Sitting of 27 February 1995

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

    Discrimination in Sport
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last met representatives of the Rugby Football Union to discuss discrimination in sport.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I meet representatives of the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby League on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that one of the finest qualities of the Secretary of State is his sense of humour? Is he aware that in his previous post at the Treasury the Secretary of State told me in a parliamentary answer that top rugby union players did not pay income tax because theirs was strictly an amateur sport? In view of the money now accruing to the Government as a result of the Inland Revenue investigation of rugby union, would it not be right and proper for that funding to be passed directly to the Rugby League for use in ground improvement, in recognition of the discrimination that that sport has suffered in the past 100 years?
    Mr. Sproat: It is true that the Inland Revenue is currently investigating the income of not only rugby league but rugby union players. As for the safety of sports grounds, I am trying to find a way to help rugby league and not just association football.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that rugby union is a game played nationwide by men and boys aged six to 60—
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: And women.
    Sir Donald Thompson:—and by some ladies, and that relations between the Rugby League and the Rugby Football Union have never been better since the Rugby League was formed at the George hotel in 1895?
    Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend is right. Relations between the Rugby Football Union and the Rugby League are at an all-time peak. The meeting on 27 January between Mr. Walker and Mr. Lindsey, representing rugby league, and Mr. Pugh and Mr. Rowlands, representing rugby union, was of great symbolic importance. The gangways between rugby union and rugby league are opening up. That is a good
    674
    thing. I should also point out that Wasps rugby football club has provided the ground for the amateur rugby league final in London for the past five years. That is a good thing and typical.
    Mr. Hoyle: In view of that encouraging reply, is the Minister aware of the case of my constituent, Adrian Spencer, who played amateur rugby league football with Woolston? He played a few games for London Crusaders, for which he received no payment; yet when he played in the Varsity match he was suspended for 12 months. Will the Minister note the contrast between him and Mike Catt, the England player, who admitted receiving £140 per week expenses when he played in South Africa but was exonerated? Will he seek a meeting with the Rugby Union to condemn the injustice to my constituent and ask for his reinstatement forthwith? Will he also ask it to apply rules for 1995 and not those more akin to 1895?
    Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Adrian Spencer, who played for only a few minutes; he was on and off the field so quickly that I hardly noticed him, but the hon. Gentleman's point is none the less important and I will draw it to the attention of the rugby union authorities.

    Gardening
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make it his policy to allocate funds to promote gardening.
    Mr. Sproat: The Department of National Heritage, its agencies and sponsored bodies do not give grants to gardening as an activity in its own right. However, through a number of its agencies and bodies the Department supports the maintenance and preservation of gardens of historic and heritage interest.
    Dr. Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of the outstanding success of Benfleet horticultural society, of which I am a member? Does he agree that the national heritage of Great Britain is characterised by ordinary front and rear gardens and allotments and not by men in tights and large Italian singers? Will any funds be available from the national lottery for our great garden institutions, such as Kew gardens?
    Mr. Sproat: I agree about the great importance of allotments. In fact, the Department of the Environment gives £35,000 per year to the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners. On the national lottery, it would be appropriate for applications to be made to the National Heritage memorial fund for historic gardens and I saw in the newspaper this morning that Kew gardens is applying for £41 million from the millennium fund.
    Mr. Flynn: Is not the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) right in saying that our gardens are a great tourist attraction? The Secretary of State said that he would announce the strategy for tourism—promised before Christmas—on St. David's day at the Tower of London. While the choice of day is admirable, why on earth is it not being presented to Parliament so that we

    675
    can debate in detail many of the controversial issues in that statement? When will the House hear what our strategy for tourism is?
    Mr. Sproat: I have no doubt that a proper opportunity will be found for the House to express its views on that important matter.

