in exceptional circumstances.

  Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison establishments have achieved 12 hours unlocking; what activities have been provided for the prisoners; and what are the implications for staff and inmate safety.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 February 1995:
  Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisons which are unlocking prisoners for more than 12 hours on weekdays, the types of activities provided for inmates and the implications for staff and inmate safety.
  On 31 December 1994, 60 prisoners were unlocking prisoners for at least 12 hours on weekdays. In December 1994, prisoners were spending on average 26.5 hours per week engaged in purposeful activities broken down as follows:

  Activity

  Percentage time spent

  Work

  domestic

  19

  workshops

  14

  kitchens

  9

  farms and gardens

  4

  other work

  4

  Education and Training

  20

  Other

  PE

  9

  induction

  3

  chaplaincy

  2

  other structured activities

  16

  Prison Governors are required to ensure that prisoners are engaged in active and demanding regimes which are relevant to their needs and to the reasons they are in prison. Such regimes have an important part to play in maintaining a stable prison system.
  109

  Prisoners
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were declassified from A to B and B to C during the last 12 months.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners who have been declassified from A to B and B to C during the last 12 months.
  During the period from January to December 1994, 25 prisoners were recategorised from category A to B.
  Recategorisations from category B to C are the responsibility of Governors of prisons and no central records are kept. I regret, therefore, that the information requested about this group of prisoners is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Statements
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took to ensure that his statements to the House on 10 January columns 31–34 and the Home Affairs Select Committee on 25 January met the requirements of paragraph 27 of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Mr. Howard
  I am satisfied that my recent statements to the House and to the Home Affairs Select Committee are consistent with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Blakenhurst Prison
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the latest available figure for the number of disturbances at Blakenhurst prison.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the latest available figures for the number of disturbances at Blakenhurst prison.
  There has only been one significant disturbance at Blakenhurst, which took place in February 1994, involving 150 prisoners and resulting in property damage of about £30,000, which was paid for by the contractors. There were no injuries to staff or prisoners and the security of the prison was not threatened.
  On 5 September 1994 there was an incident involving a small cell fire, and during which a Prison Custody Officer was assaulted.
  There have been nine other incidents of passive or minor concerted indiscipline in the twenty months since the prison opened.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, columns 512–13, how his Department will monitor the new arrangement that a domestic worker must be provided with a separate bedroom.
  110
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Inquiries will be made as to the accommodation of domestic workers when they apply for further leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

  Visitors
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what basis and under what conditions Dr. Svdja Trifkovic visits or resides in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) on what basis and on what dates Jovan Zametica was allowed admission into the United Kingdom during the past eight weeks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It would be contrary to our normal practice to disclose information to third parties on a person's immigration status.

  Prisons (Damage)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cost of refurbishing prisons and relocating prisoners as a result of damage caused by prisoners acting unlawfully in prisons in Greater London in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Services, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question concerning the cost of refurbishing prisons and re-locating prisoners as a result of damage caused by prisoners acting unlawfully in prisons in Greater London in each year since 1979.
  Detailed information prior to June 1988 is not available.
  Greater London establishments, represented by Belmarsh prison, Wormwood Scrubs prison, Brixton prison, Wandsworth prison, Pentonville prison, Feltham Young Offenders Institution, and Holloway prison, reported 9 incidents between 7 August 1988 and 31 December 1994, in which there was damage to prison property, as follows:

  Date

  Establishment

  Reported Damage

  8th April 1990

  HMP Brixton

  Minor

  8th April 1990

  HMP Pentonville

  Minor

  5th November 1991

  HMYOI Feltham

  Minor

  2nd July 1992

  HMP Belmarsh

  Minor

  2nd July 1992

  HMP Belmarsh

  Minor

  29th August 1992

  HMP Belmarsh

  Minor

  27th July 1993

  HMP Belmarsh

  Minor

  2nd October 1994

  HMP Belmarsh

  Minor

  10th December 1994

  HMP Belmarsh

  Extensive

  Where the damage was reported as minor, the costs were met locally within the prison. In most cases, where details are available, the damage was caused to furnishings rather than fabric. In the Belmarsh incident of 10 December 1994, where the damage was reported as extensive the cost of repair was approximately £10,000.

  Details of prisoners who were re-located are not recorded centrally, unless re-location occurs in serious situations at the time of the incident. None of the reports on these incidents indicated that any prisoners were re-located to other prisons at the time, though, some may have been at a later date. Some were re-located within the establishment where the incident occurred.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of refurbishing prisons as a result of damage caused by prisoners acting unlawfully in each of the years 1979 to 1985.
  111
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 6 February" 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the cost of damage to Prison Service establishments between the years 1979 to 1985.
  I am afraid that this information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Prison Riot
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his Department's definition of a prison riot.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for a definition of a prison riot.
  A riot is defined in section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986, a copy of which will be found in the Library of the House. Riot can take place in a public or private place, including a prison.
  There is also an offence of prison mutiny which is defined in section 1(2) of the Prison Security Act 1992, a copy of which can also be found in the Library.
  In addition, the Prison Service maintain statistics on the number of acts of concerted indiscipline which take place. Concerted indiscipline takes place when two or more prisoners refuse to conform to the rules and regulations of a prison. Such incidents include both passive disobedience and active indiscipline.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam of 25 January,Official Report, column 230, if he will list candidates assessed as of an acceptable standard for the post of Director General of the Prison Service; and in what order of suitability those candidates were placed.

  Mr. Howard
  No. Candidates put themselves forward for posts in the civil service on the understanding that their applications are treated in confidence. It is not the practice to make public details of candidates who are not appointed.

  Prison Escapes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 534, which prison the prisoners at large had escaped from; what their offence was; and for how long they have been on the run.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  112
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about prisoners unlawfully at large.
  The total number of prisoners who have escaped since 20 June 1988 and are still unlawfully at large at 13 January 1995 is 123.
  The attached table lists the prison or escorting contractor from whose custody each prisoner escaped, their offence and the length of time unlawfully at large. A copy of this table has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visits were made by inspectors under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to(a) the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Salisbury, (b) the Defence Research Agency, Alverstoke and (c) The Centre for Human Sciences in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The number of visits made by inspectors was:

  (a) Chemical and Biological Defence Establishments

  1990: 5

  1991: 9

  1992: 8

  1993: 7

  1994: 6

  (b) Defence Research Agency, Alverstoke

  1990: 4

  1991: 4

  1992: 2

  1993: 3

  1994: 2

  (c) Centre for Human Sciences (Previously the RAF Institute of Aviation Medicine)

  1990: 4

  1991: 4

  1992: 6

  1993: 4

  1994: 9

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list and give details of project licences involving animal experiments granted to Ministry of Defence establishments for each of the last two years for which information is available;

  (2) how many project and personal licenses issued to Ministry of Defence establishments under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 have been withdrawn; and what were the reasons in each case.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information held in connection with the issue of licences under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 will have been given in confidence: the disclosure of such information is prohibited by virtue of section 24 (1) of the Act.

  Twelve project licences were granted to Ministry of Defence establishments in 1993, and 20 in 1994. In 1993, 10 project licences expired at the end of the five years permitted by the 1986 Act, and three were surrendered when the relevant project work was completed; in 1994 three expired and seven were surrendered.
  113
  In 1993, nine personal licences were revoked on completion of the work on which the licence holders were engaged; in 1994 the figure was 24.

  Information on the numbers of project and personal licences issued to particular establishments prior to 1993 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Bosnian Refugees
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the reception centre for Bosnian refugees at Cheylesmore lodge, North Berwick, and other reception centres; and if he will give an estimate of the numbers of refugees from Bosnia who will come to Britain during the next 12 months.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Due to the declining number of evacuees from the former Yugoslavia in recent months, it has been decided, following discussions between the Home Office, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the voluntary agencies running the centres, that two of the present nine centres should close at the end of March 1995, and a further five, including Cheylesmore lodge, by the end of April. Of the two remaining centres, one will close at the end of June, and we will review in April the timing of the closure of the last centre against the background of developments in Bosnia.

  There are approximately 370 people who have been accepted under the temporary protection programme but who have yet to arrive. The majority are still in Bosnia. UNHCR is reassessing these cases but, because of the uncertain situation within Bosnia, cannot say when, or if, they will be able to travel.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require victims who have received payment from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority under the tariff scheme to repay sums received if their payment is reassessed following the tariff scheme being withdrawn or altered as a result of court proceedings.

  Mr. Maclean
  If the tariff scheme had to be withdrawn all payments made under its terms would have to be reassessed. Where the tariff award exceeded the reassessed award the beneficiary would, in principle, be liable to refund the difference. We have decided that it would not be right to seek to recover that difference.

  Illegal Immigrant Suspect Index
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Home Office first embarked on the computerisation of the illegal immigrant suspect index; how much has been spent on the project to date; and when he expects the system to be fully operational.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A project team was resourced in late 1989 to develop the suspect index system, and commenced work in January 1990. Following approval of the business case, and a competitive procurement including technical design studies, a supply contract was let to ICL Ltd in December 1992. Development of the system began in January 1993. Capital costs in the order of £13.7 million will have been spent by the end of phase 1 of the project. The system commenced live running at Stansted airport and the Immigration Service intelligence 114
  and investigation unit near Heathrow airport on 23 January 1995. The first phase, which includes major ports of entry and enforcement offices, is planned to be completed in April 1995.

  Further phases of the project are proposed to encompass remaining ports of entry, enforcement offices and other IND locations where system access is required by 1998.

  False Identities
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to prevent individuals illegally acquiring false identities for passport, DSS and other purposes by using official documentation obtained by posing as a deceased person.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom Passport Agency takes great care to prevent the issue of passports in false identities. The passport issuing system incorporates a variety of safeguards to prevent fraud. Special fraud detection teams in each office liaise closely with the police, immigration service and other agencies such as the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to counter the submission of applications in false identities.

  The Department of Social Security's Benefits Agency has developed a security strategy to combat benefit fraud of all kinds. The strategy involves investment in a variety of measures, including improvements to information technology and increased verification of information presented in claims to benefit. It is anticipated that the substantial investment envisaged will achieve a dramatic reduction in benefit fraud, shifting the emphasis away from detection and investigation towards prevention and deterrence.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the efficiency of the Charity Commission.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I do not think that a further review is necessary. The efficiency of the Charity Commission is regularly reviewed by Home Office Ministers, notably as part of the public expenditure process. The Charity Commission is making significant improvements in efficiency, particularly through the introduction of new computerised methods of working, and is carrying through a development programme to enable it to carry out its new responsibilities under the Charities Act 1993. An independent review of the Commission's senior structure and staffing has just been completed which will bring further gains. The Commission has also achieved gains through a recent market test of its managerial and paper-keeping services.

  Charities
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many registered charities are working in(a) animal welfare, (b) child welfare, (c) youth services, (d) adult health, (e) child health, (f) education, (g) the Church of England and (h) other religions.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The classification on the Charity Commission's present computerised register does not match the categories in my hon. Friend's question precisely. The information available is as follows:
  115

  Field

  Number of registered charities

  (a) animal welfare

  886

  (b) child welfare and (c) youth services

  112,866

  (d) adult health and (e) child health

  2218,834

  (f) education

  35,347

  (g) the Church of England

  5,791

  (h) other religions

  4,514

  1 Note The Charity Commission's classification system is not as broad as the areas listed in the question. It is difficult to distinguish between child welfare and youth services as many charities operate for the benefit of both children and young people.

  2 Note The Charity Commission's classification systems does not distinguish between adult and child health: most of the charities in this field make no distinction as to the age of their beneficiaries.

  An improved computerised register which will give a more detailed analysis is planned for next year.

  Prison Service
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of public funds of running the Prison Service in each year since 1979.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the costs to public funds of running the Prison Service in each year since 1979.
  The costs for the Prison Service in England and Wales are set out below. They are expressed in cash terms, but include notional depreciation and superannuation.

  £000s

  1979–80

  344,326

  1980–81

  437,884

  1981–82

  498,424

  1982–83

  572,597

  1983–84

  637,118

  1984–85

  656,445

  1985–86

  743,229

  1986–87

  786,450

  1987–88

  882,341

  1988–89

  1,013,898

  1989–90

  1,205,763

  1990–91

  1,464,227

  1991–92

  1,630,956

  1992–93

  1,660,200

  1993–94

  1,638,200

  Note:

  Information on prisons in Scotland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Prison Service has made in devising a key performance indicator on recidivism.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 December 1994]: I have asked the Prison Service to give this matter further consideration, and expect their advice shortly.
  116

  Prisons (Running Costs)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds of running each prison in Britain in each year since 1979.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the cost to public funds of running each prison in Britain.
  The attached table shows the costs expressed in cash terms but including notional depreciation and superannuation of each prison in England and Wales in the last 10 years. The figures for earlier years are published in the relevant annual reports on the work of the Prison Service, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library.
  Information on prisons in Scotland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service.

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of suicides in prisons in each year since 1979; and if he will give in each case the prison in which the suicide occurred and the age of the prisoner.

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 6 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what has been the number of suicides in prisons in each year since 1979 giving in each case the prison and the age of the prisoner.
  Table A gives the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments in England and Wales from 1988 in each case showing the name of the establishment and age of the prisoner. The Coroner's verdict is also shown as not all self-inflicted deaths result in a "suicide" verdict.
  Table B gives the number of self-inflicted deaths in prison establishments in England and Wales for 1979 to 1987 and the total number of suicide verdicts.
  A copy of these tables have been placed in the Library of the House.
  Detailed records were not stored centrally before 1988 and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions departmental officials met representatives of Ian Greer Associates(a) formally and (b) informally on 26 January to discuss matters relating to their client's interests.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]: None.
  117

  Prison Locks
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons have had their locks changed because of key compromises in the last three years; and what was the average cost for each such prison.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  118
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 30 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisons where locks have been changed because of key compromises in the last three years.
  Since January 1992 there have been 28 key compromises resulting in a change of locks. This includes the recent compromise at Parkhurst prison.
  The cost of replacing the locks varies according to the size of the prison and the class of locks. Typical costs are in the range of between £40,000 and £64,000.

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

EC Cohesion Fund: Allocations
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, on giving consideration to the European Commission's budget for 1993 and 1994, they approved at Council of Ministers level the allocations out of the Cohesion Fund set out in their Written Answer of 18th January (H.L. Deb., col. WA 39) to the Question put by Lord Bruce of Donington.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the distribution of the Cohesion Fund between the four beneficiary states is settled by the Commission within ranges which were agreed by the Edinburgh European Council in 1992 and which were unanimously confirmed by the Council of Ministers.
The Cohesion Fund is included in the European Community budget, which is also approved by the Council of Ministers.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. I am sure that he will confirm to the House that the Cohesion Fund was established by Regulation 792 of 1993 and Regulation 1164 of May 1964. However, in view of the fact that our contribution to those funds for the past three years has totalled some £235 million, and in view of the Court of Auditors' comments on the administration of the fund contained in its recent report, do the Government agree that they should now
2
reconsider the whole question of allocation and the purpose to which the funds are put rather than acquiesce in their continuance for the political purposes of the Commission?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is a bit hard on the Government in that regard. He asks the Government to reconsider, but they cannot reconsider. The matter was considered at the Edinburgh Council of Ministers and agreed. It was agreed that the United Kingdom should pay 15 per cent. of the fund unless there was an abatement. We received a two-thirds abatement under the Fontainebleau Agreement. Therefore, we pay only 5 per cent. of the total contribution that was agreed at Edinburgh. It was agreed by the Council of Ministers and we think it right that that should continue.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Earl come to my rescue and tell me what it is that "coheres"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Cohesion Fund was set up for two purposes: first, for transport infrastructure, which covers roads, railways, ports and airports; and, secondly, for environmental projects relating to sewage treatment works, urban waste treatment and drinking water supplies. Its aim is to enable the social structures of the less well-developed countries to reach the level of others. In that way, we "cohese" together as a Community.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does not the noble Earl agree that in view of the fact that the fund is being used to develop transport and environmental projects in countries which could not otherwise finance them, that should be regarded as advantageous to the single market as a whole and, therefore, beneficial to all members?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is quite right. The purpose of the fund is that all countries within the Community reach a reasonable level of social advancement.
Lord Morris: My Lords, in answer to the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord

3
Bruce of Donington, my noble friend answered as to the principle of the fund, but the noble Lord was asking about its allocation. Will my noble friend answer that point?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I thought that I had answered that question. I said that the allocation had been agreed at Edinburgh and subsequently by the Council of Ministers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl help me? It is difficult to understand what the Cohesion Fund is and what it will mean. First, does it mean that those countries which are now net beneficiaries from the European budget will receive even more money after the Cohesion Fund is operating? For example, in 1993–94, the Irish received £1,500 million from the European budget. That is equivalent to £35 per week for every family in that country. Will the Irish now receive even more?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall do my best to help the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. The purpose of the Cohesion Fund is for the economic and social cohesion of the Community, and that is a Community objective. The Cohesion Fund makes provision for those countries whose GNP is less than 90 per cent. of the European average GNP. Those four countries are Spain where it is 75 per cent., Greece, 48 per cent., Portugal, 60 per cent., and the Republic of Ireland, 80 per cent. We are at the European average of 100 per cent. Therefore, all those countries which are below the European average have access to the Cohesion Fund.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while not every proposal coming from Brussels is without blemish, nevertheless the constant nagging at everything that is done by the European Commission diminishes rather than increases our influence? Would it not be sensible if, from time to time, a little enthusiasm were to appear for an organisation to which we belong and from which we derive quite a lot of benefit?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, my noble friend Lord Peyton has made an extremely important suggestion. I believe that we should all realise that we are part of the Community, which we all want to see succeed. It is a pity when some noble Lords—and, indeed, I can think of one in particular—table Questions complaining about what the European Community has done. The Community has actually done very well in this respect.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that we are all indebted to my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington because, thanks to his Question, we have all learned that the Cohesion Fund is designed to even out the imbalances in the economies of various members of the European Community? In view of the conflicting statements from various Members of the Cabinet during the past few days, can the Minister say whether the Government are to take steps to seek abolition of the fund, or veto the UK's contribution towards it?
4
Alternatively, will they just let the money be paid as it is a contribution in smoothing the path towards a single currency?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for so clearly explaining the advantages of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. He did so in a way that I was unable to do. Of course, as always, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. However, the noble Lord's second supplementary was quite absurd, as I am sure he knows perfectly well. The European Community is a matter over which all sorts of people have many different concerns. It is quite right that such concerns should be expressed as, indeed, does the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is quite intolerable that the European Court of Human Rights continually overturns our laws? Is there some way of opting out of that damnable institution?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has expressed another forthright view. However, it has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will my noble friend be good enough to confirm briefly to the House that it is in fact the view of my right honourable friend Sir Leon Brittan that the cohesion funds, which many of us regard as being extremely wasteful, were in fact only dreamt up as a cushion against the hardships of monetary union with the so-called, "four poor countries"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there are many different backgrounds to all sorts of decisions. However, the fact is that the heads of member states got together in Edinburgh and came to an agreement. That agreement was approved by the Council of Ministers and, therefore, it is part of the European Community's efforts and now forms part of our contribution towards that.

South Thames TEC
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take to ensure that other training and enterprise councils (TECs) do not encounter difficulties similar to those experienced by the South Thames TEC now being wound up; and what will take the place of that TEC if it ceases to exist.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the problems at South Thames TEC are atypical and stem from poor management accounting and inadequate internal financial controls. Sound commercial management, together with the existing contractual requirements on training and enterprise councils provide a proper framework for TECs to operate within. There is, therefore, no need to change the organisation of TECs.

5
My honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, James Paice, has invited two of the neighbouring TECs to take on between them responsibility for the provision of services in the current South Thames TEC area for 1995–96. He has invited CENTEC (the Central London TEC) to put proposals to him on how it would provide the full range of TEC responsibilities in the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark and SOLOTEC (the South London TEC) in Greenwich and Lewisham.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. However, is the noble Lord aware that there has been considerable criticism by former leading staff of the TEC: that one of the reasons for the problems that have arisen has been the Government's insistence that state-sponsored training for jobless people should be less about quality provision and more about getting people off the register of the long-term unemployed? Is the noble Lord also aware that difficulties arose regarding seconded civil servants who were able to provide a great deal of expertise? For example, once they were removed when their secondment had come to an end, there was difficulty in replacing the expertise that had disappeared.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained in my Answer, the problems that have afflicted South Thames TEC are to do with financial management and cost control. It seems to us that the criticisms of which we are aware and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, alluded have no direct bearing on the matter in hand.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the particular difficulties which face the Windmill Project in Clapham as a result of the demise of the TEC? That project had taken on a training worker on contract who was funded 75 per cent. by the Home Secretary and 25 per cent. by the TEC. When the money ceased to come in in November, the Windmill Project (which is a small charity) had, nevertheless, to continue the payments which it was obliged to make under contract. Will one of the two other TECs to which the noble Lord referred in his reply assume that obligation?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his question. I do not know the details of the Windmill Project to which he refers. Therefore I hope that I shall be forgiven for answering in more general terms. For payments which are due in respect of claims after 7th November, the Government have issued a letter of comfort to ensure that the bills will be honoured. The question of outstanding moneys relates exclusively to the period before 7th November. As regards the longer term, for the immediate future the activities are being managed by the receiver. As I explained in the first reply that I gave, for the period 1995–96 it is anticipated that the responsibilities of the South Thames TEC will be divided as I outlined.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, while appreciating the answer given by the Minister as regards the reasons for splitting the South Thames TEC in half, does he agree that what is really required
6
now is a strategic look at London's needs? It is not satisfactory to split this difficult area of London into two and to ask the neighbouring TECs to do the work. We need something more than that. Will the Minister help?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as regards the longer term, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced that he will conduct an investigation into the future of the TECs throughout the London area. He is proposing to start by discussing the matter with the chairmen of all the TECs concerned to see whether the best solution is the one that is currently in place. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that it is important that we deal with this in the most satisfactory manner from the point of view of all those concerned.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we are glad to hear that there will be an inquiry by the Secretary of State into the TECs in London because there is a great deal of anxiety on the part of those who depend on them for training programmes? I declare an interest because the Apex Trust, of which I am chairman, has such interests. When this inquiry is undertaken, will the Minister ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to take into account the problem of people with special needs? The whole trend in TEC financing has been such that the money goes where there is success in getting jobs or qualifications. This leaves people with special needs very much out in the cold. Yet it is those people who, more than others, need training if they are to get back into employment. They are the people who tend to cause a great deal of both economic and social difficulty.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall be pleased to pass on the comments of the noble Baroness to the Secretary of State.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how he can say in advance of the inquiry he announces that what went on in this TEC was atypical? Surely many other TECs might be running out of money and out of control. How can he tell us in advance that nothing like that situation will be found?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's question, it is important to be clear that the inquiry to which I referred is concerned with determining the way in which the allocation of responsibilities of TECs is conducted across London. As regards the particular problems of the TEC we are discussing, in the contract that is in place between the TECs and the department there is a stipulation about the manner in which the internal financial controls are carried out. Way back in December 1993 South Thames TEC was identified as being the only TEC in the country that was high risk in this regard. In answer to the noble Lord's question, I would say that it is possible to identify that this was an atypical circumstance for the reasons I have given.

Local Authorities: Audit Commission Report
2.54 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking in the light of the Audit Commission's finding that inefficiencies among local authorities cost up to £1 billion a year of taxpayers' money.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Government very much welcome these reports which set out clearly what could be achieved if all local authorities were to perform as well as the best. It is now for each individual authority to consider these reports and to see what value for money improvements they can make.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend's Answer mean that the Government as such are doing nothing about this?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. Indeed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already had preliminary discussions with local government leaders about the report and plans to have fuller talks with them and also with the Audit Commission next month. I should point out that the Audit Commission report is not a government report.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in his supplementary question asked whether the noble Viscount's answer meant that the Government were doing nothing about this. If they are not doing anything about it, the Government—the Minister must understand this—are only doing what they did when Questions were put in this Chamber regarding the Wessex Regional Health Authority, the West Midlands Health Authority and the development corporation for Wales. Nothing was done then either. Is the Minister aware that it is time that the three instances I have mentioned were dealt with by the Government, just like the matter we are discussing now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, reverting more to the Question on the Order Paper, the studies make recommendations for good practice and the commission will usually seek to disseminate this through guidance to district auditors or sometimes in publications aimed at a wider audience. As part of the follow up, the auditors will usually be asked to pay particular attention to its findings during the course of the following year's audit. Therefore there is a route that the commission takes as regards local authorities. It expects the district auditor to pay attention to the recommendations.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what precisely does the Audit Commission mean by "inefficiency"?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the main findings of this report indicated that, although total local authority staff numbers have fallen between 1987 and 1993, non-manual staff numbers rose by 90,000, with numbers in senior posts rising by some 60 per cent. Significant
8
pay bill savings therefore are available from improved productivity and from the better management of pay. Those are the commission's findings, not the Government's.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does not the noble Viscount agree that when one removes powers from an organisation and makes it responsible for only 20 per cent. of money raising powers, it is inevitable that it will be less responsible than if it had those powers? Is not the answer to give local authorities more power and make them responsible for raising a greater proportion of the money they spend?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, central Government do not control local government pay and conditions of service. That is the basis of this report. I believe that this report indicates that if all local authorities managed their pay as well as the best there would be room for savings.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Audit Commission report did not refer to inefficiencies costing £1 billion but to increased expenditure on management? Will the Minister also confirm that an arbitrary figure of £18,000 a year salary was used and that this figure includes large numbers of local government staff who are not managers but deliverers of services, such as environmental health officers, chief librarians and others?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Audit Commission directed its attention to the question of management, staff and pay. I believe that that needs to be taken into account when looking at the matters in hand because it is up to each local authority to decide on its individual circumstances. I believe that they have not addressed the question of the management of pay as well as they could.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, following on the question of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn on the definition of inefficiency, would the Minister classify the failure of Westminster City Council to collect some £30 million for repairs from its leaseholders as inefficiency or culpable negligence?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall not comment because that is a matter for the district auditor.

Plutonium Smuggling
2.59 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, consequential to the seizure of 350 grammes of plutonium by the German police in August 1994, they will support the creation of an international agency to collect, store, manage and safeguard the world's surplus of plutonium and whether they will send a representative to the seminar on plutonium smuggling to be held in the House of Commons on 14th February.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, incidents of smuggling involving nuclear materials are of course a matter of great concern. We believe that the priority must be to

9
help to improve the practical implementation of nuclear materials accountancy and physical security in those countries from which the material may be coming. We have been working in a number of international fora to achieve that. We believe that that approach is more likely to succeed than starting negotiations on a new agency. Foreign Office officials will attend the seminar on 14th February.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am glad to hear the last part of the noble Lord's Answer. In the meantime, can he say whether the Government have considered or will consider the possibility of resourcing and financing sufficiently the International Atomic Energy Agency so that it may be able to fulfil that additional function which I believe we all agree is of extreme importance and urgency?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, said, this is a matter of great concern. However, we believe that it is important that we address it in a manner which will reap rewards. As I hope I made clear in my earlier Answer, we are not satisfied that the right way to deal with this particular problem is to set up a new agency. We believe that the right way to approach it is along the present lines, using the system of safeguards devised by the IAEA.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister's Answer to my noble friend's earlier Question mean that the Government are now in favour of greater transparency about the level of plutonium stocks held in various countries, including their own? If that is the case, can the Minister tell the House what steps are being taken to pursue that goal of greater transparency?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Baroness may know, the UK is chairing a group in the wings of the IAEA in Vienna of plutonium-producing nations with a view to endeavouring to establish whether greater transparency can be introduced. As yet, we have not managed to achieve any agreement or consensus.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not register the fact that we are agreed that the existing body provides one means of tackling the problem. We are at least agreed on that point. However, does he further agree that in order to tackle the problem, the agency will have to be more satisfactorily financed and resourced? Does he support that view?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is essential that the agency is satisfactorily financed and resourced. Obviously, the extent of the resources required depends on what the agency is to do.

Allegations against Lords
3.2 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, under the Standing Orders as I understand them, perhaps I may ask a question of the Leader of the House for guidance.
10
There seems to have been a leakage of a paper from one of the Members of this House regarding what is alleged to be improper behaviour on the part of a number of Members of this House. That information has apparently been obtained from someone who I understand the noble Lord is unable to name because he is paid by that person. Apparently, the alleged informant knows of some other chaps who know of other people who are also engaged in encouraging people to behave improperly. Is it possible for the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to give the noble Lord concerned the opportunity to cast light on these matters or to apologise?
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, knowing the jealousy with which all Members of your Lordships' House rightly guard the reputation of this House, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, will agree with me that if allegations of so serious a nature are to be made about this House, whether by a Member of your Lordships' House or by anybody outside it, it is at least responsible for those making the allegations to be able to substantiate them.
I am sure that the noble Lord who has apparently made those allegations—whose nature I have myself only gathered from reading the press—will he in a position to substantiate them. Otherwise, we shall find ourselves in the difficult position of being blackguarded without any evidence to substantiate the blackguard, particularly in view of what the press calls the current climate.
I hope that, if there is any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the accusations that have been made, the noble Lord and his clients (in his professional capacity) will be able to substantiate those allegations. Otherwise, there is a risk of the reputation of this House being blackened in the public mind without substance.
I should like to add one further point. It is clear to all noble Lords that in the present climate it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that no suspicion can attach to Members of your Lordships' House. It is only right that your Lordships should have taken up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the House should examine the question of whether we should establish a register of Member's interests. As your Lordships know, the noble and learned learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, has kindly consented to chair a sub-committee of the Procedure Committee to investigate that possibility. The Procedure Committee looks forward to receiving the noble and learned Lord's report.
No matter what the Procedure Committee may eventually recommend to your Lordships, it has long been the practice of the House for noble Lords to speak on their honour. Therefore, it is perhaps sensible for me to take advantage of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, to suggest to your Lordships that, perhaps now more than at any other time, all of us should make sure that before we intervene in the business of the House if we have a financial interest to declare we should do so. To err on the side of over-declaration would be a fault on the right side.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Breach of Bail conditions]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("regard") to end of line 27 and insert ("to

(a) the fact that the offence was committed by him while on bail and the number of bail orders to which he was subject when the offence was committed;

(b) any previous conviction of the accused of an offence under subsection (1) (b) above; and

(c) the extent to which the sentence or disposal in respect of any previous conviction of the accused differed, by virtue of this subsection, from that which the court would have imposed but for this subsection.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when I sought to move the amendment at Committee stage I encountered a degree of reservation about it. In those circumstances, in case I had overlooked a point, I undertook to reconsider the amendment. I have done so, and I consider the amendment to be necessary. It may help if I explain my reasons briefly.
The provisions in Clause 2 will require a court, in determining the appropriate sentence for an offence which was committed while the offender was on bail, to have regard to the fact that the offence was committed while on bail. In making that determination, it may increase the sentence for the offence over and above any statutory maximum which might otherwise apply.
Under the terms of the new Section 3(2C), Clause 2 will not—or at least not clearly—enable the court to exceed the maxima in the light of any other relevant matters. Those might include the fact that the offender was subject to more than one bail order at the time the offence was committed, that he had a previous record of offending while on bail, and the attitude taken previously by the court to bail abuse by the offender. Those are relevant facts of which the court ought to be able to take full account in sentencing for offending while on bail. All the amendment seeks to do is to ensure that the court's discretion is not unnecessarily restricted when it comes to determine the appropriate sentence for offending on bail. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 2:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Duty to provide victims with information
. In all proceedings there shall be a duty upon courts to recognise the position and vulnerability of victims and their families within the criminal justice system, and a consequent duty to provide victims with information about the progress of their case, on request.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 2 is to secure in the Bill a statement of principle with which I doubt that any noble Lord present today would disagree. I believe that it would enhance the law of Scotland and send a powerful message to
12
the Scottish people if the concern of the criminal justice system for victims of crime could be enshrined in the statute.
Let me set the context of the amendment. We already have in the statutes many measures of care for offenders. We have probation orders with and without special conditions, community service orders, supervised attendance orders, intensive probation schemes, diversion from prosecution schemes—that is, both reparation and mediation—and bail accommodation schemes. All those are community-based disposals.
In prison, we have personal officer schemes, social work departments, education departments, alcohol and drug dependency projects and special units. The Scottish Prison Service has as its motto: "Dare to care". There are parole schemes, fiscal fines which avoid criminal records, police warnings, and 16 and 17 year-olds may be referred by the courts to the children's panel rather than being dealt with as offenders.
All that is excellent and, as someone who has worked on social work projects within the criminal justice system for several years, I am convinced of their merit, with the one proviso that the offender must be at the right stage to benefit from them. However, I detect a feeling in Scotland that the balance of care is tilted too far towards offenders. My solution to that is not to diminish services to offenders, but to add weight to services to victims. We already have a situation where victims are being helped on an informal basis by the police, court officers, their family and friends and by volunteers from the victim support schemes which operate throughout Scotland.
I believe that the statement of principle in the Bill would send a signal to the criminal justice system, to the general public, to offenders—especially those on social work disposals—and finally to those victims who have lost faith in the system and believe that personal revenge is the only way forward.
Before moving the amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 85. It seeks to confirm a particular task upon the court system in dealing with victim witnesses in particular. I say "confirm" because I know that many of the tasks described in the amendment are already happening on an informal basis. I believe that the ideas in the amendment, which has been drafted by Victim Support Scotland, would focus the attention of all courts throughout Scotland and enable them to work to a new national standard. I fully accept that the court staff in Scotland are rightly busy, but I believe that flagging these ideas would improve the quality of the court service and enable it to build expertise in that direction in the future. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, from this side of your Lordships' House, I wish to add support to the general principle enunciated by the noble Earl in the two amendments. I am not nit-picking and I do not say that the wording of the two amendments is particularly apt. However, that is a matter for consideration perhaps at a later stage in another place.
From the information that I have received, I know that the Government are looking closely at the question of the interests of the victim. What the noble Earl was

13
doing was to put down a necessary marker that the Government cannot walk away from the problem of the impact of crime on the victims and, importantly, their families. That would impinge on the effects on the families of people who are killed, murdered or victims of culpable homicide. It is quite common for people to complain that once they have given their statement to the police, they do not know what is happening. We have been through this before, sometimes such people read about it in the local newspaper and wonder why they were not informed.
I hope that the initiative which the Government have already indicated they will follow will be pursued with some vigour, and that they will take the message from the noble Earl that the victim should at least be on a par with the offender in terms of information about what is happening.
I wish to raise one issue in relation to Amendment No. 2: whether the words "on request" are necessary or whether there should be a duty to provide victims with information as to the progress of "the" case, because it is not "their" case. The case belongs to the state because the state brings it, but there are victims in the case who are entitled to know precisely what is going on. To take the matter one stage further, they are entitled to know when the offender is being released from prison, if he has been sent to prison as a result of the offence. I support the noble Earl.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, the principle of the amendment is good and so is the initiative, for the offender and the victim of crime. Not only in Scotland but in the rest of the country there is a feeling which I have come across, as all noble Lords have, even down this way. It seems that the victims and their families are too easily dispensed with, unless for some reason the press think that it is good for the victim of the crime and the family for it to take notice. Then the press will go into it headlong.
I believe that it is important because victims and their families do not get a fair deal, the emphasis is too heavily on the offender, always finding a reason or an excuse for him so that he does not have to accept any responsibility, as he should and must do. Therefore, the principle and the initiative are thoroughly good and I hope to hear from the Government that they will agree to the amendment and are willing to work on it. I support the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I apologise for the roughness of my voice as I have laryngitis and also for the fact that, having just arrived from a trial in Glasgow, I have only recently discovered that the groupings include some of my amendments with Amendment No. 2. I am afraid that once again I do not accept that grouping.
As to Amendment No. 2, I wish to join in the welcome for the principle that lies behind it. However, I remind the House that a number of problems have not been addressed in it. First, it is vital to draw a distinction between a person who is the alleged victim of an alleged crime before the jury or the judge has returned a verdict and the person who is the victim of an established crime which the jury has held to be proved. It is important not
14
to jump the gun and suppose that everyone who complains of having been the victim of an assault is necessarily the victim. That is an abuse of language which I have seen in legislation in the United States and it can lead to an unfortunate position. We must find some way of differentiating in our legislative language between persons who are alleged victims and persons who are undoubtedly victims.
I seek to make that distinction and shall speak to it when I deal with Amendment No. 57. That amendment is concerned with people who are established to be the victims of a crime and it gives them a right to attend the sentencing proceedings. At that stage the crime has been proved and it has been proved that there is a victim. As I said in Committee, often after a street battle the winners go into the dock as the accused and the losers go into the witness box as the witnesses and the victims. Sometimes it takes a sophisticated process to determine who are the real victims and what were the real assaults.
I also wish to draw attention to the duty in the amendment to provide victims with information about the progress of the case. That would be a most extensive duty to perform. In Amendment No. 57 I have sought to impose a more modest duty in respect of sentencing proceedings in solemn procedures; that is, in jury cases, which are relatively small in number. However, if in every case in Scotland where there is a probable victim it becomes necessary to supply him with information at all stages of the process, the cost to the criminal justice system would be staggering and it would not work.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in moving the amendment, the noble Earl suggested that there might be a statement on the face of the Bill which indicates the concern that we all have for victims in Scotland. I understand his desire to do that, but I hope that from a broader reading of the Bill he will appreciate that one of the principal themes running throughout is that we should be taking steps to improve the position of witnesses, in particular victims. In Clauses 11 and 14, for example, we are trying to put in place better arrangements so that witnesses who may be victims are not unnecessarily brought to court to give their evidence. Clause 18 tightens up the provisions relating to attacks on character. We see that as being helpful to victims who are often extremely offended by such attacks. The provisions included in Clauses 12 and 13 to try to bring forward through the use of intermediate diets earlier pleas of guilty would similarly be of advantage to victims.
Furthermore, my Amendment No. 84 would insert a new clause that would establish a criminal courts rules council. I do not wish to go into the detail now, but the noble Earl will see that subsection (2) provides for:
"two persons appointed by the Lord Justice General after consultation with the Secretary of State, at least one of whom must be a person appearing to the Lord Justice General to have… an awareness of the interests of victims of crime and of witnesses in criminal proceedings".
I hope that with that additional provision the noble Earl will appreciate that we share his objective of doing all that we can to ensure that victims are properly regarded

15
in our criminal justice system. I appreciate the importance of ensuring that the vulnerability of victims as they attend court is properly understood.
Last October, I attended the launch of the report of a working party on victims within the criminal justice system. It was based on the experiences at Hamilton Sheriff Court. That report offered valuable insights, and I was encouraged to see that a number of its recommendations have already been adopted by the main agencies as normal working practice. Against that background, I see no need to impose on the courts a statutory duty of the kind proposed. Moreover, it is difficult to see what imposing a duty in such general terms would achieve.
The second part of the amendment, which deals with the provision of information to victims, is also laudable in principle. But the courts are in a position only to provide certain kinds of information; for example, to use the terms of a previous amendment tabled by the noble Earl, information about the procedure and processes of the court. However, information about the progress of the trial is a matter about which the court might be completely ignorant. Such information would have to be obtained perhaps from the procurator fiscal or the police. As was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that would be an extremely extensive duty to place on the courts and I do not believe it is proper to do so. It would require them to provide information that they did not have to hand and it may be that the procurator fiscal would be the appropriate person to go to.
As I explained at an earlier stage, support for victims at court is best provided by the court-based social worker and by volunteers from Victim Support (Scotland). Arrangements for that are already in place. I believe that such an approach would be appropriate; it would be inappropriate to impose a general duty as provided in Amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 85 contains a number of technical defects, not least concerning who is the victim and at what time he can appropriately be described as such. The noble Earl moves from discussing victim witnesses to victims and I am far from clear about what is proposed.
I hope that the noble Earl will recognise that we are sympathetic to the general aims of his amendment. However, we believe that the administrative changes already in place and the various agencies within the system are already doing what they can to improve the position. I hope that on that basis he will withdraw Amendment No. 2. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated that he did not wish now to speak to his amendments in the group and therefore I shall not respond to them now.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, perhaps I may comment on Amendment No. 85. During the debate on the first day of Committee I asked the Minister for information about the services provided to victims and witnesses in Scotland and the way in which they compared with the practice in Crown Courts in England and Wales. I was unable to be in the Chamber on the
16
second day of Committee when the Minister replied; the amendments were taken in a different sequence and he did not reply until then.
However, he gave a considered reply, for which I thank him. It appears at cols. 466 and 467 of the Official Report of 16th January 1995. He explained that court-based social workers in Scotland were required to provide information, advice and support to victims of crime. He went on to explain that there were in place standards which emphasise certain matters; for instance, that the victims appearing are often under severe stress and so forth. The Minister's comments ended with a resounding assertion that he hoped that what he had said would reassure me. He said:
"we respond quite as vigorously north of the Border as is done south of the Border to the needs of victims as they come to court".—[Official Report, 16/1/95; col. 467.]
I wish to press the noble and learned Lord and to ask for further information. However, first, I repeat my interest as President of Victim Support for England and Wales. That is the reason why I intervene in a Scottish debate. The principles are the same. I think we can all agree that the way victims and witnesses are treated in our criminal courts should be the same north or south of the Border.
In the past year or two a formal new additional service has been provided in the Crown Courts of England and Wales. I refer to the Crown Court witness service—I have the descriptive leaflet in my hand—which now exists in 50 of the courts. The number was initially 30. The service is directly funded by the Home Office for the purpose of providing enhanced services for victims and witnesses. Before that court-based probation officers had certain responsibilities for witnesses who came to court. They could help with witnesses, whether or not they were victims. They were already there as part of the existing services in the Crown Courts. The witness service is an additional new service of trained, salaried people with a specific responsibility and with accommodation in court for victim witnesses who appear in the court. Those people are assisted by a rota of volunteers. I did not detect from the Minister of State's answer whether what is happening in Scotland is comparable with that or whether these responsibilities, which are described in cols. 466 and 467 of the Official Report of 16th January, of the court-based social workers are in place already. If the Minister is not in a position to elucidate further now, perhaps he can do so at a later stage and inform me and the House of the outcome.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I hope that I can give my noble friend something of a response. In short, we do not have the same system in place that he indicates is in place in a number of courts, but not all courts, in England at the present time.
Lord Windlesham: It is more than half.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I sought to set out in my opening remarks on the amendment, we envisage that a number of different agencies have to participate. It may be the police at an early stage; it may

17
be the procurator fiscal; in some circumstances it will be the clerk of the court; and in some circumstances it may be the social worker. The report of the work undertaken at Hamilton Sheriff Court revealed that if the system were to be effective it would be necessary to ensure that all those different agencies at different stages played their part. Our view is that that is the best way to develop the system in Scotland, although we watch with great interest how the system is developing in England. We shall watch to see what difficulties are encountered and how they are resolved.
I should like to make it clear that we do, as is the case south of the Border, offer very significant support to Victim Support (Scotland). Some £878,000 is being paid in the current year. Additionally—this is important with regard to the way victims are treated—my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate is proposing to set up a working party to monitor the way in which civilian witness statements are taken. He hopes that Victim Support (Scotland) will agree to participate in that group.
I hope that my noble friend will be reassured that we are well aware of the importance of ensuring that there is proper regard for the rights and dignity of victims and that we are approaching the matter on a broad basis.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support for these amendments and the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his reply. I agree that the amendments need considerable tidying up. They were inadequately drafted. Services to victims in Scotland need to be publicised more. The way ahead to redress the balance between care for offenders and care for victims could be through publicity. I am glad that noble Lords accept the principle of our case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Lists of potential jurors]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 14, leave out ("for") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 4. The two amendments are interrelated. We have discussed this issue at earlier stages of the Bill and indeed on other occasions. I have put down the amendments once more in the hope that the Government will think again about interfering with the present method of selecting jurors and objecting to jurors in criminal trials in Scotland. I had the opportunity to have a brief word with the Minister. I understand that the Government are not prepared to alter their views at this stage.
The occupation of prospective jurors is a useful guide to the defence in deciding which jurors should be challenged. In a variety of cases and variety of circumstances in the courts it may be that certain people should not be on a jury. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said during the Committee stage that the beauty—he did not use that word but that is how I interpreted it—of the system is that it is random. A random system which leads to imbalance in the composition of a jury is a bad system.
The removal of the occupation of jurors from the list means that the selection will be completely at random and imbalances might arise—for example, as has already been said, in major cases involving fraud or even murder. Logically, if the clause is to go through, the address of a prospective juror should be removed as well. We know only too well from major murder cases in Scotland that certain areas, unfortunately, in major cities in Scotland—and no doubt in England and Wales—are designated as areas of high crime and areas from which people might or might not want people for their juries. There are areas of perceived high respectability at the other end of the scale.
The system of selecting juries in Scotland has worked well to date and is a quick and effective way of selecting jurors. The Government's proposals could lead us down the road of the American system of jury selection under which, as I understand it, potential jurors are investigated and interrogated on almost every aspect not only of their own lives but of their families' lives. In the current O.J. Simpson trial I have had the advantage of seeing a questionnaire which was sent to every prospective juror. It was to be filled in without consulting anyone and on the basis that the juror was on oath (although the document was sent to him) and that anything said would be investigated and if it were found to be incorrect the juror could be charged with perjury. The number of questions in that document was just short of 300.
I know that that situation is a long way down the road but I pose the question and say that any temptation to follow that system would be ill advised. The investigation of potential jurors in Scotland by such means would be ridiculously expensive, time consuming and unnecessarily intrusive. The present system is basically fair and inexpensive and should be retained.
This clause is to some extent linked with the amendment on peremptory challenge of three jurors which is available to the defence in the criminal courts. Amendment No. 5 has been linked with an amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The problem is that the Crown has great facilities for knowing who the prospective jurors are. For example, it knows who a particular person living in a particular area is; it knows whether he has a criminal record; it knows this and it knows that. It can easily object to jurors on cause shown by a nod and a wink to the defence. As I have said, the defence normally go along with the Crown on these matters. The defence have no access to that information. It has no way of knowing the occupation, if any, of prospective jurors.
This leads to a system which I believe is unfair. At Committee stage I posed the question whether, as a logical consequence to the passing of this amendment moved by the Government, the defence would be allowed an early list of jurors. In any high court or solemn proceedings in Scotland a list of jurors who are to be allocated to a case, whether or not it proceeds, is provided so that those advising the accused can see from where the jury members come, who they may he and whether or not they may be worthy of investigation (or such investigation as may be proper without annoying prospective jurors). They may advise the accused that

19
certain jurors should not be on the jury. The proposed omission by the Government is completely unfair, unnecessary and is not called for by any substantial movement in the legal process in Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. It seeks to ensure that juries are made up of appropriate people who can be easily scrutinised at the beginning of the trial process and who are unlikely to be biased in favour of the prosecution or defence. I speak briefly as someone who has been excused jury service on three occasions because I have been employed at the social work end of the criminal justice system.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when this matter was debated at an earlier stage I made the error of indicating that the occupations of jurors in England and Wales had never been shown on the jury list. I regret that my knowledge of the criminal law of England was imperfect in that respect. I understand the position to be that occupation was shown until 1973 but has never been shown since. I may be corrected again, but I understand that the absence of the occupation of the juror has not caused any particular difficulty this side of the Border.
As I explained at Committee, the clause is part of a package of reforms to improve the selection of jurors and to ensure as far as possible that a jury is randomly selected and is representative of the population as a whole. We know that in practice potential jurors of certain occupations are regularly objected to for no apparently legitimate reasons. The noble Lord gave an extremely interesting example at Committee stage. He said that if he saw someone described on the jury list as a security officer he would make the automatic assumption that the individual was a retired policeman and immediately object to him. With respect, that seems to raise an extraordinary number of questions. First, that individual may never have worked for the police. Secondly, if retired policemen are never to sit on juries it seems to me that the more appropriate way to deal with it is to have an extended list of those who are not eligible for jury service.
As my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out during our earlier debate, discrimination against certain occupations is unfair to individuals and also prevents the selection of representative jurors. Accordingly, in the view of the Government there are sound reasons of principle for the proposal in Clause 6. With that repeated explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, we are to some extent going over the same ground. It is a fact that in practice when people were designated security officers that assumption was made. In modern times when security services are put out to private tender and different groups look after security that fact may no longer apply. However, no doubt those involved in court cases will take that into account.
20
The fact that England has survived with this system since 1973 has nothing whatever to do with Scotland. On the next amendment I shall make the point that Scotland has an entirely different system. In England one can have either a unanimous verdict of 12 jurors or a majority of 10 votes to two. The system is completely different in Scotland. In an attempt to seek a balance in any trial it is important that the defence should at least know from where the juror comes, and who he is. It should be able to make a reasoned judgment on the matter, rather than having to scratch about for information on jurors to see whether the defence should advance an argument on cause shown.
I am sure that the matter will raise its head in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Challenges to jurors]:
3.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, leave out line 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 relates to the removal of the right to the peremptory challenge of three jurors. The matter is linked to what has already been said in connection with earlier amendments about leaving out the occupations and addresses of potential jurors for the information of the Crown and the defence in criminal trials.
There is no good argument as to why the peremptory challenge should be abolished. It is a quick and convenient way to convene a jury to hear a case. The view has been expressed that to require cause to be shown in open court can prejudice a potential juror, but I assume that if an argument on cause shown were presented to the court the presiding judge will ask the potential juror to leave the court.
I make the short point that comparisons between England and Scotland in the process of criminal law are invalid. It should be borne in mind that Scotland has a completely different system and balance. A criminal jury in Scotland is composed of 15 people. One can be convicted or acquitted on a single vote of eight to seven. The balance in the voting system in England is already in favour of the accused to some extent. In England the Crown has to convince 10 out of 12 people that a person is guilty before such a verdict can be recorded. In Scotland the Crown simply has to persuade eight out of the 15. That is why I suggest that there is an imbalance in the system. If we retain the previous situation regarding addresses and the peremptory challenge of jurors, we can retain a balance in the Scottish criminal system. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, this amendment is associated with my Amendment No. 6. Clause 8 effectively removes the first few subsections of Section 130 of the Act which describe what the section is about. Section 130(1), which the Bill proposes to remove, reads:
"In any trial, each accused may challenge three jurors, as may the prosecutor, without giving any reason."