    Cross-media Ownership
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received on cross-media ownership; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he intends to announce his proposals on cross-media ownership.
    The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The Government have received 64 written representations since the review was announced last year. We shall announce our conclusions when we have completed consideration of the issues that they raise.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the series of separate boxes within which the different aspects of the media are regulated are looking as outdated as a 1950s television set? Would it not better reflect the interaction of rapidly developing technologies if considerations of monopoly and limitations on ownership were determined by reference to a more fluid, across-the-board assessment at national or local level or both?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which he will know has been the subject of an investigation by the British media industry group. He will also know that if we pursued the train of thought that he suggests, the most difficult questions would arise in terms of the measurement of the value of a share in one part of the media compared with the value of a share in another part of that market. In other words, how much is one newspaper share worth as against one television share? Those are difficult and intricate issues to which I do not think that anyone in the industry believes that we have a convincing solution.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister bear it in mind that in this consideration it is more important to get it right than to get it quick? Will he bear in mind primarily the need to stop any further erosion of the regionally based ITV companies, which have already been far too undermined by the Broadcasting Act 1990? Secondly, will he bear in mind the need to avoid local media monopolies of any kind? Thirdly, will he bear in mind the need to attract more money into programme production rather than any struggle for transmission facilities?
    Mr. Dorrell: I certainly agree that it is more important to get it right than to get it quickly. That is why we are taking our time to ensure that the issues are properly teased out. Having said that, however, it is also important to bring the process to a close because important issues to do with the structure of the market, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) referred, need to be resolved. As regards the hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the importance of
    676
    regional diversity and of ensuring that monopolies are avoided at regional as well as national level, I agree with him and it will be one of the aspects covered in the Government's conclusions.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that mobility of labour within the media is tremendously important? Does he not think it a little rich and rather worrying that the head of news at BBC Westminster is leaving to become director of campaigning and elections for the Labour party?
    Mr. Dorrell: I do not intend to get involved in offering career advice to an employee of any part of the public sector. Clearly, it is important that anyone who takes a job as campaigning officer for the Labour party should have career plans beyond the next election because the Labour party will not provide them.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State will agree that one of the main strands of a fair and sensible cross-media ownership settlement is to ensure that self-regulation of the press works and is seen to work. Does he also agree that, above all, a fair-minded and impartial weighing up of sensitive evidence is needed from the Press Complaints Commission? How can that possibly happen when a man as rudely opinionated and irrational as Sir Bernard Ingham is proposed for membership?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am not sure that press privacy regulations arise directly out of cross-media ownership, but I am happy to reply to the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government have made it clear that we would prefer a model for regulation of the press built on the principles of self-regulation. It follows from that proposition that responsibility for appointing people to the self-regulatory body rests not with the Government or the Opposition but with the press itself. None the less, the effectiveness of any model for self-regulation depends on an effective policing body. Whatever else may be said about Sir Bernard Ingham—for this purpose, his views are frankly irrelevant—no one can deny that he is effective. If we want an effective regulator, effectiveness is the criterion that we should apply to potential candidates.

    Football Stadiums
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will review the requirement for all-seater stadiums at league football matches.
    Mr. Sproat: The issue was most recently reviewed in 1992 when it was decided that the all-seater requirement would apply only to clubs in the Football Association premier league and the first division of the Football League. Virtually all those clubs now have all-seater stadiums. All other Football League clubs are being allowed to retain standing accommodation. I have no plans to review the matter again.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the majority of football fans seem to agree that the exciting character of football matches has been seriously undermined by the removal of standing areas? In view of recent initiatives on safe standing areas, is there not