21
That enshrines the peremptory right—it is equal on both sides—of challenge to three jurors.
I remind your Lordships that the details of the discussion on this point can be found in the Official Report at vol. 559, no. 7, col. 566, when the matter was discussed at Second Reading on 29th November 1994, and in vol. 560, no. 22, col. 335, on the first day of Committee on 12th January 1995.
The Government have said that they are advancing a good basic principle in relation to the abolition of the right to peremptory challenge. I remind your Lordships of what I said on previous occasions. The matter of principle was looked at by the Thomson Committee in the 1970s, the most distinguished body of criminal lawyers and others which had been gathered for such a purpose this century. It did not recommend what the Government now propose but recommended that centuries of history and tradition should be adhered to in this regard. The Government brought forward a proposal in the 1980 Bill to reduce the number of peremptory challenges, and they ultimately settled for the compromise—agreed by all parties—of three peremptory challenges. That is what we find in Section 130(1) of the 1975 Act, as amended.
The Lord Advocate then and the Minister now both espoused the principle of randomness and justified the provision on that basis. But they do not seek to justify it properly on the basis of randomness because under the new Bill they give both the prosecutor and the defence the right to agree to interfere with random selection by their agreeing to take someone off the jury. They also leave the right to remove a potential juror for cause shown.
I urge the Government therefore not to tamper with a principled tradition which is centuries old, not on the basis that the Lord Advocate or the Minister thinks it is justified in principle, but on the basis that the Minister should be humble enough to realise that when judgments of principle are made, such as that in relation to the Child Support Agency, the Government can get the matter entirely wrong. One can think of other examples where so-called principles were brought forward and in practice produced extraordinarily bad results. I believe that that is a likely consequence in this regard and that the numbers called upon to attend for jury service will not be reduced. The probability is that the number of challenges for cause shown will rise in Scotland—they may not have risen in England, but I am sure that they will rise in Scotland.
One other red herring is constantly dragged into these debates and was dragged in on a previous occasion—that is the assertion that if a member of the public turns up in court carrying a copy of the Financial Times, that person will automatically be objected to. In 40 years of practice I have never known that to happen; in fact, I do not believe that I have ever seen a copy of the Financial Times in a Glasgow criminal court or any other criminal court in Scotland.
It so happens that, sitting as I am currently in Glasgow on criminal trials, I saw two juries empanelled last week and on each occasion three objections were taken—that is the maximum. On each occasion counsel did not look to see who the juror was to whom objection
22
was being made, so it was not done on the ground that the person was wearing a collar and tie or that she had had her hair recently permed or that he was carrying a copy of the Financial Times; it was done on the basis of an address or some other circumstance which counsel had obtained via the jury list.
That brings me to the terms of my specific amendment. At the present time, objection to a juror should be taken when the name of the juror is balloted. That is the present law. I say that it should be done by written intimation to the clerk of court after the ballot has been called and pleas recorded.
Your Lordships should understand that what happens at the present time is that the clerk of court, once the pleas have been recorded, pulls the names of the jurors from a glass bowl and, for instance, calls No. 128, Mrs. Sarah Jones. She makes her way towards the front of the court and if she is objected to, objection is taken while she walks. That may be upsetting; to some it may be humiliating and others may regard it as offensive.
I propose that if people want to object to a juror, not on a ground that he or she is holding a copy of the Financial Times or is wearing a specific kind of hairstyle, but on a ground related to the address or other information in the jury list, then counsel should prepare a list of the names to which he objects and hand that list to the Clerk of Court. That would be the effect of my amendment. It would enable the right of peremptory challenge to survive; it would enable it to be done on the basis of the jury list rather than on the appearance or accoutrements of the juror, and would preserve the tradition for which the Government have shown no justification to change.
I should like to know—and the answer should be recorded so that it can be studied in another place if not here—upon what true basis the Government are seeking to interfere with the right of peremptory challenge. Who made the suggestion before they put out their trawl looking for support? I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, and at the same time proffer my Amendment No. 6.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, the Committee debated the issue of peremptory challenge at some length, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, indicated that he was today concerned with very much the same matters. In relation to the general principle behind the Government's proposal, I adopt what I said in Committee. In reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I simply say that the matter of peremptory challenge arose for consideration when the Government were considering various issues in relation to juries and how they operated in Scotland.
In relation to the specific matter of peremptory challenge, we were aware that that right had been enshrined in Scottish law for a long time—centuries may be a slight exaggeration; I believe that it was introduced at the beginning of the 19th century in response to specific circumstances at the time. It has been modified since, as your Lordships have been told. As I said in Committee, we were aware of the recommendation of the Thomson Committee. We were

23
also aware, as I indicated at Committee, that since that time there had been changes in the eligibility of people for jury service; and, more particularly, we were aware that over that period legislation introduced in England showed that the reform of the kind we envisage here did not bring in its wake in England the consequences which were thought may be brought in in the way of increased challenges for cause shown.
I do not believe that there would be a great increase in challenges on cause shown and that it is not legitimate to have regard to the experience in England. I accept that the juries are differently composed and that there are different mechanisms in place for verdicts in Scotland, as we all know. Nonetheless, I am certain that we can look to see what the experience has been.
In relation to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I believe that in practice it would lead to further delay in the start of cases and would not be helpful. When one asks to what the noble and learned Lord is referring, we find that he is referring to the possibility that the defence, on looking through the jury list, will see, for example, a specific address. If that is a legitimate ground for objection to a potential juror—for example, that they live in the same street or next door to where the incident took place or that they may know the person concerned and that can be detected from the list—that may be a good ground for showing cause why that person should not be included on the jury. On the other hand, there is no reason why that should simply remain a basis for making a peremptory challenge.
I go back to the position from which I started; that it is right in principle to have regard to the random nature of selection, qualified by the kind of provision which we made in Clause 8 for both the prosecution and the defence and by the retention of the right to challenge on cause shown. We believe that with those qualifications the principle is the correct one and the clause should remain unamended.
4 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said. It merely underlines the problems which are awaiting us in the criminal courts. For example, the remaining matter which the defence can raise is cause shown.
I can very readily imagine defending someone in the criminal court in Glasgow, or anywhere else, and seeing that a juror came from a particular area with a high incidence of crime. That person would not necessarily be living in the same street or even the adjoining street, but on the face of it it could be said that he did not come from a part of the community which was interested in upholding law and order and justice. If I rose and said to the presiding judge, "I object to this juror", and he replied, "You can object only on cause shown, and what is that?", I could only say, "He lives on housing estate X and I have material from the Strathclyde police and the Lothian and Border police saying that one cannot trust anyone from that particular area because they will not
24
co-operate with the police. They are not interested in law and order". The judge would then say, "Don't be so ridiculous. You cannot categorise people in one particular area as being all tarred with the same brush of not being interested in law and order". Therefore my cause shown would be thrown out of the window. But looking at the other side of the coin, it is possible that the Crown's case as regards a particular individual would also be out of the window because very often such persons do not care about the system of justice.
As I asked before, for the purposes of criminal proceedings, who is going to define what cause shown is, or is it going to be left entirely to the discretion of the presiding judge? However, I leave these matters as they stand because, like other matters, they will be raised no doubt in another place.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for his support of my amendment. As regards his own amendment I can see the point of it. But there are matters which arise; for example, at the moment potential jurors are given a fairly lengthy lecture by the clerk of court telling them what the system is and instructing them that the defence has the right to object to three people for its own reasons and that potential jurors must not take it as a personal slur on themselves. I have never heard of a potential juror running to the authorities and saying that he was very upset because he was objected to. The system seems to work well.
The noble and learned Lord's system can only work in terms of written objections to the clerk of the court if the defence is given a list of assize and time to look at it. Very often that is done after the case is called on, which does not give much time for writing down the names of jurors who might be objected to. I hope that the noble and learned Lord was not suggesting that that would be the only way to object. It is not unknown in certain towns or in country areas, for example, for a person who has arrived for jury service to be called early in the morning if his countenance, to say the least, suggests that he may have an alcoholic problem. Therefore, the prospect of sitting in court from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. will be abhorrent to him because he will not get his favourite beverage. He certainly would not get it at lunchtime in the Scottish court system. Therefore, if someone of that kind was spotted and he was objected to, would that be cause shown?
If I saw someone whom I suspected of being an alcoholic or having an alcohol problem and then said to the judge, "I am objecting to this juror", the judge asked why, and I replied, "Because I believe that he probably is an alcoholic or has a severe alcohol problem", the judge would then ask, "What is the basis for saying that?". I would answer, "I just do not like the look of him". The judge would tell me to sit down and behave myself. One can see the problems which are going to arise in this matter. I hope that it will be closely monitored by the Government to see how the system works. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, leave out line 14 and insert:
("(a) in subsection (2) the words "when the name of that juror is balloted" shall be deleted and in their place shall be inserted "by written intimation to the Clerk of Court after the diet has been called and the pleas have been recorded".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, but in moving it I shall use the opportunity to respond to some of the points which have been made. I respectfully suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is wholly wrong to suggest that the system I advocate would lead to delay. On the contrary, it would have the opposite effect. I envisage that defence and Crown counsel be given the list of assize in time for them to scan it and to decide whether on the basis of address, name or any other information that it may contain they want to object to a juror. They would simply note the ones objected to and write them on a piece of paper. When the clerk of the court called the number, counsel would indicate to him that the number related to a person who should not be empanelled as a juror.
It can be done in a number of ways. Another is to have the clerk of the court simply read out the number. He would call, for example, "No. 128" and pause. If one wanted to object one would say, "Object!". In that way the name of the person is not called and he or she does not even know they have been called and rejected. That disposes of an argument which has been advanced that it is humiliating for jurors to be objected to.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate replied to the effect that, if there was a basis in relation to the address, the name, occupation or some other matter, that could provide substance for an argument that cause was shown. That would simply waste time. I am certain that as regards those cases on which I now sit very frequently, where the religion, address or other features of a potential juror are thought to be of importance, counsel would have to take objection on the ground of cause shown. Then the judge would have to entertain submissions on the matter from both parties. That is a very costly and unnecessary exercise.
The Government still have time and I urge them to think again. I urged them to do so in 1980 but they declined. When the matter came back to this House from the other place they had thought again and arrived at a sensible solution. I urge them to do the same on this occasion. With that observation, I beg to move. I do not propose to say anything further.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that I have already spoken to this amendment.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, in the light of what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Judicial examination]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 10.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is an issue that was debated at length at Committee stage. It has been retabled for the purpose of asking the Government to think again, as they have been asked to think again about the previous matters as regards jury service. The
26
Minister has Amendment No. 8 standing in his name which has the same effect as my amendment but it adds a new clause. I wish to speak to my own amendment at this stage.
The point of this particular amendment relates to what is called in Scotland judicial examination, where an accused person can be brought before a sheriff at a very early stage in the proceedings to be questioned by the prosecutor. That is the important phrase; namely, to be questioned by the prosecutor for certain reasons and for questions to be asked eliciting any denial, explanation, justification or comment by the accused on charges and so on.
The Government are attempting to bring into that area the question of an admission by an accused. I accept that the clause does not mention an admission of guilt. The phraseology is "eliciting any admission", which suggests to me that the prosecutor has the right to ask questions, apart from the right of the defence, in order to clarify matters at the end of the examination. The prosecutor is going to be entitled to elicit confessions of guilt. That suggestion substantially hits at the so-called right to silence. The judicial examination procedure erodes that anyway.
I have always held—and perhaps I am wrong—that the right to silence does not exist in Scotland anyway since the judicial examination procedure was brought into play. At the time objection was taken to the whole procedure in that it was quite wrong that within 24 hours of a serious crime having been committed the accused and his solicitor, perhaps having only a copy of the complaint to the petition, were wheeled in before a sheriff to be questioned by the prosecutor, who has in his possession no doubt a very full police report containing the background to the case, to which the accused has no access whatsoever. The prosecutor may also have supporting statements. The accused then has the right to consult a solicitor before answering detailed questions about where he was, what he did, who he was with, and so on.
In my submission, that provision will create a difficulty which need not exist because, as matters stand at present, there is nothing to prevent the accused making an admission anyway. To use a colloquialism, if the accused wants "to put his hand up" at a judicial examination and say to the procurator fiscal, in the presence of a sheriff, "Forget all this; I did it", there is nothing in the present procedure to stop him doing that. This provision, however, gives the procurator fiscal the power to wheedle an admission of guilt out of the accused in circumstances where the lawyer is placed in a difficult situation. We all know—everyone knows—that a person can admit to doing something but not be legally guilty of it. It is the loose use of the word "admission" that bothers me. Indeed, we must ask, "an admission of what?" What is behind the present phraseology?
Some of those who will be brought before a sheriff will be of limited intelligence—that is not their fault—and will therefore be unable to instruct a lawyer or to understand what is going on. Some people may be completely fazed by the trauma of the event in which they may have been involved. They may have been

27
involved in a domestic incident and their emotional disturbance and the pressure to which they may have been subjected cannot even be imagined by the sheriff or procurator fiscal or even by the solicitor who has been allocated to that individual. Not many people are capable of rational thought within 24 or 48 hours of a trauma.
Solicitors are being put in a difficult position. They are being forced to advise a client (who may be asked something) without having had a chance to consider the evidence although, on the face of it, an admission may point to a guilty verdict. The client may have a proper explanation.
The clause will place a heavy burden on the duty solicitor and the accused and, in my submission, may act very much against the interests of justice. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, unless the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is objecting to the new clause which it is proposed to insert into the Bill under Amendment No. 8, I cannot see why we need to discuss Clause 10 because it will disappear anyway.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point, but I wanted to argue the point that Clause 10 should disappear. We shall discuss the alternative in due course when the Minister moves Amendment No. 8.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we had an interesting debate on this in Committee. That debate was distinguished by the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who set out what takes place in a judicial examination and the weakness in it which Clause 10 now seeks to remedy. I am bound to say that I do not think that I can improve on the noble and learned Lord's explanation. However, I am somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has sought to return to this subject.
With your Lordships' forbearance, perhaps I may reiterate that Clause 10 does not represent an attack on the rights of the accused. It certainly does not affect his right to remain silent. He can refuse to admit an allegation just as easily as he can deny it at present. What the clause does do is enable the procurator fiscal to ask questions which the accused will be better able to understand. The noble Lord said that some of those who come into court for judicial examination may not always be of the highest intelligence. I would argue as vigorously as I could that this change will make it easier for such individuals to understand what is going on. It will also be easier for juries to understand what has transpired when they come to consider the transcript of the examination.
There is nothing dramatic or radical about the proposal. It gives full effect to the recommendations made by the Thomson Committee in 1975. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that there is no major attack on the right to silence or anything fundamental like that. With that explanation, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I have heard the noble and learned Lord's explanation. It was the
28
same explanation as we heard previously. As I have said, I do not consider that the right to silence exists in any case—nor do I consider that this provision advances the cause of justice in Scotland and I therefore wish to take the opinion of your Lordships' House.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Avebury, L.

Judd, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Longford, E.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Monkswell, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Diamond, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Peston, L.

Eatwell, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Richard, L.

Ezra,L.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkender, B.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Shepherd, L.

Geraint, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stedman, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Tope, L.

Gregson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Varley, L.

Haskel, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ailsa, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brigstocke, B.

Ampthill, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Balfour, E.

Butterworth, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

Blaker, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Blyth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Boardman, L.

Carnock, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

29

Chesham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cross, V.

Morris, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Moyne, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Palmer, L.

Flather, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Forbes, L.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perth, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Pike, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Quinton, L.

Geddes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renwick, L.

Gridley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodney, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Seccombe, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Selborne, E.

Harrowby, E.

Shannon, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Slim, V.

Holderness, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hooper, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hothfield, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Sudeley, L.

Howe, E.

Swansea, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Terrington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Lindsay, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Ullswater, V.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wharton, B.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marlesford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wise, L.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 8:
Leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new clause:
Judicial Examination
(" .—(1) Section 20A of the 1975 Act (examination of accused by prosecutor before sheriff) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after the words "eliciting any" there shall be inserted "admission,"; and

(b) in paragraph (i) of the proviso to paragraph (a), for the words from "category" to the end there shall be substituted "defence".

(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) The accused shall be told by the sheriff that if he answers any question put to him at the examination under this section in such a way as to disclose an ostensible defence, the prosecutor shall be under the duty imposed by subsection (7) below.".
(4) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
30
"(7) Without prejudice to any rule of law, on the conclusion of an examination under this section the prosecutor shall secure the investigation, to such extent as is reasonably practicable, of any ostensible defence disclosed in the course of the examination.
(8) The duty imposed by subsection (7) above shall not apply as respects any ostensible defence which is not reasonably capable of being investigated.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, brought forward an amendment in rather similar terms to this, the general thrust of which I was then happy to accept in principle. He has again tabled an amendment in somewhat similar terms, but I hope that he may feel able to withdraw his amendment in the light of this one.
Amendment No. 8 imposes a duty on the prosecutor to investigate any ostensible defence disclosed at judicial examination, and requires the sheriff to inform the accused of that duty.
We have certain reservations about breaking down into specific statutory duties the procurator fiscal's broad duties to act fairly and to prosecute in the public interest. However, in the particular circumstances of a judicial examination it may be worth pointing out to an accused person that any defence of this kind which he or she discloses will be investigated.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord—perhaps it is my fault—but the last Division we had was on Amendment No. 7. We seem to have jumped to Amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 8 is about judicial examination, not investigating lines of defence, which is Amendment No. 10; perhaps I misheard—there was a lot of noise going on when the noble and learned Lord stood up—but could we just be clear that we are discussing Amendment No. 8?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, we are discussing Amendment No. 8. It relates to investigating matters as a result of lines disclosed at judicial examination.
As I was saying, the fact that attention is drawn to this matter at judicial examination may indeed make the advantages of declaring a particular defence at that stage more apparent. Nonetheless, despite any reservations we may have, we feel it right to put it down in this particular way.
We have not gone further to include a specific duty on the prosecutor to disclose the results of the investigation to the accused. If the procurator fiscal's investigation uncovers evidence which may be of assistance to the accused, he already considers himself—or should consider himself—to be under a duty to make the existence of such evidence known to the accused and his advisers.
I would expect all prosecutors to apply that principle in this connection. If they do so, the full purpose and spirit underlying the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will be met. We do not think it necessary or particularly desirable to enshrine in statute what would, after all, simply be a particular application of the general principle. It is the general principle which is important and should be observed.

31
Moreover, any statutory formulation which required a prosecutor to make evidence available in every case might be contrary, in certain circumstances, to the public interest—for example, if disclosure might breach particular confidences or endanger witnesses. It is best to leave the issue of disclosure of the results on the broader, general basis, and it is for that reason that that particular matter is not covered by the clause. However, the general thrust of the clause reflects the spirit underlying the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and we are happy to accept the spirit of that clause. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to this amendment. First, I am grateful to the Government for accepting the general thrust of what I proposed. I agree entirely with the Lord Advocate's hesitancy in trying to break down the duties of the prosecutor because it might lead to an argument that unless a prosecutor has duties specified his general duty of fairness does not exist; and we would not wish to get to that position.
However, the amendment imposes a responsibility on the sheriff to do something; and the duty of the prosecutor, in a sense, flows from that—the duty to secure, to the extent it is reasonably practicable the investigation of the ostensible defence disclosed.
I am perfectly happy with what is now proposed. I accept that my wording—it imposed an absolute duty upon the prosecutor to disclose the full results within a specified time—might go too far in specific cases. However, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to consider preparing a directional instruction to fiscals who have to conduct judicial examinations, so that they will know the thrust of what he has told your Lordships' House today; namely, that the prosecutor will disclose to the defence the results of the investigation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will endeavour to word the instruction so as to show that that duty should be performed as soon as may be to give the defence time to investigate the matter.
It could well be that in a particular case the accused is deceiving his own defence lawyers. They do not have the legal aid facility, or any other facility, at that stage to make a thorough investigation. The fiscal investigates and comes up with the results which show that the man is not telling the truth. That is then disclosed to his lawyers. They go to him and point out the error of his ways. That may lead to an earlier plea. I am sure that from many points of view this is a desirable improvement. I did not speak upon the last matter. I have already done so, and I do not propose to add anything to that.
The general effect of the amendments, taken together, is not to make the position of the accused in relation to the right of silence in Scotland any worse; in fact it makes it better. I congratulate the Government on moving in that direction.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I shall of course be happy to consider an instruction of the type that the noble and learned Lord indicated.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Requirement to give notice of defence of automatism or coercion
(" . After subsection (1) of section 82 of the 1975 Act (requirement to give notice of plea of special defence, etc.) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1 A) Subsection (1) above shall apply to a defence of automatism or coercion as if it were a special defence.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 104 and 105. The amendments address a very particular aspect of Scottish criminal law and procedure which will be familiar to a number of your Lordships; in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will recognise to some extent the genesis of part of the amendment in the case of Ross v. H.M. Advocate upon which he sat in 1991. In that case, the Appeal Court held that "automatism"—using the shorthand—was a matter which could in particular circumstances constitute a defence.
During the course of argument on that case the question of notification of such a defence was raised. Three of the five appeal judges variously expressed the view that pre-trial notice of the defence of automatism should be required. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, suggested that adding to the list of defences known as "special defences" merited fuller debate. The justification for the notification requirement in the case of the four existing special defences is to give fair notice to the Crown of an intention to lead evidence for such a defence.
I am aware that there exists a mechanism in Section 149A of the 1975 Act which allows the trial judge to permit the Crown to lead further evidence in the light of defence evidence or argument which could not have been anticipated. But, as was recognised by the Lord Justice General in the Ross case, that can be a somewhat unsatisfactory and inconvenient solution. The weight of opinion in that case indicated that it might be preferable to make the defence of automatism one of the special ones in the sense that notification should be given. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
One would therefore have to consider what would happen if for some reason notification was not given, because one is aware that that can occasionally happen. The question therefore arises as to what should then be the position. In practice, even in the case of special defences, the Crown has, from time to time, waived the necessary notice. But some doubt has been expressed about the competency of doing so. Therefore it has been thought desirable on this occasion while the matter of special defences is being looked at to amend the legislation to make it quite clear that the court can waive the notification requirement when it is considered appropriate to do so. That is why we have tabled the amendments to Schedule 5.
Also included in this group of amendments is a pre-consolidation amendment to require the defence in High Court cases to give 10 days' notice of its witnesses and productions. That is in line with the existing requirement on the defence to lodge any special defence