    677
    a case for the Minister to review the matter, particularly for clubs in the first division which have not completed their all-seater arrangements?
    Mr. Sproat: I am sorry to say that the short answer is no. As for football fans enjoying standing on the terraces, it is true that they did and there are arguments in favour of terraces, but they are not so great as the arguments for all-seater stadiums which, although not a panacea, have helped to increase the number of people watching football matches over the past 10 years by 1.2 million.
    Mr. Orme: As one who supports all-seater stadiums, does the Minister agree with me that their purpose is not only to make football more accessible and allow people to see matches properly but to have some control over crowds? What action will the Government take to offset the current rise in racism in sport?
    Mr. Sproat: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that all-seater stadiums appear to have helped to control violence, from whatever source, at grounds. They do not stop it but, combined with measures such as closed-circuit television, they are of great benefit. I am in the process of holding a number of meetings with the premier league, the Football Association and the Football League to see what more, if anything, can be done.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only right and proper that in the 1990s people should he able to watch football in comfort and safety, and that all-seater stadiums provide both? Does he agree that, where people can choose between attending an all-seater stadium or a stadium in which there is standing room only, they usually prefer the all-seater stadium?
    Mr. Sproat: I think that, on balance, my hon. Friend is correct. It is interesting that a number of clubs which do not have to go all-seater, such as Birmingham, Huddersfield and Northampton, have chosen to do so because their fans find such grounds better for watching football matches.
    Mr. Pendry: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) made a strong point about safe standing areas at football grounds. Is the Minister also aware of the need for more flexibility towards clubs attempting to relocate their grounds outside town centres, as recommended in the Taylor report and by the Sports Council? Does he appreciate that unless he resolves the differences between his Department and the Department of the Environment as the planning Department, many clubs will go to the wall and that our national game will be the poorer for the loss of clubs already in difficulty such as Southampton, Portsmouth, Exeter, Bristol Rovers, Sunderland, Oxford United and Grimsby, to name but a few?
    Mr. Sproat: It is certainly true that a number of clubs want to relocate, but have been unable to do so. I believe that Southend wants to relocate, but has been unable to find a place to relocate. The recent decision about Portsmouth is a good example. A balance must be struck between the needs of the planning authorities and those of the football clubs. We shall do our best to see that a fair balance is struck.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from organisations which wish to relieve the Arts Council of its responsibilities for distributing funds from the national lottery.
    Mr. Sproat: I have received no such representations.
    Mr. Duncan: In view of some rather puzzling criticism that has appeared in the newspapers, notably the Evening Standard and The Independent, about the distribution of lottery funds by the Arts Council, will the Minister undertake to consult Lord Cowrie to satisfy himself that the procedures laid down by the Arts Council are set at the highest possible standard?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes. My hon. Friend has made an important point. I also noticed the article in The Independent, which seemed to suggest that some members of advisory panels on the Arts Council, or their institutions, had been in receipt of funds from the Arts Council. Now that the national lottery is more than doubling—or is at least likely to do so—the amount of money that the Arts Council has to distribute, it is only right that the financial procedures should be absolutely above all suspicion. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the National Audit Office expects shortly to announce its validation—or otherwise, I suppose—of the Arts Council's suggestions.
    Ms Hoey: Does the Minister accept that the Arts Council would have more money to distribute from the national lottery if Camelot was not taking such huge profits, which were not taken into account when the regulations governing who should get the contract to start with were drawn up? It is about time that the Minister addressed that problem and forced Camelot to pay back its start-up costs immediately.
    Mr. Sproat: No, I do not agree. Camelot agreed to bid and accept the franchise on the basis of a return of between 5 and 6 per cent. of the franchise. That was the risk that it took and that percentage is a perfectly fair return. In fact, it was the lowest return offered by any of the companies which bid for the franchise.

    Tourism
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the importance of the arts in attracting visitors to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dorrell: The arts play a vital role in bringing visitors to this country. In the 1993 London overseas visitors survey, 69 per cent. of overseas visitors cited the heritage as one of the main reasons for their visit and 45 per cent. mentioned the arts and museums and galleries as being among the main reasons for their visit.
    Mr. Waterson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that on top of the figures he has already quoted, on average one theatre seat in three in London is filled by a foreign visitor? Does he agree

    679
    that that illustrates the importance of his support for the arts, and particularly the extra £7 million for cultural causes that he announced recently?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about London theatres. He might have added that not only are one third of London theatre seats sold to overseas visitors, but a further third are sold to visitors from out of London who buy theatre tickets during their visit to the city. That is a good example of the circular and benign relationship which binds the arts and the tourist industry, giving each a vested interest in the expansion of the other.
    Mr. Enright: Does the Secretary of State agree that regional arts are extremely important in that context? Will he specifically consider Wakefield sculpture park, which is a world leader and desperately in need of assistance?
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree that the principles illustrated by the London case apply with equal force across the United Kingdom. The example of the Wakefield sculpture park is regularly cited to me as an arts venue that attracts visitors to a region to which they might not otherwise go.

    National Centre for Athletics
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to establish a new national centre for athletics; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sproat: The establishment of a new national centre for athletics is essentially a matter for the British Athletic Federation. However, I am concerned that proper sporting structures should exist to enable our young sportsmen and women to reach their potential.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind the great distinction that our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), achieved largely without support, would it be possible to encourage and support future athletes? During my hon. Friend the Minister's visit to Australia, did he manage to visit the Australian Institute of Sport in Canberra? If so, what does it cost to run and who profits, and would such an institution in Britain be eligible for national lottery funding?
    Mr. Sproat: It would certainly be possible for an organisation in this country comparable with the Australian Institute of Sport to be funded by the national lottery. From memory, I believe that the cost of the Australian model is about £10 million per year.I am sure that the relevant organisations will want to consider that closely.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I persuade the Minister not to be diverted by the suggestion that a national centre is the way to increase the standard of performance in athletics once and for all? Will he accept from me that proper opportunities at school, a vibrant system of club athletics and the provision of adequate facilities—especially indoor facilities, given
    680
    the climate of the United Kingdom—are much more likely in the long term to produce the type of performances that we would all wish?
    Mr. Sproat: I agree 100 per cent. with what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about the benefits which would flow from obtaining the school, university, club and indoor facilities that he would wish. However, I do not think that any of that means that we should not consider something more central as well, but that is a matter for the British Athletic Federation to consider.

    Company Connections, Wales
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on his investigations into the connection between the Penwyn Pinc Company, the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Company, the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority-S4C.
    Mr. Dorrell: My Department has received reports from ABSA and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority on the circumstances of an award to the Welsh Rock and Folk Music Council under the business sponsorship incentive scheme. It has commissioned a separate review, independent of the bodies involved, from a senior Treasury official, Mr. John Beastall. Both ABSA and the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority will be closely involved in the review.
    Mr. Morgan: Notwithstanding that answer, does the Secretary of State agree that there is the whiff of cultural money laundering about the entire episode? In the light of previous unhappy experiences with aspects of ABSA's management and the insider trading that went on in that organisation, will he agree to accelerate the review and announce its results to the House at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Dorrell: It was because we were concerned about reports in respect of the Welsh arrangements for BSIS distribution that we asked Mr. Beastall to conduct the investigation. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that his report will be made available to the House.

    Quality of Service
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what criteria or benchmarks are used to measure the quality of service provided by his Department.
    Mr. Sproat: We have performance targets for the key areas in which services are delivered to ensure that they are of high quality and that they support the Department's aims and objectives.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Why does the Minister not use the year 1979 as his benchmark? Does he agree that our cherished buildings are falling into decay, we cannot excel in international sporting competitions and the quality of our performing arts is being diminished as a result of lack of funding? Is he aware that the Library Association is especially worried about the serious cuts in the public library service in recent years and the fact that the Treasury projects a further two years of cuts in that area? How does the Minister intend to ensure

    681
    that public libraries are enhanced, improved and reopened instead of being closed, as has been the hallmark of the Tory years?
    Mr. Sproat: I will deal with as many of the hon. Gentleman's questions as I can remember.
    Capital expenditure on sports facilities will come under the lottery and I hope that that will be wisely used.
    On the arts, the hon. Gentleman knows that £191.1 million has been given to the Arts Council of England next year—an increase of 3.7 per cent.
    Like the hon. Gentleman, I wish local public libraries to flourish. With regard to spending, the hon. Gentleman should speak to the Department of the Environment about the standard spending assessment.
    Mr. Fisher: Has the Minister actually read the Library Association's survey, which shows the cuts that are taking place in library authorities controlled by all political parties throughout the country? Does he not understand the damage that cuts in public libraries do to communities, to the education of children and of adults, to literacy and to the information revolution that the Government surely want to take place? How can people take full advantage of the information revolution coming through the super-highways if, as a result of the stupid cuts that the Conservative Government are implementing, access to information cannot be obtained through public libraries, which are the one means of access that everyone—small companies and individuals—can have to the information revolution?
    Mr. Sproat: On the hon. Gentleman's main point, I share his views on the importance of public libraries. My Department will shortly be publishing our response to the review and opportunities will no doubt be found in the House to discuss both the review and the Department's response to it.