33
10 days before the trial starts. I hope that the House will feel able to support the amendments on the basis that they should facilitate the smoother conduct of trials and assure fairness both to the Crown and to the accused. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I support the amendment. I had intended to put down one in similar terms. Although the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has presented the matter as a somewhat technical one, its basis is that it imposes upon the defence a duty to give advance notice of a particular line of defence, effectively; for example, as in the Ross case, "I did these things, but I am not criminally responsible because without my knowledge somebody else laced my drink with LSD" or some such substance. It is only right and fair that if such a defence is to be advanced, notice of it should be given before the trial because there may well be matters to be investigated. I am all in favour of the trial itself being as fair as possible and that we should get rid of all possibilities of ambush. For those reasons, I support the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I add my support for the amendments in the area of technical defences. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that both lines will require a substantial amount of investigation as in cases such as the one he has instanced. The law on these two defences—if they were indeed defences at one time—has been clouded by legal and practical obscurity. I hope that the application of this clause will clear the skies.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Investigation of line of defence
.—(1) In section 20A of the 1975 Act, after subsection 3, there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The accused, before being asked any question by the prosecutor, shall be told by the sheriff that, if he answers any question in such a way as to disclose a line of defence (as for example alibi, incrimination, or the consent of an alleged victim), being a line of defence which is capable of being investigated at that time, the prosecutor will then be under a legal duty to investigate that line of defence thoroughly and as soon as is reasonably practicable".
(2) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) After any examination under this section has been completed it shall be the duty of the prosecutor, as soon as is reasonably practicable, personally or through his officers or officers of police, to investigate thoroughly any line of defence which is capable of being investigated at that time, provided it is a line of defence which has been disclosed by the accused in answer to any questions put to him by the prosecutor, and it shall be the duty of the prosecutor to disclose the full results of that investigation to the accused not later than the date of service of the indictment under section 70 of this Act".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in the light of what has just happened, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Agreement of evidence]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 34, after ("accused") insert ("(or each accused if more than one)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 and 19. The amendments are of a technical nature. They amend the new solemn and summary provisions which impose a duty to agree evidence to ensure that where there are several co-accused, all of the parties to proceedings will be under that duty.
The duty under Clause 11 is imposed only upon those accused who are legally represented. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that in proceedings where there are several co-accused, one or more of whom is not legally represented, the duty will not apply. It would be illogical to impose a duty to agree evidence on one co-accused if that evidence would then have to be led orally in relation to another co-accused. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 38, leave out ("unlikely to") and insert ("may not").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I return briefly to this matter which I mentioned in Committee. Under the system which the Bill is introducing or taking forward it is open to parties to reach agreement upon certain matters. I believe that parties should not only be free to reach agreement; they should be encouraged as much as possible to reach agreement. Accordingly, by removing the words "unlikely to" and substituting "may not", I am seeking to widen or increase the possible areas in which the parties may be able to reach agreement. If one side or the other does not know whether a particular fact which he wishes to establish is likely to be disputed, he says, "Well, it may be, it may not be, but I shall put it forward and if the other side agrees, well and good, but if it does not, then no harm has been done". That is a straightforward matter.
In dealing with the matter in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate (at col. 376 of the Official Report) was concerned that such an amendment would impose burdensome duties upon the parties. I am sure that the parliamentary draftsmen could deal with that and that it would be possible to frame the matter so that it was an encouragement rather than a positive duty.
I am interested in achieving the maximum amount of agreement possible so that the trial can concentrate on those matters which are truly in issue. I should mention that the same point is covered by Amendment No. 29 which stands in my name. However, that is different because it is not affected by the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in relation to the imposition of burdensome duties.
It may be that the Government are not happy to accept the amendment at the moment, but I hope that in the future they will consider whether they can widen the scope of the clause along the lines indicated. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord,

35
Lord McCluskey, has said, but we remain of the view that the drafting which we have adopted puts the balance correctly. For the reasons which I gave in Committee, we believe that it is desirable that a duty should be imposed in certain circumstances. We believe that the correct balance should be achieved and that, as Clause 11 imposes a duty, that duty should not be imposed where the results are not likely to be successful. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is. If people wish to go further, they are free to do so, but it is in that area only in which the duty is imposed. I shall reflect upon what the noble and learned Lord said, but we believe that the duty is correctly described in that way.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, in the light of the encouraging words at the end of that answer, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 19:
Page 6, line 39, after ("party") insert ("(or by any of the other parties)").
Page 7, line 2, leave out from first ("the") to ("shall") and insert ("agreement of the other party (or each of the other parties) to them; and the other party (or each of the other parties)").
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("against an accused who") and insert ("as respects which the accused (or any of the accused if more than one)").
Page 7, line 14, after ("accused") insert ("(or each accused if more than one)").
Page 7, line 19, after ("party") insert ("(or by any of the other parties)").
Page 7, line 25, leave out from first ("the") to ("shall") and insert ("agreement of the other party (or each of the other parties) to them; and the other party (or each of the other parties)").
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("against an accused who") and insert ("as respects which the accused (or any of the accused if more than one)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [First and preliminary diets in solemn proceedings]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 43, after ("shall") insert (", so far as is reasonably practicable,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 26. These amendments take account of a suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in Committee. The new duty imposed upon the court by Clauses 12 and 13 will be qualified by the words:
"so far as is reasonably practicable".
That change removes the imposition of an absolute duty to ascertain something which the court may not in all cases be able to ascertain, while ensuring that the court
36
will have to make every effort to ascertain whether the case is likely to proceed on time in the interests of the witnesses and others who may otherwise be called to court unnecessarily. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am happy to see the Government stumbling towards the light. I still believe that my solution is rather more elegant than that which is proposed by the Government. The problem with the words,
"so far as is reasonably practicable",
is that, when they are inserted in a new Act of Parliament, they trail clouds and clouds of earlier decisions by the courts all around the world and certainly on both sides of the Border in the United Kingdom. Arguments start about what is meant by those words.
My solution, which appears in Amendment No. 21, seeks merely to change the duty from a duty to ascertain something to a duty in inquire. The point is that, if the court has a duty, even if it is qualified by the words proposed by the Minister, to ascertain something, that implies a corresponding duty on the defence to take part in the exercise. It appears to me that that is an insidious way in which to invade the right of silence and a much more insidious way than anything proposed in relation to the matters which we discussed earlier.
I still hope that the Government will not close their minds on the matter altogether and that they will consider whether or not my solution is rather more elegant. However, I do not oppose the Government's amendment, but I hope that they will eventually see the light.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I support the approach suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It is well known throughout the world that as soon as the words "reasonable" and "practicable" find a place in the statute book, lawyers sit and clap their hands. Perhaps adoption of the noble and learned Lord's approach would mean that they have nothing to clap about.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when I originally moved the amendment I expected there to be cries of "Author!" because in Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said:
"It may be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will consider using some such phrase as 'so far as reasonably practicable'".—[Official Report, 12/1/95; col. 385.]
In such circumstances, the solution which the noble and learned Lord presented was elegant and we were happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, I should point out that there is a printing error on the Marshalled List and the amendment should read "Page 8, line 28".
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert ("but the accused shall not be obliged to answer any such question and if he does not answer that shall not be commented upon by the judge or the prosecutor at any later stage of the proceedings.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for that mistake. I sought to correct it but the correction did not get through.
The amendment is worded in such a way so as to draw attention to the point on which I touched briefly a few moments ago. At this preliminary stage the judge is concerned with procedural matters and matters in relation to the preparation for the trial. I am anxious to have a provision which ensures that an accused person is not obliged to answer questions put to him by the judge at that stage. If he were obliged to answer, that would be an invasion of the right of silence, although not much comment has been made about that.
I insert those words to protect the right of an accused person or the solicitor acting on his behalf to decline to assist the court if assistance has to be refused in relation to the proper exercise of the right of silence. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the purpose of Clause 12 is to ensure that cases are as fully prepared as possible before the trial by all parties. Our intention in introducing this clause is to ensure that better use is made of court time, with fewer trials being cancelled at the last minute and fewer victims, witnesses and jurors being inconvenienced.
There appear to be no good reasons why an accused should wish to refuse to answer questions at a first diet. He will not be asked about his defence, although he will have to state his plea. The questions which may be directed to him are questions about the state of preparation of his case. They will be of a procedural nature: for example, whether he has cited all the necessary witnesses and expects them to be available, whether he has received and considered any statements from the prosecution and whether he has agreed any of the facts therein.
There will be no consideration of the substance of the case. So there is no risk that he will prejudice his defence by answering questions. Were there to be such a risk, I should understand the noble and learned Lord's anxiety. We are giving no power to the court to compel an accused to answer such questions. However, to build in a statutory right not to answer questions of such a procedural nature would give quite the wrong impression of the nature of the proceedings and would be likely to undermine the effectiveness, which I believe we are all agreed is both necessary and desirable, of the whole procedure.
Further, it is unlikely that at subsequent proceedings there would be any need to comment on what had happened at the first diet. But a blanket prohibition on comment as proposed would be inappropriate. For example, if an accused person sought an adjournment of
38
the trial for reasons which ought to have been apparent earlier, it would seem to me to be extraordinary if the trial judge could not then inquire of the accused why he had not made the court aware, at the earlier diet, of the problem which necessitated adjournment and had thereby inconvenienced not only the court and the prosecution, but also all the witnesses and jurors.
If the amendment were allowed, I would be concerned that it would, as I said, undermine the effectiveness of the whole procedure. With that explanation regarding the limited type of questions that we believe might occasionally be asked, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I shall certainly do so. However, in turn, I urge the Minister to think again on the matter. If the noble and learned Lord looks at the new Section 75A to the 1975 Act, he will see from paragraph (b) (at the top of page 8 of the Bill) that one of the things that the court has to ascertain so far as is reasonably practicable is,
"the extent to which the prosecutor and the accused have complied with the duty under Section 84A(1)".
The latter is a new section which is being put in the 1975 Act under Clause 11. The new section imposes upon the accused a duty to,
"identify any facts…which he would, apart from this section, be seeking to prove".
That seems to me to be a formal imposition on an accused person to disclose facts which he is seeking to prove, providing that they meet the other elements of the section. It also appears to me to be possibly tainted by the accusation that might be made; namely, that it is an invasion of the accused's right of silence.
As always happens after a Bill has been scrutinised in this House, I have no doubt that the Government will look again at the wording. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and ascertain whether a different form of wording would be appropriate. I have no objection to the point in principle. I entirely agree that procedural matters should, if possible, be sorted out so that the trial becomes a real bare knuckle contest if that is what it has to be under the adversarial system. However, I urge the Government not to close their minds to the possibility of improving the wording. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 9, line 12, after ("ascertain") insert (", so far as is reasonably practicable,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Intermediate diet in summary proceedings]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 9, line 42, after ("inserted") insert (", so far as is reasonably practicable,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Delay in trial Calculation of specified period where accused detained outside Scotland
.In section 101 of the 1975 Act (prevention of delay in trials), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) In calculating the period of 12 months specified in subsection (1) above there shall be left out of account any period during which the accused is detained, other than while serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention, in any other part of the United Kingdom or in any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man in any prison or other institution or place mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A) of section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (transfer of prisoners for certain judicial purposes)."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the debate in Committee on the Rowan case, which involved a prisoner held on remand in England being unable to be transferred to Scotland. The Crown had to seek an extension to the time limits for commencement of the trial in Scotland to ensure that the case would not be time barred.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, promoted an amendment in Committee which I accepted in principle. The amendment promotes a similar solution to that envisaged by the noble and learned Lord. It differs only in minor drafting respects and extends the provision to include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
As I mentioned in Committee, the Government look on this as in interim solution to the problems which have been identified. To resolve all the difficulties will require amendment to United Kingdom legislation which is beyond the scope of the Bill. Nevertheless, the amendment will address the implications for Scottish proceedings. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I can certainly welcome the new clause. I also welcome the remarks just made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate; namely, that it is only a temporary measure. In Scotland, we are very proud of the fact that we bring people to trial swiftly. However, the real answer is to find a means whereby persons who are detained in a prison or some such place in the United Kingdom, but outside of Scotland, can be brought to Scotland to face trial within the time limits imposed by Scottish procedure.
I recognise that we are discussing a matter that has to be addressed in UK legislation. However, there seems to be a good deal of legislation in relation to criminal justice in the United Kingdom. Therefore, there should be an early opportunity to achieve that aim. I urge the noble and learned Lord to press that suggestion upon his colleagues in government. In the meantime, I welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Uncontroversial evidence]:
[Amendment Nos. 28 to 31 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 11, leave out line 20 and insert ("evidence as to any such fact as is specified in the direction, notwithstanding that a witness
40
or production concerned is not included in any list lodged by the parties and that the notice required by sections 81 and 82(2) of that Act has not been given.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when the matter was last before your Lordships in Committee, I undertook to consider the drafting of Clause 14 to see whether some improvements might be made in the light of certain observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. We have given careful consideration to what was said in Committee, but we have concluded that the clause should remain broadly as originally drafted.
The proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would have returned the position to that outlined in the report of the Scottish Law Commission. However, we have concluded that it is desirable to have the facility available to both parties. Nonetheless, during the course of our consideration, various issues arose. In particular, we thought it correct to bring forward the above amendment which is a clarification. In the circumstances, where a court directs that a fact that has hitherto been considered uncontroversial because of the provision has to be proved in the normal way, it should be open to the party requiring to bring the evidence for such proof to do so even though he has not been able to include a witness or a production in any list previously lodged by him or has not been able to give the requisite notice in terms of Sections 81 and 82(2) of the 1975 Act. I believe that it is a useful amendment which makes the position quite clear. Again, it will allow matters to be dealt with effectively at the trial. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am disappointed that the Government have not felt able to go along the road suggested by the Scottish Law Commission which I have advocated and supported. However, there is some hope in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said; namely, that we may be able to go forward from where we are at present in relation to agreeing evidence. One way in which the noble and learned Lord can secure a real advance is to take advantage of what he has done and what the Government are doing in this particular clause by providing what the noble and learned Lord called the "facility" to both parties and introducing a regime in the Crown Office and the fiscal service whereby prosecutors think very positively about the possibility of coming forward with minutes of agreement. Hitherto the possibility for a minute of agreement has existed. This takes the possibilities a little further.
I am sure that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate were to think positively about that it would ultimately be to the good of us all and would save a lot of time and expense. He could encourage a new culture among prosecutors which would mean that they would seek to obtain agreement on all matters that perhaps are not in dispute. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give consideration to issuing an instruction to those for whom he is responsible in this regard. However, I would not oppose—indeed I would support—the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 15 [Evidence of biological material]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 27, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment refers to the introduction of evidence as to the characteristics or composition of any biological material, notwithstanding that neither the material nor a sample is lodged as a production. It is a simple amendment which seeks to remove the word "shall" from page 11, line 27 of the Bill, and introduce the word "may". This amendment reflects the spirit of the previous amendment, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate moved, to give a degree of flexibility in the introduction of evidence. It may well be that there are good reasons why the sample is not available or lodged.
The inclusion of the word "may" would give the court a discretion—applying the touchstone of fairness—as regards why the sample or material is not lodged. As the clause presently stands, the court has no flexibility at all and presumably could not hear any argument in relation to the non-production of material or a sample from either the Crown or the defence point of view. It may save a lot of trouble—perhaps from an appeal point of view—if the court was given that flexibility to consider the matter in the light of any evidence or submissions presented to the court in relation to the particular matter under review in Clause 15. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the Government cannot accept this amendment. The position is that the clause is carefully focused in relation only to evidence as to characteristics and composition of any biological material. The position is that where it is only relating to characteristics and composition, these are matters about which evidence can properly be given in the absence of a sample and that evidence would not—for example, if it were relating to an analysis of the composition—be advanced by having simply present in court the sample itself.
The reason this has been brought to notice is because nowadays in particular people are sensitive to the health hazards which can arise from having, for example, certain blood samples in court. For that reason, it has been thought correct to address this matter. The matter has to be done on the basis of a general rule and not on the basis of a mere discretion because it has to be clear what the position is so that the prosecution knows whether the samples have to be there. If one had the kind of rule which the noble Lord envisages, that would introduce uncertainty, and it is to get rid of the uncertainty which has arisen because of certain decisions of judges in cases as to admissibility of evidence that this matter is being put on the statute book. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. I am not too happy with it but no doubt the matter will be monitored throughout court
42
proceedings and we shall see whether any serious debates take place in the course of criminal proceedings as regards the application of this particular section which, as I see it, may have certain evidential dangers. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Routine evidence]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I inform the House that if Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 35. I now call Amendment No. 34.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("which") and insert:
("(7C) No order shall be made under subsection (1A) above unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7D) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (2A) (b) (ii) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is brought forward as a consequence of an undertaking which was given to apply the affirmative resolution procedure to an order amending Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. In moving the amendment, I should perhaps make it clear to the House that I intend to bring forward at a later stage an amendment which will provide additional items for Schedule 1 to the 1980 Act where it is considered that routine evidence provisions are appropriate. That is in order that, as far as possible, the matter should be tidied up in primary legislation before any question of using this power arises. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Evidence of criminal record and character of accused]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 36:
Page 13, line 29, leave out from beginning to ("Act") and insert: (".—( ) In section 141 of the 1975 Act (accused competent witness for defence in solemn proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (1), in paragraph (0 (ii) of the proviso—

(i) after the word "character" where it first occurs there shall be inserted "or impugning the character of any victim who is deceased"; and

(ii) after the word "prosecution" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or of any such victim"; and

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

"(1A) In a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (f) of the proviso to subsection (1) above applies, the prosecutor shall be entitled to ask the accused a question of a kind specified in that paragraph only if the court, on the application of the prosecutor, permits him to do so.
(1B) An application under subsection (1A) above shall be made in the course of the trial but in the absence of the jury, the victim, any person cited as a witness and the public.".
( ) After section 141 of that").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46 and 47 deal with a number of issues arising from Clause 18. The intention behind Clause 18 was I think

43
apparent at the time of the discussion in Committee. A number of issues have arisen during the consideration of this clause both in the light of what was said in Committee and in the light of further work which has been done on it. I must say to your Lordships—it is with regret that I say this—that I am not satisfied that the amendments as they appear on the Marshalled List today would fully address all the points. In particular, I am not satisfied that they deal properly with the inter-relationship of Section 160 of the Act and Section 141, and what would be Section 141ZA. For that reason, it would not be my intention to move these amendments today.
In saying that I should also say that, partly in the light of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, as to the use of the word "victim", I think that the splattering of the term "victim" in Amendments Nos. 40, 41, 46 and 47 in the place of "complainer" would not be entirely helpful. Rather than move the amendments today and then have to re-amend them, I believe it is better that I should not move them. I do not propose to move the amendments. I apologise to the House that that is so but I hope at least that the amendments as they appear on the Marshalled List will give a general indication of the thinking of the Government on the matter. I shall not move Amendment No. 36.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendments Nos. 38 and 39:
Page 13, line 38, leave out from ("prosecutor") to end of line 39.
Page 14, line 7, leave out from ("prosecutor") to end of line 9.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments raise the same point as Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. Your Lordships will recall that on the first day of the Committee on 12th January at col. 391 of the Official Report, Volume 560, No. 22, this matter was dealt with. I give the reference because I think it is important that those who look at this matter in another place can read the arguments in full. I do not propose to repeat them at this stage in the Bill.
This clause as presently drafted, and indeed the amendments which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will not move, take us in the same direction. They are a giant step away from a well established principle. The principle was this: that where an accused person chose to attack the character of a witness, or for that matter the character of a prosecutor, he then put his own character in issue, provided he gave evidence. If he was saying that the witnesses were against him and should not be believed because they had bad characters, then if the accused gave evidence it was only right and proper that his character, too, should be brought to the attention of the jury so it could make an equal judgment about the parties.
The new provisions put the character of an accused person in issue even if he does not give evidence. That is the whole essence of the matter, as your Lordships will see from what is currently appearing in line 31 of new Section 141ZA; namely, where the accused does
44
not give evidence on his own behalf but evidence is led, then his character can be attacked. In my view, that is unprecedented in our law. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate put forward what I do not think is a respectable argument—the argument based upon Section 160(2) which deals with a totally different situation. An amendment was promised on the previous occasion. We shall have to wait with baited breath to see what it contains.
We are moving, without due and careful consideration, away from a situation which has been part of our law from the beginning. I have asked to see the justification for it. I should like to know who came up with the idea and who was consulted about it. In my view, we should not alter a very old rule of law which favours justice without thinking the matter through and consulting properly about it.
As some of your Lordships will be aware, because I mentioned the fact in Committee, I have been looking at the penal and criminal justice systems in North America, particularly in California. They are moving towards a situation in which the whole character of an accused person is laid before the court before the jury is asked whether he committed a particular act on a particular day. It would be deplorable if we were to go down that road. However, this is a giant and substantial step in that direction. I hope that the Government will consider carefully whether they want to go ahead with this proposal. In order that the matter may be discussed, I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as was said when the matter was discussed in Committee, the Government see the proposal in the clause as one which should achieve substantial justice. As the noble and learned Lord said, at present the position is that when somebody brings the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses or his own character into issue then if he gives evidence he may be asked questions about his previous convictions and so on.
In addition, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, it is clear that, by reference to Section 160(2) in relation to the general bar on leading evidence of previous convictions, it is possible to do so where an accused person has given evidence suggesting that he is of good character. The Government seek to generalise that provision and to allow that to take place in addition where the accused has attacked the character of the prosecutor and his witnesses.
The reason, which I submit is a sound one, is that if the defence has been conducted in such a way as to suggest that the witnesses for the prosecution are of bad character it is surely only right that a rounded picture should be presented to the jury and that they should be made aware also of any relevant characteristics of the accused and that he himself is not necessarily of good character. If that is not the case then the jury are presented with a false picture.
However, of course the Government accept that it is necessary, in order that such a rule should not be capable of wreaking injustice, that the whole matter

45
should be subject to a provision that the permission to lead such evidence should be given by the court. That is what is envisaged.
I believe that that safeguard, which is one that I have indicated that we wish to put also on the face of the statute in Section 141 of the existing legislation, will ensure that the proposal will not have the negative effects suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, but will allow juries, in an appropriate case, to see the full picture.
Of course I share the distaste of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for any general suggestion that juries would regularly hear about the accused's previous convictions, and so on. That would not assist. That is not proposed here. Only where he has put such matters at issue would that be done, with the permission of the court, by way of leading evidence. I believe that that balance is correct. I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment because I do not propose to divide the House from these Benches on such a matter. However, I wish to remind your Lordships of the essence of the point.
First, when the defence representative attacks the character of a Crown witness, he does so not because he wants to show that the Crown witness is a bad character, but because he wants to show that the Crown witness is not credible. It is essentially his credibility that he is attacking. He does that by means of attacking the character of the witness. Accordingly, if he has done that, when the accused enters the witness box to give evidence his own character is relevant as shedding light upon his credibility. But the character of the accused person is not an issue in the case other than in those special circumstances.
Another case which arises under the new section is the case of an attack upon the character of a deceased person. There is a very famous case in Scotland of Daniel Patrick Boyle. He was a young man who was accused of murdering a much older man. In the event it appears that a fight started involving the older man and some companions armed with lethal weapons and a number, including Boyle's friend, also armed with lethal weapons. At some stage one of Boyle's friends went down and was attacked by the others with lethal weapons. Boyle rushed in himself, armed with a knife, to rescue his friend. In that context, the character of the man he stabbed and who died was of great importance. The man who was killed was William Murray Bennett, a well known Glasgow villain. He had been a Glasgow villain for a quarter of a century. Anyone seeing him brandishing a knife, an iron bar or a billiard cue—which I believe he had on that occasion—would know that he meant business. Therefore, it was perfectly relevant to bring out the fact that that man had a fearsome reputation and record for criminal activity. That should not have exposed the record of Boyle to examination by the jury because it was not a relevant consideration, whereas the record of the deceased was relevant.
46
There are special cases. I do not favour a change in the law which would result in the character of the accused becoming an issue in a trial except in the special circumstance to which we have become accustomed. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Evidence in relation to sexual offences]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 16, line 41, leave out from beginning to second ("of") and insert (".—(1) In section 141A(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 51.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, will recall that I accepted that the amendment which he put down to the clause at the Committee stage had merit. I am therefore pleased to bring forward an amendment which will introduce a revised form of wording to extend the protection afforded by Sections 141A and 364A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 against questioning on the previous sexual history or character of a witness in a sexual offence trial to those offences covered by Sections 2B and 2C of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976.
I have taken the opportunity of reviewing whether there are other sexual offences which might usefully be added to the list covered by the provisions. We have concluded that offences under Section 7 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act should also be included. That section refers to acts of gross indecency between males. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I wish to put on record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for taking on board the matters which were raised at Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 16, line 44, leave out from ("women;";") to end of line 46 and insert:
("(b) after sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (g) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—

"(ia) section 2A (incest);

(ib) section 2B (unlawful sexual intercourse with stepchild);

(ic) section 2C (unlawful sexual intercourse of person in position of trust with child under 16);"; and

(c) after sub-paragraph (iv) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(iva) section 7 (gross indecency between males)".