    British Film Industry
    Mr. Evennett: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to give additional help and support to the British film industry.
    Mr. Dorrell: The Select Committee on National Heritage is currently conducting an inquiry on the subject and I have undertaken to set out the Government's approach in my response to the Committee's findings.
    Mr. Evennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that British-production films such as "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and "Shallow Grave" are excellent? Will he agree to promote the British film industry as much as he can and to try to encourage as many British business men as possible to invest in that worthwhile venture?
    Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend on all counts and I look forward to responding to the invitation from Mr. Michael Grade to attend the launch in Britain of "The Madness of King George". My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the flowering of the British film industry which is taking place at present. We must now ensure that we take advantage of the skills and resources available within the British film industry, not merely to promote the development of
    682
    British films—although that is important—but to attract to our shores internationally mobile film-making projects. That is why the Government continue to support the British Film Commission and why I was so pleased to be able to tell the Select Committee that last year's expenditure on films made in Britain was higher than in any year since 1980.
    Mr. Dafis: Does the Minister agree that Channel 4's "Film on Four" is now the cornerstone of the British film industry, both by virtue of the budget made available through it and because films shown on that channel are eligible for nomination for Oscars and BAFTA awards? Does he accept that the number of films commissioned from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland for "Film on Four" is unacceptably low? Will he give the figures and undertake to do something to ensure that that serious imbalance is corrected?
    Mr. Dorrell: I recognise that Channel 4 has played a distinguished role in the resurgence of film making in Britain and I hope that that process will continue. As for assistance to specific forms of film making—whether through Channel 4 or another film-making agency—we shall have to wait until the response Ito the Select Committee report, which I mentioned in my initial answer.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Notwithstanding the considerable success that the British film industry is enjoying—which many of us hope will he reflected in the academy awards ceremony next month, with an Oscar for Mr. Nigel Hawthorne, the former civil servant—does my right hon. Friend agree that the Irish have captured much of the potential market for film making in this country as they have a much more liberal tax regime? Will my right hon. Friend bear that point in mind and go and see for himself what the Irish are doing before he responds to the Select Committee report?
    Mr. Dorrell: I will certainly take account of the package of support and the environment available to film makers working in Britain compared with what is available in comparable countries. Before we go overboard in our praise for the Irish film-making regime, I should remind the House that the amount spent on film making in Ireland last year was roughly £100 million while the amount spent on film making in Britain last year was roughly £400 million, so the imbalance is not quite as is sometimes suggested.
    Mr. Maclennan: In recognising the distinguished role of Channel 4 in film making, would not the Secretary of State do well to listen to the channel's chairman, Sir Michael Bishop, who advocated a change in the funding formula, which currently results in about £60 million per year being siphoned away from programme and film making by Channel 4? The right hon. Gentleman should listen particularly to the offers to recompense any companies in the independent sector which have not made the income that they predicted to the Independent Television Commission in 1991.
    Mr. Dorrell: What the hon. Member describes as siphoning off money is a payment by Channel 4 to the Channel 3 licensees—the people who took the risk associated with Channel 4.

    683
    The management of Channel 4 has cause to celebrate the fact that that risk has proved a triumphant success. However, I do not believe that it is a reason to rewrite the agreement that binds Channel 3 and Channel 4 under terms that were known to both when the licences were granted.

    Football Players
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent meetings he has had with officers of the Football Association to discuss the behaviour of football players during matches.
    Mr. Sproat: I have regular meetings with the various footballing bodies and I have made my concerns about the behaviour of football players clear. Responsibility, however, rests with the Football Association, which has firm disciplinary procedures to deal with player misconduct.
    Mr. Cox: I welcome the Minister's reply, but, sadly, we see more and more pretty despicable behaviour by players during football matches. If we condemn so-called football supporters for their deplorable behaviour, we must be equally tough on footballers. Will the Minister assure the House that he will continue to press the appropriate football authorities about the need to get really tough with players who bring this great game into disrepute?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The Football Association's response to the incident involving Mr. Cantona—whereby it doubled the fine imposed and greatly lengthened the amount of time that he will be out of football—showed that it is prepared to act in a way that the hon. Gentleman and I would like.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. At a future meeting with officers of the Football Association, will he make it quite clear that professional footballers have a duty to set a much better example in terms of their behaviour both on and off the pitch to the youth of this country?
    Mr. Sproat: Professional footballers—indeed, professional and amateur players of all sports—have a tremendous duty to provide proper role models for young people, and I think that the overwhelming number of them do so.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received on the timing of distribution of national lottery funds for good causes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dorrell: I have received a number of representations from members of the public and others expressing a variety of views.
    Mr. Hawkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he bear it in mind that the historic success of the national lottery—which has so captured the public's imagination and is an enormous credit to the bravery of those in the Government who decided to push ahead with it in the face of much carping and
    684
    unfair criticism from the Opposition—must be reinforced by ensuring that the funds raised are distributed in a timely manner and to good causes?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I assure him that arrangements are proceeding to ensure that the distributer bodies make the first announcements of lottery distribution decisions within the next few weeks. As my hon. Friend said, I am confident that they will reflect a major step forward in funding not only sport, the arts and heritage but, ultimately, through the millennium fund and the charities board, those activities that will result from the decision of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to introduce the lottery.
    Mr. Olner: What has happened to the lottery moneys that are waiting to be distributed to those bodies? How transparent are Camelot's accounting procedures? What is happening to the interest that is accruing on the millions of pounds that are still waiting to be distributed?
    Mr. Dorrell: Each week Camelot pays the amount available for good causes into the national loans distribution fund, where it is invested in public sector instruments and collects interest which accrues to the benefit of the distribution fund. So far, that interest amounts to more than £1 million.
    Mr. Jessel: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the projection for the sums available for good causes is substantially larger than originally forecast and, if so, should we not all take credit for what is a brilliant national achievement?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the amounts being raised by the lottery week after week are substantially greater than the estimates that were offered when the legislation was introduced. They are also higher than the more ambitious figures that were published around the time when the licence was granted. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the lottery is a substantial success which has unlocked a new source of funding for various good causes that could not reasonably be anticipated to come from any other source.