(2) In section 346A(2) of that Act (corresponding provision in relation to summary proceedings)—

(a) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

"(ba) clandestine injury to women;";

47
(b) after sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (f) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—

"(ia) section 2A (incest);

(ib) section 2B (unlawful sexual intercourse with stepchild);

(ic) section 2C (unlawful sexual intercourse of person in position of trust with child under 16);"; and

(c) after sub-paragraph (iv) of that paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

"(iva) section 7 (gross indecency between males)".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Comment by prosecutor on accused's failure to give evidence]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 53:
Leave out Clause 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there was considerable debate about this proposal at Committee stage and I do not intend to go over the same ground again. The amendment stands in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Carmichael and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. It seeks to delete the Government's proposal that a prosecutor should be able to comment on an accused's so-called failure to give evidence. The Law Society of Scotland disagreed with the proposal in response to the Scottish Office consultation paper on the right to silence and other matters.
Without going over old ground, at present the prosecutor can comment on the fact that the Crown evidence is uncontradicted. Allowing the prosecutor to comment beyond the present provision is a dangerous intrusion into the law, in my submission to noble Lords. There is no reason why a prosecutor should have the right unless we go the whole road and say that the so-called failure of an accused person to give evidence will, per se, establish any material fact in the Crown case. What we will end up with is a porridge of instructions given to the jury by the judge.
The judge has to take on board not only his own onerous duties in heavy cases but a duty to control the prosecutor. Obviously he cannot control the prosecutor in the course of the prosecutor's remarks and would have to deal with the matter in the course of his charge to the jury. If the prosecutor makes improper remarks or remarks without justification about the accused not going into the witness box, at the close of the prosecutor's case the defence will seek to lead further evidence. That would create other difficulties in the proper administration of justice. As the Minister said at an earlier stage in the consideration of the Bill, we are all anxious to streamline the process of justice in Scotland. In my view, Clause 26 drives a coach and horses through the general provisions of the law in Scotland at the moment.
The amendment has been put down again deliberately to ask the Government to consider further consultation with the concerned parties, for example, the Law Society, the Law Commission, Bar associations, the Faculty of Advocates and so on. I do not know whether
48
there is a body representing accused or convicted persons apart from themselves. I do not ask for a Royal Commission because we know what happens to them: they disappear into the mist, like John Wayne riding off into the sunrise at the end of a Western. Then he suddenly reappears in the next film. I suggest that there would be no harm at this stage in the Government taking on board the suggestion to convene a meeting of all interested parties and delaying the matter, which will, of course, be considered again in another place. I ask them to withdraw their proposal and to support my amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to continue to record my reluctance and caution about the inclusion of Clause 26 in the Bill. I fear that there may be a possible erosion of the accused's rights and for that reason I continue to oppose the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I have already sought to make my position plain. I support the amendment which the Government propose to the law in this regard. I cannot see that it is an invasion of the right of an accused person. It is the removal of an artificial restriction upon what one would sensibly expect—namely, that the prosecutor should draw attention to that which is obvious.
There is nothing more obvious to a jury when they have sat in a criminal court for two or three days or two or three weeks and observed the evidence being given against the accused person. They reach the stage when the accused has the opportunity to go into the box and give evidence. If he does not do so, then of course the jury observe that. They do not need to be told by judges or by others, but in certain cases the very absence of that evidence might be of some significance in determining what inferences should be drawn from the other evidence. Silence cannot add to the evidence which is available to the jury, but the absence of evidence from the accused to explain facts which he ought to be able to explain should be a matter on which the prosecutor can comment.
All I am interested in is that trials should be real and that we should remove artificial restrictions. The law as at present worded in the 1975 Act contains an artificial restriction of long standing. I am happy that the Government should continue with the exercise of removing it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the Government will continue with that exercise because we remain satisfied that the position is as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated. It is important to remember that we are not changing the law on sufficiency of evidence. That remains exactly the same. We are not introducing any new test to be applied by judges in charging juries. That remains exactly the same as it has been developed by the courts. All that we are doing is to allow the prosecutor to make a comment where it is appropriate. If the prosecutor goes too far, he may be corrected by the judge and the matter can be dealt with in that way. If he goes so far that the matter

49
is somehow incurable, that could be dealt with by the trial judge saying that the case should be deserted. Alternatively, it could be dealt with in the Appeal Court.
I do not believe that there are likely to be frequent occurrences. On the contrary, I believe that we shall find that, just as the judge may make an appropriate comment, so in future the prosecution will and the defence will then be able to deal with it. It will merely he an issue like any other in the case and that is the correct way to deal with it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am interested in the noble and learned Lord's explanation. I notice that he said that the Government's proposal allows the prosecutor "to make a comment". That phrase was used by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, in the course of his contribution during the Committee stage, as I recollect it. However, this is not a question of the prosecutor making a comment and saying: "You will have noticed, by the way, that the accused has not given any evidence in the case". That is a comment. At present the prosecutor may make the comment that the Crown evidence stands uncontradicted. If, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, suggests, the jury are all-seeing about such matters, they will take that in, for what it is worth. However, this is not an artificial rule, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord.
The procurator fiscal, the advocate depute or the Lord Advocate is not a witness in any criminal proceedings. He is not and should not be entitled to put his view of the absence of the accused from the witness box, who is exercising a legal right within the system before the jury. If the jury wish to consider it, that is entirely a matter for them and they should not be fed by the prosecutor so that they have improper thoughts about the absence of the accused from the witness box.
Perhaps I may say for the record that it was suggested that John Wayne rode off into the sunrise. In fact, he rode off into the sunset. I hope that that makes no difference to the arguments presented to your Lordships' House. I am not satisfied with the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I seek the opinion of the House.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 106.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Addington, L.

Diamond, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Eatwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Ennals, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falkender, B.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gallacher, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Geraint, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

50

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Gregson, L.

McCarthy, L.

Grey, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

McNair, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Hollick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Monkswell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Hughes, L.

Nicol, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ogmore, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Jeger, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Rea, L.

Jenkins or Hillhead, L

Redesdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Richard, L.

Judd, L.

Seear, B.

Kennet, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tordoff, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Varley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

White, B.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Inchyra, L.

Balfour, E.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Borthwick, L.

Keyes, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Layton, L.

Brookes, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Burnham, L.

Lucas, L.

Cadman, L.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Carnock, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mersey, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chesham, L.

Milverton, L.

Chorley, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Nelson, E.

Colwyn, L.

Norrie, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

O'Cathain, B.

Crook, L.

Orkney, E.

Cross, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Downshire, M.

Renwick, L.

Dundonald, E.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Elles, B.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Elton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Seccombe, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Flather, B.

Shuttleworth, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Stewartby, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Swansea, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swinton, E.

Henley, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hives, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Ullswater, V.

Hothfield, L.

Vivian, L.

51

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Wharton, B.

Wakeham, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Weatherill, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.40 p.m.
Clause 27 [Sentence following guilty plea]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 54:
Page 19, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) a victim impact statement as defined in section 217B(2).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to move this amendment, although I intend to speak on these matters in relation to Amendment No. 56. That is done in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 55:
Leave out Clause 27.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to leave out Clause 27. That clause provides that in determining what sentence to pass on an offender:
"a court may take into account… the stage in the proceedings for the offence at which the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty, and… the circumstances in which that indication was given".
I do not oppose the clause because it is a bad idea to take account of an early indication—or any indication—by an accused person that he intends to plead guilty. In my view that is a perfectly proper observation; it is one which the courts in England have endorsed.
In Scotland a case was decided in 1987 called Strawhorn v. McLeod in which the court disapproved of a formal practice whereby a sheriff gave people a third off if they pled guilty at an early stage. The Lord Justice Clerk said in the report of that case—[1987] Scottish Criminal Case Reports, 413—at page 415 that no inducement should be offered to an accused person to plead guilty early.
It may be that it is wording of that kind that the Government have in mind when they want to change the mood in relation to those matters. I was surprised at the time and remain surprised by what the Lord Justice Clerk said in that case, speaking on behalf of the court. It is a matter of everyday practice that when an accused person appears before a court and says, "I plead guilty. I offered this plea three months ago and the Crown have not had to bring witnesses; they have not had to precognosce, take statements from victims and so forth and a lot of trouble and expense has been avoided", then the court is entitled to say that it will have regard to that and it is a pointer towards leniency. It cannot be made more formal than that. That is done and I certainly do it every day.
It may be that the Government have in mind not to overrule the case of Strawhorn, but simply to change the approach of the court to it. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government are trying to change the law and, if so, what change the clause is intended to achieve? I believe the clause to be unnecessary. As the
52
noble Lord, Lord Renton, pointed out in the Renton report, one should not legislate unnecessarily. There is enough material on the statute book without adding to it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, this clause was debated at some length in Committee. It enables the court, when considering what sentence to pass, to take into account the timing and circumstances in which an offender pled guilty. Its purpose is to make it clear to all that courts have such a power and, if possible, to encourage those considering a plea of guilty to tender it before the day set down for their trial.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred to the case of Strawhorn v. McLeod and I understand that in his view the clause is unnecessary because judges already exercise such power. However, the noble and learned Lord will recollect that during the course of the debate at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, appeared to understand the case of Strawhorn as prohibiting a reduction of sentence for guilty pleas.
With respect, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The effect of Strawhorn v. McLeod has been misconceived. I understand that the judgment focused on the prohibition of a declared practice of discounting. It did not prevent judges taking a guilty plea into account as long as they considered the circumstances of each case individually. However, the misconception which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, embraced seemed to me and to the Government to be widely shared—not in the High Court in Scotland but in the lower courts. It is for that reason we felt it necessary to bring forward Clause 26.
While the law on this issue may be fully understood by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I am concerned that it is not so understood in the lower courts and may not be understood by the accused person. While the noble and learned Lord may feel that it is unnecessary, perhaps I can say that the introduction of the clause was among the proposals that came from a number of his brother High Court judges in Scotland in response to the consultation on the issue. With that explanation I hope that he will withdraw his objection.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, for the record perhaps I may indicate that the Minister referred to introducing Clause 26. I believe that we are debating Clause 27.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was of course talking to Clause 27 and the proposal by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, in the light of the explanation offered by the Minister I am content to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Victim Impact Statements
After section 217A of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Victim Impact Statements.
217B(1) In any case in which an offender (whether or not he has pled guilty) has been convicted of an offence of assault, whether or not causing death, or of robbery or of any offence mentioned in section 141A of this Act the prosecutor when moving for sentence shall, if possible, place before the Court a victim impact statement as defined in subsection (2) below and the court shall have regard to it in determining the sentence or other disposal.
(2) A victim impact statement shall be a statement in a form to be prescribed by Act of Adjournal prepared by a legally qualified member of the procurator fiscal service and signed or otherwise authenticated by the victim (as defined in subsection (4) hereof) and containing information as to—

(i) the personal details of the victim, including his relationship (if any) to the offender,

(ii) the physical, emotional and mental consequences to the victim of the offence,

(iii) the financial or other patrimonial consequences to the victim of the offence,

(iv) (in any case in which the offender has been convicted on a plea of guilty) the victim's account of the offence,

(v) the victim's recommendation, if any, to the court as to whether or not leniency should be exercised in passing sentence,

(vi) any other matter prescribed by Act of Adjournal.

(3) Nothing in this section shall compel a victim to assist in the preparation of or to sign or authenticate a victim impact statement against his will.
(4) A victim for the purposes of this section is a person who has been the victim of an offence as specified in subsection (1) thereof or, in the case of an offence which has resulted in the death of the person assaulted, robbed or otherwise offended against, the widow, widower, child or parent of that person.
(5) A copy of the victim impact statement shall be served by the prosecutor on the accused not less than seven clear days before the trial diet."").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 56, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 57. At Committee stage I proposed an amendment in the same terms as Amendment No. 56. However, it did not find its way into the record of proceedings and as a result people who purchased the Official Report were unable to follow precisely what it was that was being debated. I felt it desirable that it should appear in the record.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to the features of the victim impact statements to which I want to refer. First, I am concerned with cases where the criminal process identifies a crime and a victim. Proposed new Section 217B(1) refers to a case where a defendant has been convicted of an assault, of a robbery or of an offence mentioned in Section 141A of the Act. It is therefore limited to the case where there has been a conviction and where that conviction has been of a kind specified in Section 141A plus assaults; that is to say, generally speaking, serious assaults plus sexual offences.
Subsection (2) says that the victim impact statement,
"shall be a statement in a form to be prescribed by Act of Adjournal".
54
I wish to draw attention to the fact that it is a written statement. I am totally opposed—the more I reflect on it the more opposed I become, if that is not a nonsense—to the idea that the victim should be allowed to address the court. For reasons explained earlier, that is something which we cannot tolerate in our system; it introduces the element of revenge which has no proper place in a court. However, partly in order to assure victims that their concerns have been properly taken into account, I am advocating that a victim impact statement be prepared. It will be a written document prepared by the procurator fiscal who occupies a special position in Scotland. He is not regarded as either the district attorney or the persecutor; he is regarded as exercising the functions of a minister of justice in an important sphere of criminal prosecutions.
The procurator fiscal will prepare, with the victim's assistance (only if the victim wishes it and not otherwise), a statement referring to the victim's personal details—the physical, emotional and mental consequences; the financial or other patrimonial consequences to the victim and, quite importantly, in any case in which the offender has been convicted on a plea of guilty, the victim's account of the offence.
I make this proposal because all too often a person who has suffered a serious assault or has been the victim of a sexual crime or other kinds of crime, discovers afterwards that the prosecutor has accepted a plea and the defence has been allowed to put forward an account of the matter, without contradiction, which does not square with the victim's understanding of what has really happened. I have known cases where the victim has felt cheated because his or her account of the matter has not been placed before the court. If we disappoint people, whether they be victims of crime or witnesses—or treat them badly in similar kinds of ways—a good deal of the population may become disaffected. The criminal justice system will not work if we lose the respect of people in that way.
I also propose that the written statement may contain other matters if, in the light of experience, it is thought desirable for other matters to be added. That can be done by subordinate legislation—an Act of Adjournal—enacted by judges of the High Court.
Subsection (3) provides that nothing shall compel a victim to assist. That means that the victims of crime are free to co-operate or not as they please. Subsection (4) attempts to give a definition to the word "victim", which is important in this type of case. Subsection (5) envisages service of a copy of the impact statement upon the accused person to give him time to respond to it. I believe that justice requires that an opportunity be given to respond to that kind of matter. Having outlined what I proposed, I shall move the amendment.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 57, this reflects a point that has already been discussed in an earlier amendment moved in the name of the noble Earl. However, in my case, Amendment No. 57 deals with the situation that arises in sentencing proceedings; in other words, when there has been a conviction and it has been identified that there has been a victim. I propose that in jury trials and sentencing in solemn proceedings, which in Scotland are more important than

55
the many non-jury criminal trials the victim, or the next of kin if the victim has died, shall have the right to attend all such proceedings. That will give rise to practical problems, but I believe that with goodwill they can be overcome. Although perhaps one need not discuss this matter as fully as on previous occasions, the Government are urged to take these matters on board. To assist them in that regard, I move Amendment No. 56.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment. It seeks to build into the sentencing process a record of what has happened to the victim at the time of the offence and to record how he or she has subsequently coped with and got over the particular ordeal. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I support the amendment as it will assist the offender in hearing and beginning to understand what he or she has done. It will also assist the victim in that he or she will be recognised as a person of worth.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I said that I wanted to read carefully what had been said in Committee by the noble and learned Lord and others on victim impact statements. That I have done. I have also listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said this evening. There is much with which I agree. There is no doubt that one of the frustrations that victims feel all too often is that the account of what has happened to them is not as full as it may be or does not reflect the degree of distress that they may have suffered as a result of assaults, or whatever they may be. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, with his very much greater experience than my own in matters prosecuting, will also be aware that often what gives rise to frustration to the victim is where the account that he or she wishes to be given to the court cannot be given either because of the plea that has been tendered or the verdict that has been returned by the jury. The victim feels that in some sense his or her true position has not been properly reflected in the observations made by the prosecutor.
We have to be very careful that where proper discretion is exercised by the public prosecutor in Scotland it is not in any way fettered by a desire, albeit a proper one, to ensure that what the victim wishes to have said to the court in regard to the impact upon him or her is said, and that in spite of that we do not get the balance wrong.
I return to the views of those who are closest to and, I believe, are best placed to speak for the interests of victims and those who have undertaken research into the effectiveness of victim impact statements in various jurisdictions elsewhere where they have been tried. I am reluctant to quote selectively, but at Committee stage I referred to an article written by Professor Andrew Ashworth of the University of London in 1993. He came to the general conclusion that the best way forward was to improve services for victims rather than to rely on new procedural rights. Generally speaking, that is the approach with which we agree. As I understand it, Victim Support (Scotland) also takes such a line. It is for that reason that our efforts at present are engaged in
56
taking forward the matter in that fashion rather than looking to victim impact statements as a way of providing greater support for the victim.
Concerning the further amendment, it is proposed that there be a statutory right giving the victim notice of the sentencing procedures in solemn procedure cases. As is the case this side of the Border, sentencing proceedings in Scotland take place in open court, and any member of the public has the right to be present. I do not consider that there is any need for an express statutory right for victims of crime in this regard.
I am concerned that the notice of the sentencing given to the victim may frequently have to be no more than tentative, because in practice sentencing may take place on a variety of occasions from the first diet to the trial diet or at any time in a sitting that may last several days, or indeed at a sentencing diet following deferral for reports. Albeit with the best intentions that such a right is proposed, the practical effect of the amendment may be that the victim will turn up on repeated occasions when nothing happens, with potentially a greater degree of trauma and distress suffered by the victim because no sentence is passed on the particular day.
I have no difficulty with the idea that victims should attend if they want to. The Crown Office does what it can to keep victims advised of the progress of cases, but I do not wish to go so far as to give an express statutory right to this effect.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have said on Amendment No. 56. I am hopeful that, the matter having been raised in this way by the noble Earl, myself and others, further thought will be given in time to whether the interests of the victim can be advanced in this respect.
Regarding Amendment No. 57, I deliberately inserted the words,
"shall as far as practicable be given adequate notice by the Crown Office"
because I did not want to impose on the prosecutor an absolute duty. I was trying to encourage a new system under which the prosecutor would give notice. In Scotland if a person pleads guilty, normally the date of the hearing of the plea will be fixed weeks beforehand and an intimation of that can be given. In a case where a person intimates two or three days before his trial that he will plead on the morning of the trial, that again is known in time to tell the victim.
I accept that there may be occasions when the court cannot proceed to sentence because it requires further reports. Some are required by statute and some are required because the judge himself would like to hear further reports from psychologists or others. But it is usually fairly straightforward for the prosecutor to be able to predict whether or not a sentence will be imposed on a particular day and, accordingly, the clause was designed to allow for that. But, again, I believe that if one makes a point—if it is a good point and that is not for me ultimately to judge—it will continue to live for a while and eventually may come up in a different form. In the hope that that may be so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Victim's right to attend sentencing proceedings
. After section 217A of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Victim's right to attend sentencing proceedings.
217D. The victim of any crime, or the next of kin of the victim if the victim has died shall have the right to attend all sentencing proceedings in solemn procedure under this Act and shall as far as practicable be given adequate notice by the Crown Office of all such sentencing proceedings concerning the person or persons who committed the crime or offence concerned".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment for a purely technical reason, the technical reason being that I am anxious that it should he printed in the record of these proceedings. However, I have nothing further to add to it. If your Lordships have no comment to make, I shall simply withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Sentencing guidelines]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 58:
Leave out Clause 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to leave out Clause 28. I spoke to this matter to some extent on a previous occasion in Committee. The clause has a side note "Sentencing guidelines". The clause proposes that the High Court, in disposing of certain appeals, may,
"without prejudice to any other power in that regard, pronounce an opinion on the sentence or other disposal or order which is appropriate in any similar case".
Secondly, it enacts that a court in passing sentence,
"shall have regard to any relevant opinion pronounced under subsection (1) above".
The argument here is a clear argument, based on the Renton Committee's recommendations, that this is entirely unnecessary.
The curious thing is that the side note is headed "Sentencing guidelines" but the new section does not seek to deal with guidelines. Perhaps I may refer your Lordships to the recently published book Criminal Sentences by Daniel Kelly. It begins with the words—I think there is some substance in these:
"The oft-mooted assertion that there is no sentencing policy in Scotland presents a challenge to ascertain the extent to which a coherent sentencing system may be discerned".
I pause to say that that is not a challenge which I would feel strong enough to undertake to beat at this time of night. The text goes on:
"An examination of the decisions of the High Court of Justiciary over the past decade or so reveals that although there may not be any guidelines"—
that word is in italics—
"on sentencing, there is a considerable amount of guidance"—
that word is also in italics—
"available on sentencing".
58
So there is a distinction between guidance and guidelines. The courts at the moment give guidance and do not wish to give guidelines. The section permits them to give guidance but is called a section about "Sentencing guidelines". I think that the Government have not had the advantage of reading Mr. .Kelly's introduction and should do so.
Mr. Kelly goes on to say that,
"in certain instances in the course of individual cases the appeal court has made observations which have a general application to sentencing practice in similar cases. Such general observations on aspects of sentencing … do in effect make up a significant sentencing framework in Scotland".
He comes to the conclusion after only 22 lines of discussion that there is a sentencing policy in Scotland. I congratulate him upon that discovery which had hitherto evaded me.
The point I seek to make, however, is that the clause is unnecessary. The courts do give guidance. The courts below are only too anxious to receive such guidance. They want it and they thirst for it, as I understand it, and they welcome it in the form in which it is currently given. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to have this clause. The noble and learned Lord the Minister said that the majority of those consulted, or the majority of judges, supported guidelines, but he does not introduce guidelines. The Government's position in this matter is slightly confused. I hope that in moving this amendment they will have an opportunity to clarify it. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand what the noble and learned Lord says with regard to the side note. The word "guidelines" does not appear in either of the two clauses but what is desired in those circumstances is clearly indicated. While it may well be, as has been the case for many years, that the courts will give some indication one way or another of what are appropriate sentences in some types of cases, I believe that the provision by the court of such guidelines will be widely welcomed by the public at large—I think that there is support for that—and also, as I indicated on a previous occasion, the majority of those who responded were in favour of the proposal: two of the three police organisations, the Faculty of Advocates, the Scottish Law Commission and a majority of the district courts. There is public concern about inconsistency and it would be desirable if that could be eliminated. It may be that from press reports the public fail to appreciate that there are good reasons for variations in sentencing. However, if there are inconsistencies that can be eliminated, so much the better.
It is the inferior courts which are looking for guidelines. I would not envisage that the Court of Appeal in offering any sentence guidelines would find that there was much application for such an approach in relation to High Court cases. However, those inferior courts look for that clear guidance from the superior court. I hope that by taking advantage of this provision they will receive it.
The noble and learned Lord has said that the clause is unnecessary. I would suggest that it represents a modest and flexible reform intended to improve consistency in sentencing. Nevertheless, it will also continue to allow discretion for sentencers to take

59
account of all the circumstances in particular cases. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be satisfied that it has a proper purpose.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am satisfied with the answer which I have now heard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Offences committed by persons under supervision etc: provision of local authority report]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 22, leave out lines 42 to 44 and insert:
(" .—(1) After section 179 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 59, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 60, 61 and 92. Clause 31 requires a social work report to be made before disposal in cases where an offender, while subject to statutory supervision, commits a further offence. This report takes into account the circumstances of the offence and the behaviour of the offender during supervision and is intended to help inform the disposal of the case. At present the clause extends to cases dealt with in the district court where a mandatory report is considered unnecessary and the court should be allowed to exercise its judgment in requesting reports where they are considered desirable. I should indicate that I envisage that there may have to be some further amendment of this provision to take account of stipendiary magistrates and not just the lay participants in the district courts. However, I shall return to that at a later stage.
In addition, there are other amendments which extend Clause 31 to cover two new classes of persons subject to community supervision being inserted by Clause 55. These classes cover those subject to a supervision and treatment order and young offenders who commit a further offence. The last amendment is minor and entirely technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 23, leave out from beginning of line 1 to ("of") and insert ("179A. Where a person specified in section 27(1) (b) (i) to (vi)").
Page 23, line 10, at end insert:
("(2) After section 380 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Offence committed by person under supervision etc.: provision of local authority report.
380A.—(1) Where a person specified in section 27(1) (b) (i) to (vi) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 commits an offence, the court shall not dispose of the case without obtaining from the local authority in whose area the person resides a report as to—

(a) the circumstances of the offence; and

(b) the character of the offender, including his behaviour while under the supervision, or as the case may be subject to the order, so specified in relation to him.

(2) In subsection (1) above, "the court" does not include a district court.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35 [Leave to appeal]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 25, line 35, leave out ("if") and insert ("unless").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I draw your Lordships' attention to page 25, line 35 of the Bill. In this clause we are concerned with inserting a new section into the basic 1975 Act. That new section is concerned with the obtaining of leave to appeal before an appeal is heard. I do not want to go into the background any more fully than I have done already. I do not wish to repeat what I said at an earlier stage on this matter.
The present wording to which I am proposing an alteration, appears in lines 35 onwards. It follows the provision:
"The decision whether to grant leave to appeal… shall be made by a judge of the High Court who shall—
(a) if he considers that the documents ... disclose arguable grounds of appeal".
I simply wish to change the emphasis so that it reads,
"The decision … shall be made by a judge … who shall—(a) unless he considers that the documents do not disclose arguable grounds of appeal".
In other words, the emphasis has changed. One reason why I have sought to change the emphasis is that the Lord Advocate himself, when we discussed this matter in Committee, used the expression which I now use. I believe that there is a difference between the manner in which it appears in the Bill and the way in which it is put forward by me.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said:
"There is no question of these new arrangements reducing the level of scrutiny of appeals in general since only appeals which are clearly without merit—those which are unarguable is the way it is expressed—would be refused leave to appeal".—[Official Report, 16/1/95; col. 481.]
In fact that is not the way it was expressed, but if noble Lords accept my amendment, that will become the way it will be expressed. Therefore, the amendment goes to meet the Lord Advocate's position.
In my version the judge does not positively have to find arguable grounds as the Bill requires. He simply grants leave unless he positively concludes that there are no arguable grounds. It is a quite deliberate change of wording and not without some significance in the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I do not think that it would be very profitable to discuss my own particular wording on a previous occasion. I accept what the noble and learned Lord says, that his amendment would introduce a slightly different emphasis. Nonetheless, I believe that the way in which it is put in the clause before us is correct. It is a strong direction in that the judge shall grant leave to appeal and shall do so if he considers that the documents disclose arguable grounds of appeal. It is not a high test. It requires that the judge considers that the documents disclose grounds of appeal which are arguable—that is to say, about which an argument can be properly advanced to the court.

61
I believe that that is correct and the test that should be applied. Although I understand entirely the point which the noble and learned Lord has put forward, I believe that whatever gloss I may have put on it on a previous occasion, the test as expressed in the Bill provides the appropriate approach. It is when there are arguable grounds that the matter should be argued in front of the court. I cannot accept the amendment which is put forward on this occasion.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, despite the negative tone of that answer I have been encouraged by the Government's willingness to respond to comments and suggestions which have been made since the consultation process properly got under way and during the course of the progress of the Bill through the House. Although I heard a great many "No"s I believe that in the background there is the possibility of a faint "Yes". With that hope I look forward to the return of the Bill from another place perhaps with the wording I have suggested appearing in place of that which now appears. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I shall not move Amendment No. 63.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.64:
Page 25, line 37, after second ("appeal") insert ("and make such comments in writing as he considers appropriate").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 69, 75 and 76. At Committee stage I commented that I would reflect on the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, about the options available to the single judge or the High Court if when considering an application for leave to appeal they were to detect a fundamental nullity from the papers. In my view the correct approach would be for leave to appeal to be granted since the clause requires the single judge to grant leave if any of the documents before the judge, not just the note of appeal, disclose arguable grounds of appeal. For example, if a minute of proceedings revealed a fundamental defect, that would be one of the documents in the case. I accept, however, that in such circumstances it would be appropriate for the judge to be able to comment on the reasons for granting leave. The intention of these amendments is to make it clear that the judge can do so. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.65:
Page 26, line 3, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 66. This amendment is in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Macaulay and Lord Carmichael, in Committee to require the judge's charge to the jury to be placed before the judge when
62
considering whether to grant leave to appeal. I indicated at the time that I was happy to accept the spirit of that amendment.
The amendment now before your Lordships will ensure that when a transcript of the judge's summing up is obtained (and such a transcript is always obtained by the clerk of justiciary when an appeal is against conviction or conviction and sentence), the transcript will be included in the documents placed before the single judge or, in cases where the application for leave to appeal is pursued, placed before the High Court. I hope that this meets with you Lordships' approval.
However, noble Lords will notice that the form in which the amendment is at the moment refers to "the summing up". I believe that it is more usual in Scottish terminology to refer to "the judge's charge". We have used "summing up" here because of the statutory cross-reference to Section 275(1). With your Lordships' leave, I propose at Third Reading to bring forward minor amendments to allow that to be put in the normal Scottish form. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, there is one matter here to which we should draw attention at this stage, although it touches on the whole clause. In theory, the transcript becomes available at a very early date. There are only six weeks allowed between note of application for leave to appeal and the lodging of the note of appeal, if I recall correctly. But in fact the transcript never appears within that time, or seldom does. What happens is that the clerk of justiciary exercises a kind of dispensation and interrupts the period of six weeks. That is provided for in the statute, although I have been unable to put my finger on the particular provision. The result is that if we are to wait several weeks for a transcript, as is likely, the application for leave to appeal is bound to be delayed also by that circumstance, and everything else is then delayed. Accordingly, that is just one indication of the fact that the application for leave to appeal will delay appeals in Scotland, whereas in recent years we have been highly successful in moving towards disposing of appeals without delay. This is a retrograde step.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has taken on board what was said in Committee and will no doubt bear in mind what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has just said about delay. I think that the provision of the transcript is an essential ingredient in the appeal procedure. If something is wrong in the production line, the sooner it is sorted out the better. I am sure that the Government will take note of what the noble and learned Lord said.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.66:
Page 26, line 5, at end insert ("; and
(d) where, by virtue of section 275(1) of this Act, a transcript of the summing up by the judge who presided at the trial is delivered to the Clerk of Justiciary, that transcript.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 26, line 5, insert ("and
(d) the appellant's detailed response to the report referred to in the proceeding paragraph, with such references to authority and such submissions as the appellant wishes to place before the Judge of the High Court.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as has been said, the clause deals with leave to appeal and provides that the documents which are specified are to be placed before the court. We have just added the judge's charge to that list. I am seeking to add to the documents the appellant's response to the judge's response to the appellant's note of appeal because, as I said earlier, what happens is that when the appellant puts in a note of appeal he discloses in that note the grounds of the appeal. He may say, "The judge misdirected the jury in this or that respect", or, "The judge allowed this evidence when he should not have done so and disallowed that evidence when he should have allowed it". The judge is sent a copy of that and produces the judge's report. That is referred to in what will be new subsection (2) (c).
A judge who is faced with criticisms of his charge—for misdirecting the jury, for excluding evidence that should have been admitted or for allowing evidence that should have been excluded—tends to react slightly defensively. If he is told that the sentence is too long, he begins to justify the length of the sentence that he has given. I am afraid that that is an inevitable part of the human condition. The judge who is to hear the application for leave to appeal receives a formal note containing the grounds of appeal, a defensive response to that from the judge, and nothing more. What I am advocating is that an appellant should be entitled to respond to the judge's report and to reply to any matters that have been raised by the judge in that report.
In that way, we will be taking a small step towards achieving what the European Court of Human Rights referred to as "equality of arms" in the cases which we discussed in Committee. A court which is called upon to take such a decision ought to have before it equal representations, as it were, by both parties. For this purpose, the judge's position becomes akin to that of a party, so the court ought to have the appellant's response to the judge's report. In those circumstances, I think it appropriate to include this provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is addressing a particular problem in relation to the reports of trial judges. Although I accept that there can be cases where such reports are less than totally objective, nonetheless I believe—I hope that the noble and learned Lord will acknowledge this—that in most cases judges put the matters forward in what they would regard as as neutral a way as possible. I am sure that where they do not, the judges considering these matters will readily detect that and treat them accordingly. As a generality, I do not think the problem is great but, where it does occur, I do not think that one should call into play the idea that the judge then becomes somebody who is, so to speak, embattled, with equality of arms coming into it. We have complications enough with that concept without applying it to judges.
64
Matters would be further delayed if there were to be another stage at which comments could be made about the judge's report. I do not think that that is desirable. However, where leave was refused and where an application to appeal was made to the High Court, I envisage that it would be possible at that stage for an appellant to make any observations that he thought appropriate about the nature of the trial judge's report. That is the kind of matter that might be left to an Act of Adjournal. However, I am not convinced that at this stage it would be desirable to have the document to which the noble and learned Lord refers.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, with respect, there is a lack of logic in that. If the Lord Advocate is right that between the stage of applying to the single judge and applying to the High Court, the appellant will have an opportunity to respond to the judge's _report, that provision ought to appear in the Bill—and it does not. The documentation that goes to the appeal body in relation to matters of leave is exactly the same as that which goes before the judge below, with the addition of any written reason which the judge has produced. The Government should think further about this. If they want to give an appellant the opportunity to respond to something in the judge's report if he detects a lack of objectivity, that opportunity could be achieved by provisions in the legislation. I am not sure that we would regard that as a suitable matter for an Act of Adjournal when Parliament had had an opportunity to include it in these provisions but had neglected to do so.
I have mentioned equality of arms, and in that connection I have looked carefully at the case of Monnell and Morris v. The United Kingdom, which was reported in 1987/10/EHRR on page 205. That case is interesting and the Lord Advocate referred to it in Committee. It is interesting to note that it expressly finds that appeal proceedings are covered by Article 6 of the European Convention. In that case, however, in upholding the position of the UK Government, the court noted that the appeal body had before it a transcript of the trial and all the relevant material. It is abundantly plain in that case that the court in England had before it much more material when considering questions of leave and other associated questions than would be the case under the provisions of this clause. The Government would therefore be wise to reflect further on these matters. However, I do not propose to divide the House and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 26, line 20, after second ("appeal") insert ("and make such comments in writing as the court considers appropriate").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 26, line 28, at end insert:
("provided that if any Judge of the High Court considers that there are or may be arguable grounds of appeal, leave to appeal shall be granted.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that if a person applies for leave to a single judge and is refused and then exercises his statutory right to apply to three judges of the High Court, any one of the judges of the High Court may grant leave if he considers that there are (or may be) arguable grounds for appeal. In short, if any single member of the court thinks that there is a suitable ground for appeal, the appeal should be allowed to go ahead. That reflects the practice in a number of courts, including the United States Supreme Court. In such courts if petitions for the court to entertain a case are considered they are looked at by all the judges individually, and I think that, usually, if three of the judges are in favour of granting leave to proceed with the petition, the petition proceeds; otherwise it does not.
So it is a practice that is well understood in other common-law jurisdictions and it would be desirable if we had that established here. Otherwise we shall simply get what would appear to be bland unanimous decisions issued by the three judges, concealing the fact that one of the judges thought that there should have been appeal leave granted. In these circumstances I beg leave to move the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord has said. He must know his colleagues better than I but, with respect, in a situation where any one of the judges thought that there were arguable grounds for appeal, it would be difficult for his colleagues to say that it is a matter beyond all argument. For that reason, in that kind of situation I would expect that the tendency of the Appeal Court would be to grant leave to appeal. I noted, however, what the noble and learned Lord said about practices in other jurisdictions, and I am quite happy to reflect further on that matter. I am not persuaded that a change should be made, but I am happy to reflect upon it.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 26, line 28, at end insert:
("(5A) Provided that this section shall apply

(a) where the appeal is on any ground which involves a question of law alone, or

(b) if the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal on any ground whatsoever; and provision shall be made, as soon as is reasonably practicable, by Act of Adjournal for procedures to seek, obtain and grant such a certificate.

(5B) An appellant shall be entitled to be present when his application for leave to appeal is considered if the judge or court considering the matter gives him leave.
(5C) Subject to subsection (5B) hereof, consideration whether or not to grant leave to appeal under subsections (1) or (5) above may take place in chambers without the parties being present, but the judge, in the case of subsection (1), or the High Court, in the case of subsection (5), will have the right to order a hearing with the
66
parties present to enable the application for leave under section 228(1) or under subsections (1), (4) or (5) of this section to be the subject of submissions.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather lengthy amendment but I hope its meaning is plain on its surface.
First, I am proposing to add that this section shall apply where the appeal is on any ground which involves a question of law alone. That is the first significant part of this proposal. No doubt the Lord Advocate and the Minister have recognised that it is a quotation from the equivalent English provision, which I think is in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, a copy of which I have somewhere but which has temporarily disappeared. When the appeal is on a question of law alone, leave is not required in England. The Government should explain why we do not have an equivalent provision in relation to Scotland.
Paragraph (b) adds:
"if the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal on any ground whatsoever;"
So, again, leave may be obtained on a certificate by the judge of the court of trial. That reflects exactly the statutory provisions in England under the same Act. I should like to see it introduced in Scotland. The trial judge is very much aware of the position and has a good feel for the case, something which the leave judge cannot possibly have. I have mentioned the possibility of an Act of Adjournal because the procedure would need to be regulated by some means. So that is the new subsection (5A). It reflects English practice, and I would submit that these are desirable changes.
Subsection (5B) simply provides that the appellant shall be entitled to be present if the judge or court gives him leave. Again as in England, the appellant should be allowed to be present if the court decides it wants him present. If that can be done in England I do not see why it cannot be done in Scotland.
Subsection (5C) goes a little bit further and envisages the court deciding to order a hearing. It is a point of real substance of which I hope the Government will take notice. It frequently happens that a person will come forward with, say, six grounds of appeal and the leave judge, or the appeal court dealing with the question of leave, may decide that there is substance or possible substance in only one of the grounds of appeal; they are not quite sure, but hesitate to dismiss it as unarguable. They may think that the other four or five grounds have no substance whatsoever. Under this procedure it will be possible, in effect, to determine whether or not there is any substance in the one ground that they think may be arguable. They could take it further and have a hearing on that particular question. I do not know whether the Government intend it, but, under the Bill as it is presently framed, if a person is granted leave to appeal because he has one good ground, he is free to advance another half a dozen bad grounds, even though the trial judge or the leave court have decided that those grounds are bad.
So those are the matters of substance sought to be raised by this subsection. Accordingly, because these matters are important, I beg leave to move this amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising these particular matters. I cannot answer him in relation to the matter of the English provisions.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave I have now discovered the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It is Chapter 19, and, in the version contained in Statutes in Force, the provision simply reads:
"A person convicted of an offence on indictment may appeal to the Court of Appeal against his conviction".
Subsection (2) states:
"The appeal may be—(a) on any ground which involves a question of law alone".
And paragraph (b) goes on to deal with other matters.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that I would wish to study the context of that and perhaps respond to him in writing.
It seems to us, without knowing the full context, that a provision which allowed an automatic right of appeal on a matter which involved a question of law alone would give rise, potentially, to, a very wide exception to the provision. One might say, for example, that virtually any question of misdirection could be thought to be a question of law alone. So I think that that is not a matter which we could accept.
On subsections (5A) and (5B) I should not have thought that a certification procedure would have been necessary where, as quite frequently happens, the trial judge indicates that perhaps it is a matter which is doubtful, and so on. I should have thought that that was exactly the kind of situation in which any judge considering whether to grant leave would conclude that there was an arguable ground and, therefore, that he was under a duty to grant leave.
As to the presence of the appellant, I cannot see that that would advance things at all. Subsection (5C) takes us a stage further into the area of oral hearing. We have not tried to set a high test but merely a test of something which is arguable. Where it is arguable—where the judges think there may be need for oral argument—that would suggest that, prima facie, they think there is at least something arguable in it, which again would meet the test without the need for this further round of oral submissions.
I noted with interest the point which the noble and learned Lord made about once one ground gets in then all the other grounds can get in as well. I would wish to reflect upon that matter but, in the light of these observations, I would hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendments.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but, having now found my notes, I realise that I have a little more to say. First, the notion of an appeal which involves a question of law
68
alone, which appears in Section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (the English Act) is reflected in Section 240 of the Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1975 which provides that an appellant shall be entitled to be present, if he desires it, on the hearing of his appeal, except when the appeal is on some . ground involving a question of law alone. That is a provision which has puzzled me in the same way as it has puzzled the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
The noble and learned Lord may be too young to remember the days before the new appeal procedures were brought in, when one applied for leave to appeal but it was heard in open court. Effectively one was arguing a question of law alone, although one might add a question of mixed fact and law. That distinction between a question of law alone, of the kind of which the noble and learned Lord has just been speaking, and a question of mixed fact and law, is one which is well understood in Scottish jurisprudence and is reflected in Section 1 of the 1968 English Act. Subsection (2B) refers to questions of fact alone, mixed fact and law, and so forth. It is that provision which relates also to where the judge of the court of trial grants a certificate.
I hope that the Government will consider carefully the possibility of the judge of the trial court being brought into the matter, because we have many things to do at the end of a trial. If there has been a conviction, in the High Court we would normally have to write a report for the Parole Board. We have to start preparing our report for the appeal, because appeals are extremely common nowadays. I see nothing wrong with our being invited at that stage to put down briefly our comments upon the merits of the case, as it were, in relation to an appeal. If the trial judge has a sense that justice may not have been properly done, perhaps because the defence has not been properly conducted, or for some other such reason, then he should have an opportunity to do that. I am sure that the Government, who have listened all along, will consider this matter further.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, withdraws the amendment, from my limited experience of court procedure, and as I understand the position, on technicalities of law, more than anything else, the verdict of not proven has from time to time been brought into Scots law. Surely that provision still exists on appeal: that the appeal judges could decide that the case was not proven in respect of the law. I may be wrong, but that is the impression I have.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, before I sit down perhaps I may say that I doubt very much whether that is a matter which would trouble their lordships in the Appeal Court. They are concerned with errors of law. The error of law about which we are talking is, as I said, where a judge makes a mistake in the instructions he gives to the jury; where a judge makes a mistake in relation to the admissibility or exclusion of evidence, or something of that kind.
If something of that kind happens, the Appeal Court says, "Well, prima facie something has gone wrong here, or something has gone wrong. Does that amount