    Royal Naval College
    Mr. Raynsford: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure the future maintenance of the buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college at Greenwich.
    Mr. Sproat: My Department is currently responsible for maintaining these important historic buildings. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will ensure that there is a suitable occupant to secure their future. Proposals, including one from an organisation outside the Ministry of Defence, are being evaluated by my right hon. and learned Friend, in consultation with my Department.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister ensure that his Department does rather better with buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college than it has in respect of the adjacent building, the Dreadnought seamen's hospital, which has been empty for almost nine years and the condition of which, despite it being a historic building, is deteriorating badly? It is costing

    685
    the taxpayer an enormous amount to maintain. Will the Minister ensure that a similar fate does not befall the historic buildings occupied by the Naval college?
    Mr. Sproat: Yes, I will do everything that I can in respect of the Royal Naval college. As to the Dreadnought hospital, I will look at the papers again after this Question Time.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Sentencing
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Attorney-General how many cases he has referred to the Court of Appeal for review of an apparently over-lenient sentence.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Since 1989, 181 cases have been referred to the Court of Appeal in England and Wales and 11 in Northern Ireland; 19 were subsequently withdrawn. Of the 166 cases heard to date, 136—or 82 per cent.—resulted in an increased sentence.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. and learned Friend join me and the whole House in expressing condolences to the family of Tony Martin, a 17-year-old who died in my constituency? In the words of the judge, a knife was opened and plunged into the boy's body. Does my right hon. and learned Friend understand the sense of great outrage in the community that I represent because a six-year sentence only was passed on the 31-year-old man, Mr. Osborne, who committed that crime? Although I entirely understand—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on a serious issue, but this seems to be a constituency matter on which representations should be made in writing, or should be the subject of an Adjournment debate. In Question Time, questions must be brief and the Minister concerned must be fully aware of all the circumstances.
    Dr. Spink: I was coming to the point, Madam Speaker, and I appreciate your help.
    Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that severe and harsh deterrent sentences should be passed, to prevent people from going armed with knives and other weapons to places of entertainment, where they put our constituents at unacceptable risk?
    The Attorney-General: The whole House will have the deepest sympathy for the family of the victim in that tragic case. The sentence imposed by the learned judge depended on the facts as found by the jury. It found proved a case of manslaughter, but found the defendant not guilty of murder. In those circumstances, there can be no doubt that the sentence imposed was well within the range available to the learned judge.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General think that his powers to appeal against sentences should be extended to those imposed by magistrates?
    The Attorney-General: No. That jurisdiction must he exercised with great care, with individual attention being given to each case. If one extended it to the just
    686
    over 1 million cases dealt with by magistrates courts each year, it would not he possible to apply the detailed care and consideration that the jurisdiction requires.

    Leon Patterson
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the death of Leon Patterson in Stockport police station; and what discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on this matter.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The Attorney-General received a report on the death of Leon Patterson from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Following an investigation by Greater Manchester police, the headquarters of the Crown Prosecution Service carefully considered all the facts and decided that the evidence did not provide a realistic prospect of convicting any person of any criminal offence against the deceased.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Solicitor-General realise that that is an appalling response to a terrible tragedy? It is nearly two years since the inquest on Leon Patterson returned a verdict of unlawful killing. Eventually, an investigation was mounted by Greater Manchester police, who apparently claimed that they could not find the culprits responsible, even though Mr. Patterson died in a police station and there was a verdict of unlawful death.
    Does not the Minister think that it is time to reopen this case and ensure that those who are guilty of the death of Leon Patterson are brought to justice? My constituent's family have suffered grievously since his death, and I believe that justice should he done and be seen to be done in this case.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman omitted a very important statement of fact from his recitation. The coroner's verdict of unlawful killing was quashed by the High Court on 25 October 1994. The divisional court ordered a re-hearing, and all these matters, which have given rise to understandable anguish among the family and the community, can be ventilated at that coroner's inquest.
    The hon. Gentleman may agree that it is greatly in the interests of the family of the deceased, the doctors who attended and the police that there should be no rush to judgment before this full and further inquest has been held.