69
to a miscarriage of justice?" That is the way it looks at it. That is a matter which is under consideration by the Sutherland Committee, and could perhaps be left to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 26, line 36, at end insert:
("(8) The provisions of this section so far as they relate to appeals under paragraph (b), (bc), or (bd) of section 228(1) of this Act may be brought into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint under section 101(2) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995; but as the remaining provisions of this section so far as they relate to appeals under the remaining paragraphs of section 228(1) of this Act shall not be brought into force until at least eighteen months after the last date appointed under any commencement order brings into force the provision of this section in relation to appeals under paragraphs (b) (bc) and (bd) of section 228(1) of this Act, and then only if the Lord Justice General consents in writing that the provisions relating to such remaining paragraphs may be brought into force.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment introduces a new point. Although it looks complicated, its essence is clear. Subsection (8) to which I have referred in the amendment states:
"The provisions of this section so far as they relate to appeals"—
those are essentially appeals to do with sentence—
"may be brought into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint under section 101(2) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) 1995; but"
this is the important point—
"as the remaining provisions of this section so far as they relate to appeals under the remaining paragraphs of Section 228(1) of this Act shall not be brought into force until at least eighteen months after the last date".
The reasoning behind the amendment is that we are moving to something that is entirely new; we are for the first time introducing leave to appeal, the leave to appeal question being determined by judges in chambers.
We do not know whether or not the procedure will work. We do not know whether it will reduce the burden on the courts and the legal aid scheme. We just do not know. I suggest that we bring it in gradually. Let us deal first with appeals against sentence, and at the end of 18 months reassess the position. Then, in consultation with the Lord Justice General, who is mentioned in the last few lines of the new provision, we can consider whether we should bring into force the remaining paragraphs of the section.
I do not know how the new system will work. It would make sense to approach it gradually. All I am doing is asking the Government to take power to deal with the matter one step at a time. We have heard from the appropriate Minister in another place in relation to the CSA—I think that the Statement was repeated here—that there is something to be said for pilot schemes and for advancing a step at a time. I believe that there is something to be said for a pilot scheme here in relation to sentence. If it works, by all means extend it; if it does not, then do not. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the Government do not wish to accept the amendment. As
70
the noble and learned Lord knows, the vast majority of appeals coming before the Appeal Court arise from summary proceedings. As I understand it, if the amendment were accepted, much of the benefit of the new leave to appeal machinery would be lost. The amendment seems also to envisage that the provisions in respect of sentence only appeals would come into effect first. But the issues relating to appeals against sentence alone are, as the noble and learned Lord knows, different from those relating to appeals against conviction, and therefore I am not sure that a pilot scheme would tell us very much about how the other cases would be dealt with.
The Lord Justice General has been kept informed of the developments of thinking on the new appeal provisions, and of course would be consulted before they were commenced. From a technical standpoint, the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that Clause 101(2)—the commencement provision—allows for different commencement dates, and so if it were thought that different commencement dates were desirable, I am sure that it could be done under the existing power. As I say, we do not believe that to be desirable.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, again, this is a matter upon which I hope the Government will reflect. In the United States they go in for what is commonly called "sunset" legislation. They are not the kind of sunsets about which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, was speaking earlier. They are legislative provisions which expire after 18 months or two years, and so forth, unless they are kept alive deliberately. There may be a great deal of sense were we to consider introducing such provisions into our statutes.
However, I recognise that the amendments that I have put forward are technically defective. These are even more defective than most of the amendments I have put forward, because they were done in haste while I was trying to do other things. However, the principle is clear. The Government could consider staging the introducing of these provisions so that we can see how they work.
I distinguish between sentencing and other cases in this provision because I recognise that that distinction is made already by the Government in the Bill in relation to the number of judges who sit to decide certain appeals. However, I am content with the discussions that we have had so far and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, I should point out in calling Amendment No. 74 that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments No. 75 or 76.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 26, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 46 on page 28.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not wish to press this amendment. I have tabled the amendment—and I should have tabled it in Committee—in order to make a point which I hope the Government will bear in mind as the Bill progresses through Parliament.
I have spent a great deal of time thinking about and discussing with sheriffs how it is possible to cut down the number of wasteful appeals; that is, appeals without any real merit which are truly unarguable. I recognise that the provisions in this part of the Bill are aimed at solving that problem.
As I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will recognise, the Bill's provisions are designed to achieve some kind of saving in the time of the High Court but they achieve no saving at all for the sheriff or district courts. The experience of the sheriffs to whom I have spoken is that a great many cases are appealed almost as a matter of form. No doubt that is partly as a consequence of the fact that legal aid extends to preparing grounds of appeal. But sheriffs are commonly asked to draft a stated case because the accused just wants to have a look to see whether there is any possibility of an appeal.
I regret that although the legislation which the Government are introducing looks at the position of the High Court, it does absolutely nothing for the lower courts which are burdened heavily by unmeritorious appeals. I hope that the Government will be able to assure me that while it may not be possible to introduce provisions into this Bill, some thought will be given to tackling that much more serious problem. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said that to some extent he feels that the provisions are experimental. In Clause 73, no fewer than four different sections of other Acts are referred to. Perhaps my noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, will consider bringing in the provisions a bit at a time. In that way the Secretary of State can see how matters are proceeding. If the first part proceeds effectively, then the other provisions should follow. That is just a suggestion.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as my noble friend will appreciate, I have indicated that the Government do not wish to proceed in that way for the reasons that I have given. However, I have indicated to the House that if it were desired to do that, that could be done by virtue of Section 101(2) which provides for different commencement dates.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, draws attention to the fact that while our proposal may relieve the burden on the High Court, nevertheless, it does not do that in relation to the sheriff and district courts. We were conscious of that and had we felt able to solve the problem, we should have moved an amendment to do so. As the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, the difficulty is that a balance must be struck. We do not wish to cut off the right of appeal from the district or sheriff courts at such an early stage so that, in effect, an appellant could not see what was the basis of the decision. For example, that is why we felt unable to intervene to suggest a cut-off point before the stated case stage, although I appreciate fully that the drafting of those stated cases may impose a considerable burden on the courts below.
72
It is not that we are unaware or unresponsive to that issue. However, we do not see how to solve the problem without restricting unacceptably the right of appeal. That is why the Bill is drafted in that way.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I hope that the Government will think further on that. I know that it may not be possible to do that in the context of this Bill but I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate agrees that it is a serious problem. As the Minister knows, when a person seeks to have a case stated, he makes an application to the sheriff and he puts grounds before him. It may be at that stage that his case is so obviously without merit that it should be possible to dispose of the matter. It may be possible to think of a mechanism whereby a sheriff is entitled to say, "I should not be obliged to state a case", and a judgment could be made on that in chambers by a judge or several judges of the High Court.
I do not suggest that that is an ideal solution because it would not deal with all the problems. It would not deal with bills of suspension and bills of advocation. However, there is perhaps more success to be garnered in that field than that which is covered by the Bill. Perhaps the Government will set up a working party to consider how that could be achieved. I wish them luck because I have thought hard about the problem without coming up with any better solution than the one I have just mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 75 and 76:
Page 26, line 47, after second ("appeal") insert ("and make such comments in writing as he considers appropriate").
Page 27, line 28, after second ("appeal") insert ("and make such comments in writing as the court considers appropriate").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 77:
Leave out Clause 35.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment invites the House to agree to strike out altogether Clause 35 which deals with the whole machinery for enabling leave to be sought and granted or refused.
On previous occasions I have referred to some of the light-hearted literature published by the Justice organisation in relation to miscarriages of justice. I say that it is "light-hearted" because in the midst of very solemn matters, it makes some light and amusing points. However in dealing with criminal appeals in England it has stated specifically that research carried out for the Royal Commission came to the conclusion that it is likely that some cases of merit are being weeded out wrongly at that stage—at the leave stage—of the appellate process. That is referred to on page 5 of the Justice report called Remedying Miscarriages of Justice, which was published in September 1994.
I believe that I mentioned previously the other matter which I should now like to outline more fully. Speaking about the single judge, the Justice report says:
"The single judge acts as the main filter for appellants. Research carried out for the Royal Commission identified major problems with the process"—
I emphasise the words, "major problems with the process"—
"this accords with Justice's experience".
I have had access to many of the research papers of the Royal Commission but, sadly, not to all of them; and I am not familiar with that one. However, it is no doubt readily available to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I hope that he will look at it to ascertain the nature of those "major problems", because I can detect no trace in the Bill's provisions of an attempt to deal with major problems.
The report goes on to say:
"There is a lack of any consistent practice in the way that applications appear to be considered. In one case in which Justice has the papers a solicitor had in error sent in two sets of appeal papers in the same case. Two single judge decisions followed, one granting and one refusing leave. Both decisions had been made, at different times, by the same judge. The first decision was favourable and a custodial sentence was reduced to probation on appeal".
Then the report mentions the point which strikes me as being one of some importance:
"While all systems are capable of individual error, the single judge process is regarded as particularly susceptible to inconsistency".
The report then gives a number of reasons relating specifically to England, but of course a judge may have to deal with a large number of applications after a day in court, while preparing for work the following day. The report continues:
"Consistent and fair decision-making is not assisted by the fact that in most cases a judge's comments in refusing the application are brief, being one or two paragraphs at most".
There are many reasons for thinking that the matter is somewhat unsatisfactory and they are detailed in the report. We do know that the clause is bound to lead to some extra work as regards the reading of applications for leave to appeal. It will be extremely difficult to achieve consistency for reasons explained by the Justice report.
In conclusion, I have one important point to make. At present, the Appeal Court in Scotland can and does cope, although it does so with some difficulty because there is a great deal of work involved. But, in the circumstances, I urge the Government to consider whether or not the clause is really necessary and whether or not it addresses the problems identified by the Justice report and the Royal Commission's research papers. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, Amendment No. 91 has been grouped with the amendment now before the House. Amendment No. 91 proposes that Clause 54 should be left out of the Bill. Does the noble and learned Lord wish to speak also to that clause, or will he deal with it separately?
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to say that, in effect, Clause 54 goes along with the amendment under discussion. I say that because if Clause 35 were to go, Clause 54 would go automatically. I do not believe that the House would
74
have any difficulty with that situation. The point of substance falls to be discussed in relation to Amendment No. 77.
7 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that the Appeal Court is coping, but only just, with the volume of appeals. We want to assist the Appeal Court so that it will concentrate its resources in handling appeals which are appeals with merit and which, therefore, we hope will indeed be dealt with and disposed of more quickly.
I turn now to the general approach behind the clause. The noble and learned Lord drew attention to the possibility of error by single judges. Of course, one has to acknowledge that such a thing is possible. However, one also has to bear in mind—and this relates to the consistency of which the noble and learned Lord spoke—that we are dealing with a smaller body of judges in Scotland than that in England. Therefore, it should be possible to achieve greater standards of consistency of approach among that smaller body.
Of course one has to allow for the possibility of lapses occasionally, and so on; but one has to remember that there is provision for the matter to be heard by an appeal body and therefore to be reconsidered by three judges. In that way, I hope that the possibility of error is minimised. For that reason, we believe that the possible problems outlined by the noble and learned Lord are not of such a nature as to invalidate the approach which is contained in Clause 35.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, in the light of what has been said and in the hope that the Government will not close their minds to the possibility of reconsidering the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Report stage begin again at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils Order 1995
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, under the Science and Technology Act 1965, provision was made for the establishment of research councils under Royal Charter. There are currently six such councils. The proposed order will establish the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils as a research council in its own right under the Act.
The central laboratory will comprise the Daresbury and the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratories which, since the restructuring which took place in April 1994, have

75
been part of the new Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. That has always been regarded as an interim measure.
The laboratories are located on two main sites, at Chilton in South Oxfordshire and at Daresbury, near Warrington, Cheshire. They have an international reputation for top quality scientific research, particularly in the use of neutrons and X-rays for probing the structure of matter and in particle physics, space and remote sensing research and in advanced computing.
The laboratories' facilities and expertise are used by a very large number of researchers, many of whom are located in United Kingdom universities. The laboratories are, in short, a vital component of the UK science and engineering base. They employ 1,800 staff, of whom 850 are qualified scientists and engineers. Their income is around £94 million, of which £74 million comes from the existing research councils.
Our review of the laboratories included extensive consultation with their users, from both academia and industry. It was completed last autumn. A key outcome of the review was the recognition that continued ownership by a single research council is unsatisfactory. The laboratories carry out work for five of the six research councils, and ownership by the largest of them (which, incidentally, is also the largest customer of the laboratories) blurs the customer-contractor relationship.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, therefore, announced on 26th October last year that, subject to the approval of Parliament, the laboratories would together become a new non-departmental public body, to be called the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, and established as a research council for the purposes of the Science and Technology Act 1965. That solution met with widespread support during the consultation exercise and has attracted cross-party support from the appropriate Standing Committee of the other place which, last Tuesday, approved the draft order.
In proposing this way forward, the Government have a number of objectives. We want to enable the laboratories to contribute more fully to the wealth-creation and quality of life goals which were set out in the 1993 White Paper Realising our Potential. We recognise the important role of the laboratories as a key part of the United Kingdom's science and engineering base, carrying out basic and strategic research: We intend that to continue; we do not want them to become short-term contract research centres. That is not their role.
We want to improve the accountability of the laboratories and to clarify their relationship with their customers. We also intend, through the proposed changes, to provide an environment in which the laboratories can develop their existing markets, and can address new ones. This is an exciting opportunity for the laboratories.
I wish to pay tribute to the efforts of the director and staff of the laboratories to build up connections with users of their research. They have established a high reputation for the quality of their work, and for their
76
scientific and engineering integrity, in both academia and industry. We wish to see them build on this firm base.
We envisage that the majority of the laboratories' funding will continue to originate from public sources. The major customers will be the research councils. They are fully seized of their responsibility to act as intelligent customers. The laboratories will be eligible to receive a direct allocation from the science vote. The Government envisage that the sums involved will be small in relation to the total public funding they receive through their research council customers, but the facility will be available to fund specific initiatives and activities.
Your Lordships may already be aware that my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Office of Public Service and Science announced that, following open competition, the first chief executive of the new body will be Dr. Paul Williams, who has been the director of the combined Daresbury and Rutherford-Appleton Laboratories since they came together last April. The membership of the new council will be drawn from the other research councils, the academic community, industry and commerce, and senior laboratory staff. This will give the council a composition representing the major constituencies who interact with the laboratories. The objects of the council as defined in its Royal Charter are set out in the schedule to the draft order. They have close parallels in the charters of the other six research councils, and positioning the new body alongside the other councils serves to underline the interdependent relationship between them. It also highlights the Government's wish to see the laboratories remain as a key component of the science and engineering base.
The Government are striving to ensure that the outcomes from the United Kingdom's excellent science and engineering base are more clearly orientated towards wealth-creation, and enhancing the quality of life. We are also committed to maintaining excellence in science and engineering, and to maximising value for money. The creation of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils is a key step in this process. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th December be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, in making my first contribution from the Dispatch Box I wish to say how pleased I am that another member of the 1993 working peers intake has introduced the order. I wish to say immediately also that this is not a partisan issue. We believe that the order deserves support. There are, however, a number of comments we would make and questions we would ask which we hope that the Minister will be able to respond to, if not tonight, in writing.
There is no doubt that investment in our science base is money well spent. One cannot overemphasise the importance to the nation of placing science policy high on the Government's agenda. As indicated, the question

77
of the council was initiated by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 26th October of last year when he announced that he would set up an independent body in the public sector, and when he made the important statement that,
"Daresbury and Rutherford are national assets. They have been thoroughly reviewed, and my conclusion is that they should remain in public ownership. I believe that according them independent status is the right way to proceed, but with strong emphasis on operating in a commercial manner, and particularly meeting the needs of the customers".
That is a statement we can fully support and which we hope will mean that there are unlikely to be any significant changes in the work of the laboratory; that the basic research is not restricted in any way or the work and running of the new laboratory not interrupted by the change. As the Minister said, the laboratories have large-scale facilities such as ISIS, the most powerful neutron source in the world, a laser research centre and an international space research programme, as well as being the centre for microstructure fabrication. These, together with the 17 research projects, must be nurtured and protected. That is why it is important that the contracts under negotiation for those 17 projects are placed with laboratories with some speed.
There are also certain assurances that need to be given regarding the funding of the laboratory. We would be opposed to any reduction in funding; rather we believe that it should be increased, so assisting UK industry to keep abreast of development by our competitors, particularly in America and Japan. In her reply I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that such expenditure on scientific research will be increased. My understanding is that the Government are expecting increased funding to come from industry. It is estimated, I believe, together with support from the Department of Trade and Industry, at about £19 million. The support of industry is welcome, especially so as all too often it has failed to back the efforts of and invest in British inventions and inventors.
There is also the question of any expectation of funds from Europe. If that is to be the case, can we be assured that it will be additional to government support and not mean a reduction in that support? This question of funding cannot be left just to competitiveness. I am sure we all agree that we cannot afford to lose any facility because of the lack of government funded basic research over a long-term period. The Government must ensure that the new body has ample funds to operate efficiently in the scientific environment. There has, however, also to be some measure of accountability over the spending of this £74 million of public funds. The new body must be accountable and independently monitored. Will the Minister in her reply give an indication of who will carry out that monitoring exercise? Coupled with the need for adequate finance, there must be sufficient specialist knowledge retained in-house to be able to use and interpret the advice it receives from its consultants. This raises the question of whether there are any proposed job cuts and whether in the future researchers will be expected to work to short-term contracts.
78
The aim of the new body is to support the advancement of knowledge and technology, meeting the needs of research councils, other customers and their user communities, thereby contributing to the economic competitiveness of the country and to the quality of life. These aims are rightly supported by the scientific community, those who benefit most from such economic competitiveness or wealth creation and many more who will benefit from any improvement in the quality of their life.
We ask, however: does this aim fit in with the Minister's statement about the need for preserving basic research as the new body is now considered to he in the category of wealth creation rather than basic research? I would ask the Minister in her reply to establish what is meant by basic research. Will this continue in the new organisation, and how does this differ from what is now said to be economic competitiveness or wealth creation and improving the quality of life?
In giving our warm support to the Government's intentions, to the council and its objects, I would add that there is an outstanding need for long-term corporate planning. Without a corporate plan of five, 10 or 20 years, the new body and the Government will blunder from one year's lack of resources to the next. The Government have to secure the long-term future and the stability of research bodies. Can we have an undertaking that the Government will examine this matter most carefully and that a long-term plan will be presented?
We are discussing a massive institution, not merely in terms of its budget and staff, but in terms of its contribution to science and technological development now and into the next century. Any steps that the Government take to these ends will guarantee our support.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Miller for the clear way she introduced this order this evening. I also wish to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for the well-informed understanding of the problems that are concerned with this aspect of research and development.
My noble friend may be aware that I asked a Question on 12th January drawing the Government's attention to the need to promote high quality research in the area of gene therapy and to undertake a co-ordinated approach to new treatments and scientific research.
With that in mind I am delighted this evening to welcome the introduction of the order. I should like to think that it shows on my part an intelligent anticipation of government thinking.
On 12th January I declared an interest as a director of a biopharmaceutical company. Although I can see only a very tenuous connection between my directorship and our debate this evening, in view of the current climate I declare that interest this evening.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege replied to my Question, stating (at col. 359 of Hansard):
"The main responsibility for government-funded research into human genetics lies with the Medical Research Council. The MRC spends around £12 million a year on the human genome project, whose main aim is to link specific diseases to the gene responsible. This important project is too large for any one organisation, and requires national and international collaboration".

79
She went on to say that:
"Apart from the MRC, support for genome research in the UK is also provided by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund as well as other charities, such as the Cancer Research Campaign".
My noble friend corrected me and said that although the US spends about 10 times more capital on gene therapy as the UK, the UK leads the world and that lead is the result of very good basic science allied to the clinical environment provided by the NHS. As a result, the UK has been able to attract leading scientists.
She also laid to rest my fears that the UK was taking an unco-ordinated approach to scientific research. The MRC and health department, through the appointment of Professor Michael Peckham as director of research and development, are responsible for the nation's co-ordinated approach. In addition, a number of advisory committees and councils have been established to assist in that process, one such council being the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils. I am pleased this evening to acknowledge its foundation and offer it support and encouragement.
The CLRC has been given a wide charter under which to operate. Under that charter its objectives have been defined in the order.
Objective (a) in the schedule is commendable, but I should like to remind your Lordships of the comment of Mr. Dai Rees, the Medical Research Council's secretary, in the 1994 Scientific Strategy:
"While I would naturally wish for more funding, constraints on public expenditure are a fact of life and we must make the best of what we are given from the public purse and increase our income from other sources whenever we can".
In view of the assurance of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, I ask my noble friend whether the UK is doing enough to ensure that it remains a world leader in scientific research and, in particular, gene therapy.
Can the CLRC truly perform its first objective to full potential if capital investment remains at current levels? Many core technologies around the country are currently dormant. To promote research by providing facilities or additional technical expertise may well not be the answer as I guess that it is additional funding which will eventually convert core technologies lying on the laboratory bench into economic reality.
I hope that the CLRC will be able to encourage greater participation from the business community by establishing additional programmes outside those already in place.
I urge the CLRC to accept an obligation to ensure that objective (c) in the schedule is pursued with great vigour and that gene therapy falls under that umbrella.
If the CLRC fulfils that objective it is likely that the community, and more importantly the business community, will have a far better understanding of the promise that scientific research and particularly genetic research holds for the nation. I hope that, as in the US and Europe, more private capital in the form of
80
investment funds and other creative financing packages become available specifically to service the research requirements.
For the UK to remain a world leader more capital will be required as the public purse is stretched to the limit, and it is crucial that that finance is available in the near future.
If the CLRC is successful in educating minds and organisations with substantial capital awaiting investment opportunity, it will successfully fulfil its other objective—objective (b), which is designed to ensure that the CLRC contributes to the economic competitiveness of the United Kingdom and the quality of life. I welcome the order.
7.25 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I too should like to intervene briefly to welcome the order. Before I do so I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the comprehensive way in which she introduced the order and also to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, to her new responsibilities on the Front Bench. I am delighted that she has joined the team.
In a sense this is unfinished business from the reform of the research councils last year, as my noble friend the Minister reminded us. I wish to draw attention to the exemplary way in which the Office of Science and Technology has undertaken the review. It has not rushed it. It has taken a great deal of advice, from scientists and customers. It has taken into account accountability and funding arrangements. The fact that that has taken 18 months from the announcement of the previous research councils demonstrates what a thorough job has been done.
There is one small matter about which I would be concerned had I to direct the new council, namely the support required from the Department of Trade and Industry. At present the Department of Trade and Industry is rather fickle in regard to research funding. It seems to be changing its priorities. It clearly feels that its previous contribution to research is not something which it wishes to maintain. I hope that the newly appointed director has been given an assurance from the Department of Trade and Industry, although I do not expect the Minister to answer that point because clearly such an assurance would not be public knowledge.
I wish to draw attention to an unfavourable comparison with how research might have been reorganised. This emanated from the Efficiency Unit scrutiny of public research establishments—an exercise which the House of Lords Select Committee regarded with some horror, as did the Select Committee of the other place. It was based purely on reasons of efficiency. Members of the House may remember that the proposals revolved around reorganisation on either a disciplinary or a regional basis, and, if that could not be decided upon, the proposal was to have directors of rationalisation.
The Select Committee considered that it is necessary to reorganise research from time to time. It is clearly necessary to review the scientific bases and priorities, value for. money and accountability, as is well demonstrated by the draft order before us tonight. What

81
one must not do is lay down doctrinaire rules as to how such reorganisations should be undertaken. There will be one solution on one occasion and another on another occasion. The Scottish system is quite different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and probably all the better for that in many respects. However, it would he a great mistake to think that because the Scottish system works reasonably well in Scotland it can be transplanted elsewhere.
In the Select Committee report which came out in November we draw attention to the fact that where rationalisation had taken place in the past it tended to have the characteristic of bringing together government departments, research councils and users of the research and producing a solution which appeared to meet everyone's requirements. We quoted the example of Horticultural Research International, which had brought together sites from the former agriculture and food research council and from the Ministry of Agriculture and put them together under one direction.
Had the order been tabled before we completed our report, I have no doubt that we should have quoted this also as an excellent model of how to organise and reorganise publicly funded research.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the debate has benefited from a number of distinguished and valuable contributions, which I welcome. In particular, I should like to welcome that of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, from the other side of the House. It is very nice that two of us from the class of '93 are here this evening.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: A very good year, my Lords!
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Indeed, my Lords.
The noble Baroness asked me several questions, particularly about funding, as did my noble friend Lord Colwyn. There is no reason to suppose that there will not be enough funding. The management certainly believe that they can attract enough investment. Currently they have a demand for some key facilities which exceeds the supply by three times. The laboratories have demonstrated their ability in the past to attract significant research projects from research councils and also external funding. The research councils will remain the main customers.
The noble Baroness also asked whether they thought that the new research council could attract investment. The laboratories have currently already initiated research work for over 150 companies. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish me to read out the names, but, to give a few examples, there is a £10 million investment from Japan and a £19 million investment in the Central Microstructure Facility for research in micro-electronics and micro-engineering, funded by five industrial partners and the DTI. There is also a £5 million contract to design and build the world's largest superconducting solenoid for CERN, with most of the components being made by United Kingdom industry.
82
The noble Baroness also asked whether the new council would be accountable. I should like to assure her and the House that it will be fully accountable. Like existing research councils, the new council will have to make an annual report to Parliament and publish accounts audited by the National Audit Office. The new chief executive, Dr. Paul Williams—to whom my noble friend referred—will be the designated accounting officer and will be responsible to the permanent secretary of the Office of Public Service and Science. Ministers will be answerable to Parliament.
The noble Baroness was also concerned over whether or not there might be job losses at the laboratories. We do not believe that there will be any direct impact on jobs at the laboratories arising simply from the change of status. Levels of employment will obviously depend upon the ability of the management and staff to attract customers. New arrangements intended to increase the laboratory's competitiveness should have a beneficial impact on employment.
The noble Baroness was also concerned as to whether basic research might be threatened. We neither intend nor envisage that the laboratories will become short-term contract laboratories. They will continue to work mainly for the other research councils, which have the support of basic research as part of their missions. The mission of the new council refers explicitly to its role in providing facilities and expertise to support basic research.
The noble Baroness was anxious about European funding. We expect that the laboratories will be successful in bidding for European funding and it will be in addition to other income from public sources. I also wish to assure her that the change will not interrupt the work of the laboratories.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn was worried about capital and we understand that it is essential to ensure that the CCLRC facilities remain competitive. So do its research council customers. We envisage that they will continue to support the laboratory with the funds necessary to carry out their work. My noble friend Lord Colwyn was also worried about gene therapy. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced on 2nd February in the debate in another place on the allocation of the science budget that additional funding of some £3.5 million is to be provided for the Medical Research Council to take forward its important work on genome. That underpinning research work should lead to an improved understanding of our genetic make-up and subsequent treatments of the type referred to by the noble Lord.
The Government are working to establish a framework to ensure that we get maximum impact and maximum value from our national strengths in science and engineering. Within that framework, the creation of this new council is an essential part of the research council structure. In my opening remarks I mentioned that the proposed order received cross-party support in the other place and I am very gratified by the support it has also received from your Lordships and in particular my noble friend Lord Selborne.