    Victims' Families
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Attorney-General to what extent the families of victims are taken into account by the Crown Prosecution Service during the prosecution process.
    The Attorney-General: When taking a decision to prosecute, the interests of the victim and his or her family are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.
    Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Does he agree that it is of paramount importance that the Crown Prosecution Service keep in close contact with the families of victims at each stage of a prosecution? Does he further

    687
    agree that that is particularly important when a case is not brought to court, so that the families may understand the precise reasons why?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, my hon. Friend makes two good points. It is very important that both the CPS and the police, who are often the main point of contact, keep in touch with the victim on all sorts of matters in relation to a crime and potential prosecution—bail, compensation, dates of hearing and progress of the case. In particular, as my hon. Friend says, this is most important where it has been decided not to prosecute, so that that decision can be properly explained to the victim or the family.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: We welcome the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions will now record the views of victims for bail purposes, but will the Attorney-General go further and allow the trial judge—who, after all, is aware of relations between the victim and the accused—to direct, in cases of sexual offences and of violence, that the victim and family be informed before the accused or convicted person is released on parole or on licence? Indeed, in cases of violence and of sexual offences, perhaps the trial judge should even direct where the convicted person should go on home leave.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman raises important questions, but they are, as he realises, matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I quite agree with him about the importance of keeping victims in touch, especially when a dangerous convicted person is likely to return to a neighbourhood.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Attorney-General aware that the anguish of a victim's family is particularly acute during the court proceedings, when they may be treated by court officials merely as witnesses? They need to be kept informed of progress, and perhaps to be taken aside and informed of important developments in the case or its outcome. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman feed the experience of his Department into that of the Home Office when considering this aspect?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It can be very muddling for family members who go to court, and it is important that prosecutors and police try to find time to explain to the family of the victim, or to the victim himself, what stage a case has reached. The same applies to court staff.

    Lenient Sentencing
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on trends on appeals against lenient sentencing.
    The Solicitor-General: As the Attorney-General's power of review has become more widely recognised, the number of sentences that he has been asked to consider has increased.
    Mr. Spring: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the power to refer unduly lenient sentences
    688
    to the Court of Appeal has begun to impact on sentences in the first instance? As that matches the public mood, it is greatly to be welcomed.
    The Solicitor-General: I can indeed confirm that. In the past 12 months or so we have referred about 12 cases arising out of deaths on the road. The Lord Chief Justice has taken the opportunity in those cases not only to increase the sentence but to update the guidelines in Boswell to take account of the decision taken in the House to increase the maximum sentence from five years to 10 years. As a result of these decisions, general sentencing for causing death on the road has increased nationwide.

    Racial Attacks
    Ms Abbott: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the head of the Crown Prosecution Service to discuss racial attacks.
    The Attorney-General: I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions regularly. Cases with a racial element are discussed as and when they arise.
    Ms Abbott: Is the Attorney-General aware of the concern in the black and Asian communities about the failure to bring people to book for a number of notorious racist killings and attacks in recent months?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, I am aware of the concerns raised by the hon. Lady. I am aware too of the specific concerns that she and two of her hon. Friends have raised with the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service takes any case with a racial element especially seriously. I urge the hon. Lady to accept the invitation given to her by the director and the chief Crown prosecutor for London to visit the chief prosecutor to discuss these cases with him so that she may understand fully the lengths and efforts that have been gone to and the background to the cases.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Kenya
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funding has been allocated for this year to help the Government of Kenya with the problems caused by street children in that country; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We have allocated £150,000 for a shelter, education and feeding programme run by the International Child Care Trust in Kitale, £30,000 of which has been allocated for this year.
    Mr. Cox: I welcome the Minister's reply, but is he aware that the problems are on-going in Kenya? Does he accept that there is no more depressing sight than to see young street children roaming without any stability in their lives? Is he further aware that many people—not necessarily within organisations, but members of the general public—seek to help these

    689
    children? They need advice, however, and resources. Will the Minister seek to pursue the matter via the Kenyan Government and to offer them resources?
    Mr. Baldry: The whole House shares the hon. Gentleman's concern about street children in Kenya and elsewhere. We have a substantial aid programme in Kenya; we donate £31 million of bilateral aid to Kenya. The purpose of our aid programme in Kenya is to reduce poverty and to promote economic growth. We think that that is the most effective way to tackle the underlying causes that make the life of street children so desperate. When we are discussing the forward aid programme with the Kenyan Government, we shall certainly discuss what further initiatives might be taken to tackle the problems of street children.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the funds that have been made available for dealing with the problems of street children in Kenya. I recommend that he bears in mind the successful work that has been done in Brazil with street children following the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the home concerned in Rio de Janeiro. Should we not be learning the lessons of that work—that providing a stable and secure home for youngsters, along with education and training, will enable them to go on and make successful lives for themselves?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that, sadly, the problem of street children extends worldwide. He is correct to say that 18 months ago our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched an initiative for street children in support of a consortium of non-governmental organisations working on behalf of street children in developing countries. I am glad to say that we are providing financial support over a five-year period to carry forward this important work. We are working to tackle the problem of street children worldwide.