83
It is notable that both the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering have welcomed the Government's plans. The Royal Society described Daresbury and Rutherford-Appleton as national assets. They are indeed and I believe that our proposals mean that we will get the best from them. I therefore commend the draft order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7.34 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 43 [Appeal by accused in case involving insanity]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 38, line 17, leave out from ("(b)") to end of line and insert (", or both paragraphs (b) and (c), of that subsection, not later than 28").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 78, perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 79 to 83.
I undertook in response to amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, to reconsider the time limits we have provided for appeals by accused persons against the findings of and disposals made at examinations of facts and against the disposals made when a person is acquitted at his trial on the ground of insanity.
I accepted that seven days was too short a period in those circumstances. In giving thought to what might be appropriate alternatives, I have had regard to the various periods specified in the 1975 Act in relation to appeals in both solemn and summary proceedings. But I consider it neither necessary nor appropriate to replicate their complexity.
I entirely accept the noble Lord's reasoning behind the Committee stage amendments that lawyers may face difficulty, particularly in relation to the preparation of these appeals, in obtaining proper instructions from the accused. My view is that this problem is likely to be most acute in relation to appeals against the findings at examinations of facts; that is, that the accused did the act charged. That seems to me to be the category of appeal which might involve the most work to prepare and lodge. I seek to draw no distinction between solemn and summary cases and propose a time period of four weeks.
As regards appeals against the disposal made after an examination of facts or after a trial, acquittal on the grounds of insanity, I would propose a shorter period of two weeks. I hope that that is acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I wish to put on record my gratitude to the Minister for his humane understanding of the problems faced by solicitors in cases such as those to which the clause refers and for taking note of what was said at Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 83:
Page 38, line 19, at end insert:
("(iii) in the case of an appeal under paragraph (c) of that subsection against an order made on an acquittal, by virtue of section 174(2) or I74ZA(3) of this Act, on the ground of insanity at the time of the act or omission, not later than 14 days after the date of the acquittal;
(iv) in the case of an appeal under that paragraph against an order made on a finding under section 174ZA(2), not later than 14 days after the conclusion of the examination of facts,").
Page 38, line 42, at end insert:
("( ) Section 280 of this Act shall not apply in relation to any order as respects which a person has a right of appeal under subsection (1) (c) above.").
Page 39, line 11, leave out from ("(b)") to end of line and insert (", or both paragraphs (b) and (c), of that subsection, not later than 28").
Page 39, line 13, at end insert:
("(iii) in the case of an appeal under paragraph (c) of that subsection against an order made on an acquittal, by virtue of section 375(3A) or 375ZA(3) of this Act, on the ground of insanity at the time of the act or omission, not later than 14 days after the date of the acquittal;
(iv) in the case of an appeal under that paragraph against an order made on a finding under section 375ZA(2), not later than 14 days after the conclusion of the examination of facts,").
Page 39, line 34, at end insert:
("( ) Section 443 of this Act shall not apply in relation to any order as respects which a person has a right of appeal under subsection (1) (c) above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 84:
Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
Criminal Courts Rules Council
(" .—(1) There shall be established a body, to be known as the Criminal Courts Rules Council (in this section referred to as "the Council") which shall have the functions conferred on it by subsection (8) below.
(2) The Council shall consist of—

(a) the Lord Justice General, the Lord Justice Clerk and the Clerk of Justiciary;

(b) a further Lord Commissioner of Justiciary appointed by the Lord Justice General;

(c) the following persons appointed by the Lord Justice General after such consultation as he considers appropriate—

(i) two sheriffs;

(ii) two members of the Faculty of Advocates;

(iii) two solicitors;

(iv) one sheriff clerk; and

(v) one person appearing to him to have a knowledge of the procedures and practices of the district court;

(d) two persons appointed by the Lord Justice General after consultation with the Lord Advocate, at least one of whom must be a procurator fiscal;

(e) two persons appointed by the Lord Justice General after consultation with the Secretary of State, at least one of whom must be a person appearing to the Lord Justice General to have—

(i) a knowledge of the procedures and practices of the courts exercising criminal jurisdiction in Scotland; and

85

(ii) an awareness of the interests of victims of crime and of witnesses in criminal proceedings; and

(f) any persons appointed under subsection (3) below.

(3) The Lord Justice General may appoint not more than two further persons, and the Secretary of State may appoint one person, to membership of the Council.
(4) The chairman of the Council shall be the Lord Justice General or such other member of the Council, being a Lord Commissioner of Justiciary, as the Lord Justice General may nominate.
(5) The members of the Council appointed under paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (2) above shall, so long as they retain the respective qualifications (if any) mentioned in those paragraphs, hold office for three years and be eligible for reappointment.
(6) Any vacancy in the membership of the Council by reason of the death or demission of office, prior to the expiry of the period for which he was appointed, of a member appointed under any of paragraphs (b) to (f) of subsection (2) above shall be filled by the appointment by the Lord Justice General or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State, after such consultation (if any) as is required by the paragraph in question, of another person having the qualifications (if any) required by that paragraph, and a person so appointed shall hold office only until the expiry of that period.
(7) The Council shall meet—

(a) at intervals of not more than 12 months; and

(b) at any time when summoned by the chairman or by three members of the Council,

but shall, subject to the foregoing, have power to regulate the summoning of its meetings and the procedure at such meetings.
(8) At any meeting of the Council six members shall be a quorum.
(9) The functions of the Council shall be—

(a) to keep under general review the procedures and practices of the courts exercising criminal jurisdiction in Scotland (including any matters incidental or relating to those procedures or practices); and

(b) to consider and comment on any draft Act of Adjournal submitted to it by the High Court, which shall, in making the Act of Adjournal, take account to such extent as it considers appropriate of any comments made by the Council under this paragraph.

(10) In the discharge of its functions under subsection (9) above the Council may invite representations on any aspect of the procedures and practices of the courts exercising criminal jurisdiction in Scotland (including any matters incidental or relating to those procedures or practices) and shall consider any such representations received by it, whether or not submitted in response to such an invitation.
(11) Except where the context otherwise requires, expressions used in this section and in the 1975 Act have the same meaning in this section as in that Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords with a knowledge of Scottish criminal procedure will be aware that the High Court has had a long-standing power under statute to make secondary legislation, by Act of Adjournal, regulating practice and procedure in the criminal courts. This power is now exercised under Sections 282 and 457 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
Existing legislation makes no provision for the High Court to consult in exercising its powers. This contrasts with the arrangements for preparing Acts of Sederunt, which regulate civil court procedure in Scotland and under which there are rules councils for the court of session and sheriff courts with a membership representing the judiciary and court users.
I am pleased therefore to be able to introduce this provision which provides for the setting up under statute of a rules council for criminal court proceedings. The new council will have broadly comparable functions to
86
the existing rules councils for civil court business and will provide a structured consultative forum for considering and commenting on proposals for changes to the rules of court. In this way the new body will assist the High Court in discharging its powers for making Acts of Adjournal.
Subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause make provision for the membership of the council. In drawing up the membership framework care has been taken to involve those with practical experience of working in the courts and operating the rules.
During the debate on this Bill, as happened earlier this afternoon, there has been considerable attention paid to the interests of victims in the operation of the criminal justice system. Noble Lords, therefore, will wish to note that provision has been made for involving in the new council a member who combines a knowledge of criminal court practices and procedures with an awareness of the interests of victims and witnesses in those proceedings.
The new arrangements are based on discussions with the Lord Justice General, whose suggestion it was that this change might be made. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, we regard this as a significant piece of legislation in relation to the criminal procedure in Scotland. It is most welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Prints, samples etc. in criminal investigations]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 44, line 44, leave out from ("constable") to ("take") in line 45 and insert ("may, within the permitted period—
(a)")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89. They are technical in nature and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos 87 to 89:
Page 45, line 3, leave out ("may,").
Page 45, line 10, leave out (", within the permitted period,").
Page 45, line 18, leave out ("(3) (a)") and insert ("(2)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause:
Time limit for summary prosecution of statutory offences
(" .—(1) Section 331 of the 1975 Act (time limit for summary prosecution of statutory offences) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after the words "in respect of" there shall be inserted "any offence triable only summarily and consisting of".
(3) Subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 127 and 130. On Second Reading I indicated that we were looking at certain inconsistencies which exist in time-bar provisions in respect of the summary prosecution of

87
certain offences. The principal statute provision is Section 331 of the 1975 Act, which imposes a general bar against commencing summary proceedings in relation to statutory offences more than six months after the date of contravention. However, this section does not apply where the statute or order which creates the particular offence specifies its own time limit.
I am not in the habit of introducing government amendments by explaining first what they do not do. However, on this occasion, it might help to set the context. First, the amendments will not disturb any time bars in relation to the summary prosecutions of offences where, as I have indicated, the statute creating the offence specifies its own period. These time limits have been set in the light of the nature and circumstances of the offence in question. There is no need therefore to revisit them or to alter them.
Nor, and as importantly, do the amendments disturb the application of Section 331 to statutory offences which can be prosecuted only summarily. It is, indeed, desirable in the interests of justice that such lesser offences should be dealt with quickly.
A problem does, however, arise with statutory offences which are triable either summarily or on indictment. These are by definition more serious offences than those to which I have just referred. The existence of a general time bar of six months on a summary prosecution of offences causes particular difficulty in relation to offences contained in GB or UK statutes because there is no comparable general time bar on a summary prosecution of what are known as "either way" offences in England and Wales unless the statute specifically sets a time limit.
The unwelcome result is that the Crown in Scotland may be barred from prosecuting such offences there which the Crown Prosecution Service could prosecute in England when the offence does not come to light within the six month period. I am sure that noble Lords familiar with the Scottish system will appreciate that this is a growing problem given the increasing number of investigative functions which now fall to agencies other than the police.
The two minor amendments within the group repeal the last remnants of Section 331 of the 1975 Act, which were left in place in error when the bulk of that section was repealed in the Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Act 1986. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Legal aid in criminal appeals]:
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Supervision and care of persons diverted from prosecution or subject to supervision requirement etc.]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 48, line 45, after ("174ZC(2) (d)") insert ("or 375ZC(2) (d)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 93:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause:
Forfeiture: district court
(" .—(1) Where, in respect of any offence tried in the district court, the accused is convicted or (without proceeding to conviction) an order is made discharging him absolutely the court may, if it is satisfied on the application of the prosecutor that any moveable property which was at the time of the offence or of the accused's apprehension in his ownership or possession or under his control—

(a) has been used for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, any offence; or

(b) was intended to be used for that purpose,

order that the property shall be forfeited to and vest in the Crown or such other person as the court may direct.
(2) Any application under subsection (1) above shall be made following upon the conviction of the accused or, as the case may be, the finding that he committed the offence with which he was charged.
(3) Where, by itself, the use of property constitutes an offence in whole or in part, that property shall be regarded for the purpose of subsection (1) (a) above as used for the purpose of committing the offence, unless the enactment which created the offence expressly excludes the application of this section.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, where the accused is convicted of an offence under any enactment, the court shall not be precluded from making an order under subsection (1) above in respect of any property by reason only that the property would not be liable to forfeiture under that enactment.
(5) Subsection (4) above shall not apply—

(a) if the enactment concerned expressly excludes the application of this section; or

(b) to any property which has been used or has been intended to be used as mentioned in subsection (1) (a) or (b) above in relation to the offence of which the accused has been convicted, if the enactment concerned specifies the category of property which is to be liable to forfeiture thereunder, and the category so specified does not include the category of property which has been used or has been intended to be used as aforesaid.

(6) Where the court makes—

(a) an order under subsection (1) above that property shall be forfeited to the Crown; and

(b) a compensation order under section 58 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980,

against the same accused in the same proceedings, it may order that the proceeds of sale of the property forfeited by virtue of subsection (1) above shall be first directed towards satisfaction of the compensation order.
(7) For the purposes of any appeal or review an order under subsection (1) above is a sentence.
(8) In this section "the court" means the district court.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 73 makes provision for a new set of forfeiture procedures. These arrangements will not extend to district courts. In this respect, we agree with the conclusions of the Scottish Law Commission that new measures, which are modelled in part on civil proceedings, are not appropriate for the business of the district courts. On the other hand, we do not wish to deprive the district courts entirely of the useful general forfeiture power which is available presently and which the district courts employ. However, that particular power will be repealed as part of the reform.
We therefore considered whether district courts still need a general forfeiture power and we concluded that they do. The amendment introduces a substitute provision which will apply only to district courts. The conclusion is modelled closely on the provisions in Clause 73, adapted to make it workable for the district courts. The general power will extend only to movable property and will not attract the more complex arrangements which will support the suspended forfeiture order provisions.
Nonetheless, I believe that the clause will reinstate a valuable power to the district courts. It has been fashioned in a way which properly reflects the nature of the business of those courts. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, is it proposed that the Government will give guidance to the district courts in the interpretation of the clause? It is not all that simple, even for lawyers to understand. In ensuring that the clause works effectively and without giving rise to appeals, it would be helpful for the courts to have guidelines.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. I cannot give him an undertaking in respect of that matter but perhaps I may remind him that the District Courts Association runs many training sessions, issues material and so forth. I should have thought that this matter was exactly the kind that the association would wish to take up.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Forfeiture of property subject to suspended forfeiture order]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 65, line 24, leave out from ("recorded") to end of line 25 and insert ("in the General Register of Sasines or, as the case may be, registered in the Land Register of Scotland.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 are technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78 [Appeal against court decision under section 76(1) or 77(1)]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 68, leave out lines 23 to 25 and insert ("cause a certified copy of the interlocutor of the Court to be recorded in the General Register of Sasines or, as the case may be, registered in the Land Register of Scotland.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments to Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 Relating to Part II]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 108, line 7, leave out ("1(1)") and insert ("59(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. However, before moving it I should indicate one matter in connection with the forfeiture and confiscation provisions. We have not
90
addressed it at this stage but we hope to bring forward amendments on Third Reading. It relates to inhibition, which is at present covered by Chapter III of Part II of the Bill. At present that reflects the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission to establish one system of inhibition for the prosecutor in the specific circumstances of confiscation or forfeiture; that would be a unique system. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to introduce a special system in the context of confiscation and forfeiture. We consider that the whole issue of inhibition ought to be referred to the Scottish Law Commission for detailed examination. In those circumstances, we would wish to revert to the arrangements which currently apply under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987. That will require a series of amendments which I hope to bring forward at Third Reading.
I can assure your Lordships that, although the amendments will look extensive and complex, their purpose is straightforward and is, in effect, to bring the position back to that under the current legislation. I invite your Lordships to note that for the future. In the meantime, the matter before your Lordships is a technical one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 119, line 25, leave out ("resignation") and insert ("demission of office").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 97 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99. These amendments refer to the provision in relation to the succession to the office of Lord Advocate. As I indicated in Committee, it is not a matter upon which I like to reflect too much. However, it is a technical matter and we propose to insert the word "demission" or similar words in order to cover all the various circumstances in which a Lord Advocate may pass from that office. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
Page 119, line 26, leave out ("tender resignations") and insert ("demit office").
Page 119, line 27, leave out ("resigning from") and insert ("demitting").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 119, line 34, at end insert:
(". In section 50 (latitude as to time and place), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) above, nothing in any rule of law shall prohibit the amendment of an indictment to include a time outwith the exceptional latitude if it appears to the court that the amendment would not prejudice the accused.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were prompted by a pre-consolidation review of the legislation. They allow the Crown to amend the indictment or complaint in cases where exceptional latitude has been taken in the specification of the time and place of the offence, if the court is satisfied that the accused's interests will not be prejudiced.
On occasion information becomes available in the course of evidence being led which indicates that the offence was committed outside the period of exceptional latitude presently permitted. The Crown's inability to amend caused difficulties, for example, in child abuse cases. Such amendment will be competent only where the court is satisfied that it will not prejudice the accused's interests.
The second part of the amendment to Section 312 of the 1975 Act will substitute the more modern definition of "money" recommended by the Scottish Law Commission in its report on confiscation and forfeiture.
I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I have some slight reservations in relation to the phraseology of Amendment No. 100. However, I shall not take issue with it at this time. I should like to look at it more closely and if there is a real issue on the question of fairness to the accused and to the state, that can be raised either at Third Reading or in another place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 120, line 2, at end insert:
(" . In section 73(1) (execution of citation of indictment), the words from ", unless" to the end shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 101 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 112 to 115, 122 to 126, 128 and 129. Our review of criminal procedure legislation prior to the planned consolidation prompted a number of proposals for the repeal of provisions, mainly in the 1975 Act. None of those provisions is any longer necessary and this is an opportunity to clear the statute book of those spent provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 120, line 9, at end insert:
(" . In section 79(1) (description of witnesses), for the words from ", with" to the end there shall be substituted "together with an address at which they can be contacted for the purposes of precognition.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are related minor pre-consolidation amendments to Sections 79 and 81 of the 1975 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 120, line 12, at end insert:
(" . In section 81 (examination by prosecutor of witnesses, etc., not included in lists lodged) after the word "address" there shall be inserted "as mentioned in section 79(1) above,".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 104 and 105:
Page 120, line 14, leave out ("(1) (a)") and insert ("(1)—
(i) in paragraph (a)").
Page 120, leave out lines 17 to 27 and insert:
("(ii) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted—"
(b) the court, on cause shown, otherwise directs."; and
(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "written notice" to "the court" there shall be substituted—
"(a) written notice of the names and addresses of such witnesses and of such productions shall have been given—

(i) where the case is to be tried in the sheriff court, to the procurator fiscal of the district of the trial diet at or before the first diet; and

(ii) where the case is to be tried in the High Court, to the Crown Agent at least ten clear days before the day on which the jury is sworn; or

(b) the court, on cause shown, otherwise directs, in which case it".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 9, Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 were also spoken to. With the leave of the House, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 120, line 43, at end insert:
(" . For section 125 (on plea of not guilty, jury to he balloted and sworn) there shall be substituted the following section—
"On plea of not guilty, plea to be recorded and jury balloted.
125. Where the accused pleads not guilty, the clerk of court shall record that fact and proceed to ballot the jury.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor pre-consolidation amendment to remove an historical anomaly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 120, line 44, after ("place),") insert ("(a) in subsection (1), for the words "date of such trial diet" there shall be substituted "last day of the sitting in which the trial diet was to be held";
(b)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 107 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 108. These two pre-consolidation amendments will clarify Section 127 of the 1975 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 120, line 49, at end insert ("; and

93
(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5) The warrant issued under section 69 of this Act shall be sufficient warrant for the citation of the accused and witnesses to any further diet appointed under this section".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 121, line 6, at end insert:
(" . In section 134 (provision for death or illness of jurors)—

(a) for the words "any juror is, through illness or for any other reason, unfit" there shall be substituted "it is for any reason inappropriate for any juror"; and

(b) for the words "or on behalf of the Lord Advocate" there shall be substituted "the prosecutor".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 109 extends the court's existing power to permit a trial to continue before a reduced jury where a member of that jury has died, fallen ill or is for any other reason considered unfit to serve. The court will exercise the power on an application made by or on behalf of the Lord Advocate or an accused under Section 134 of the 1975 Act.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, explained to the House at Committee stage, at present the extent of that power is somewhat unclear. It may not extend to all possible circumstances in which it would be undesirable for a juror to continue serving. The aim of the amendment is to widen the court's discretion in deciding whether a juror should continue to serve. The second amendment extends to a private prosecutor the rights presently available to the Lord Advocate or an accused to apply to the court for the continuation of a trial under this section. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 121, line 8, after ("(1);") insert:
("( ) in subsection (1), for the words from "it", where it first occurs, to the end there shall be substituted "copies of the indictment shall be provided for each member of the jury without lists of witnesses or productions"; and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again this is a minor pre-consolidation amendment to Section 135 of the 1975 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 115:
Page 121, line 27, at end insert:
(" . Section 144 (notice of spouse as witness) shall cease to have effect.
. Section 145(4) (interruption of trial) shall cease to have effect.
. Section 146 (sheriff's notes of evidence) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 121, line 35, at end insert:
(" . In section 153 (seclusion of jury, etc., after retiral)—

(a) subsection (I) shall cease to have effect; and

(b) in subsection (3) (b) (ii), the words from "(as" to the end shall cease to have effect.

. Sections 156(5) and 360A(2) (interruption of trial for verdict in earlier trial) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 121, line 38, at end insert:
(" Section 159(1) (previous convictions libelled as aggravations) and (3) (passing of sentence on second or subsequent conviction) and section 356(1) and (3) (equivalent provisions in relation to summary procedure) shall cease to have effect.
. Section 160(3) (verdict as to whether previous convictions proved) shall cease to have effect.").
Page 122, line 30, at end insert:
(" . Sections 190 and 391 (supplementary provisions as to probation: security for good behaviour) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 101 I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 112, 113, 114 and 115. With the leave of the House, I shall move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 123, line 36, at end insert:
(" . For subsection (1) of section 283 (application of Part H of that Act) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1) This Part of this Act applies to summary proceedings in respect of any offence which might prior to the passing of this Act, or which may under the provisions of this or any Act, whether passed before or after this Act, be tried summarily.
(1A) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, this Part of this Act also applies to procedure in all courts of summary jurisdiction in so far as they have jurisdiction in respect of—

(a) any offence or the recovery of a penalty under any enactment or rule of law which does not exclude summary procedure as well as, in accordance with section 196 of this Act, to the enforcement of a fine imposed in solemn proceedings; and

(b) any order ad factum praestandum, or other order of court or warrant competent to a court of summary jurisdiction.".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a pre-consolidation amendment to Section 283 of the 1975 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 123, line 38, at end insert:
(" . In section 312 (form of charge in complaint)

(a) in paragraph (f), at the end there shall be inserted the words "provided also that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph or in any rule of law shall prohibit the amendment of a complaint to include a time outwith the exceptional latitude if it appears to the court that the amendment would not prejudice the accused;"; and

(b) in paragraph (j), for the words from "all" to the end there shall be substituted "cheques, banknotes, postal orders, money orders and foreign currency;".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when speaking to Amendment No. 100, I also spoke to Amendment No. 118. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 128, line 15, at end insert:
(" . In section 20 of that Act (admissibility of certain evidence regarding speeding offences etc.), after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

95
"(8A) As respects proceedings in Scotland, a copy of a document served on a person under subsection (8) above shall be served in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, and a written execution purporting to be signed by the person who served such copy document together with, where appropriate, the relevant post office receipt shall be sufficient evidence of service of such a copy.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Section 28 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 deals with the admissibility of certain evidence in trials for speeding offences. An example may be a document which contains a measurement of the speed made by an electronic device for that purpose. Section 28 provides that such a document is admissible only if it is served in advance of the trial. However, no provision is made as to how the document is to be served. The amendment puts that right by specifying the manner of service and the way in which such service is to be proved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 130, line 23, after ("or") insert ("Part II of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 120, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 121. These are technical amendments to ensure that the provisions refer only to Part II and not the Bill as a whole. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 130, line 44, after ("and") insert ("Part II of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 122 to 126:
Page 134, line 26, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 73(1), the words from ",
unless" to the end.").

Page 134, line 31, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 144. Section 145(4). Section 146.").

Page 134, line 34, column 3, at end insert:

("In section 153, subsection (1) and, in subsection (3) (b) (ii), the words from "(as" to the end. Section 156(5).").

Page 134, line 37, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 159(1) and (3). Section 160(3).").

Page 135, line 6, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 190.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 101 I spoke to Amendments Nos. 122 to 126. I beg to move those amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 135, line 32, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 331(2).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when speaking to Amendment No. 90, I spoke also to Amendment No. 127. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 135, line 39, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 356(1) and (3). Section 360A(2).").

Page 136, line 7, column 3, at end insert:

("Section 391.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when speaking to Amendment No. 101, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 128 and 129. I beg to move those amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 136, line 29, at end insert:

("1986 c. 36.

The Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Act 1986.

In Schedule 1, paragraph 2.")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when speaking to Amendment No. 90, I spoke also to Amendment No. 130. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes past eight o'clock.

  Myanmar: Attacks on the Karen People
  Myanmar: Attacks on the Karen People
  European Parliament: Costs of Triple Location
  European Parliament: Costs of Triple Location
  Turkey: Prison Conditions
  Turkey: Prison Conditions
  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Greek Trade Embargo
  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Greek Trade Embargo
  Turkey: Trial of Mr. Yasar Kemal
  Turkey: Trial of Mr. Yasar Kemal
  South Lebanon: Legality of Israeli Weapons
  South Lebanon: Legality of Israeli Weapons
  Southern Iraq: Exclusion Zone
  Southern Iraq: Exclusion Zone
  Iraq: UN Security Council Resolution 949
  Iraq: UN Security Council Resolution 949
  Goma, Rwanda: Expected Volcanic Eruption
  Goma, Rwanda: Expected Volcanic Eruption
  Hospitals for Mentally Handicapped: Opposed Closure
  Hospitals for Mentally Handicapped: Opposed Closure
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine: Self-Regulation
  Professions Supplementary to Medicine: Self-Regulation
  National Lottery Jackpot
  National Lottery Jackpot
  Pedal Cyclists: Identification
  Pedal Cyclists: Identification
  Roadworks in London: TV Cable Installation
  Roadworks in London: TV Cable Installation
  Child Support Maintenance: Income Support Disregard Costs
  Child Support Maintenance: Income Support Disregard Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Income Support Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Income Support Costs
  Armed Services Careers Information Offices
  Armed Services Careers Information Offices
  Community Charge Arrears
  Community Charge Arrears