    South Africa
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional funding has been made available to South Africa for educational purposes since April 1994.
    Mr. Baldry: We have agreed new education projects and bursaries for tertiary education in South Africa at a total cost of more than £3.3 million since April 1994. Total expenditure on education and training projects in South Africa is expected to exceed £6 million in this financial year.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister give the undertaking that at the United Nations social summit next week the British Government will commit themselves to allocating 20 per cent. of their aid to basic needs, including education? If they did that, would not they be able massively to increase basic education in South Africa?
    Mr. Baldry: We have a very substantial bilateral aid programme for South Africa. We are giving £60 million of bilateral aid to South Africa, of which education and training activities account for about 40 per cent. Our
    690
    commitment to assisting the improvement of education and educational development in South Africa is there for the whole world to see.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while South Africa may be suffering from a crisis of rising expectations, its political and economic changes will succeed only if it creates the circumstances in which overseas private investors are encouraged to invest?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Of course, trade and investment is crucial to South Africa. We are the largest foreign investor in South Africa. Indeed, during a visit to South Africa last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced a new ODA-backed scheme to encourage further UK investment in smaller businesses. Circumstances that attract investment to South Africa are fundamental to the country's future.

    Pergau Dam
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he is able to announce in respect of funds from the Overseas Development Administration budget reallocated from the Pergau dam project.
    Mr. Baldry: We are using the reallocated amounts this year for additional emergency aid, primarily in Bosnia, Rwanda and Chechnya, for additional contributions to multilateral organisations in health and population, and for additional country programme spending, including mine clearance in Cambodia.
    Mr. Watson: That will clearly be welcomed by all the various organisations that will benefit from the projects to which the Minister referred. In debates in the House following the courts' finding that the Government had acted illegally in their funding of the Pergau dam project, the Government undertook to provide funding in the next two financial years, but not beyond that. Will the Minister commit the Government to going that bit further and confirm that mistakes made with respect to the Pergau dam refer to more than just the next two years and, for the first time on behalf of anyone in the Government, will he apologise for what happened?
    Mr. Baldry: We have debated this matter at considerable length in the House. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was present for a debate the other day on Pergau. The settlement, under which an extra £65 million has been made available to the aid budget over a two-year period, is seen by most reasonable people in this country as fair and to be commended. The fact that so much money this year is now being spent on additional programmes in Malawi, on mine clearance in Cambodia and on relief in Chechnya, Rwanda and elsewhere, is also widely welcomed. The whole House generally sees that settlement as fair.
    Mr. Dover: Will the Minister try to ensure that as much aid as possible is bilateral, so that British goods may be exported as part of the deal?
    Mr. Baldry: Yes, we have a substantial aid programme in this country: some £2.2 billion. We want

    691
    to ensure that we have a robust, bilateral British aid programme, under which, wherever possible, we use UK know-how and goods.
    Miss Lestor: To add to the confusion over the Pergau dam, which I think the Minister will find will not go away, may I say that earlier this month the Minister for Overseas Development shocked Europe and dismayed the developing world when she announced the Government's intention to slash their contribution to Lome by 30 per cent.? If the Government really intend to cut that contribution—I hope that they will change their mind—to concentrate on the British bilateral aid programme, what additional aid programmes does the ODA plan to fund with the unexpected windfall, which will result unless he is prepared to change his mind?
    Mr. Baldry: The facts are straightforward. The United Kingdom bilateral aid programme worldwide is widely recognised as being of high quality. However, multilateral aid is now growing to unacceptable levels; it will be 60 per cent. of total aid in three years' time. Our EC aid alone will be more than 40 per cent. That will be made at the expense of the British bilateral programme unless we can achieve a better balance—hence our offer to EDF VIII. However, our contribution to EDF will still be substantial. Our aim is to set the right size for the UK contribution, one that reflects the means at our disposal, our aid priorities and the need to ensure a robust and sizeable British bilateral aid programme.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about aid in Rwanda.
  Mr. Baldry: Ministers have received a wide range of personal and written representations about aid to Rwanda since the crisis began in April 1994.
  Mr. Ainger: Does the Minister accept the threefold priorities identified by Oxfam and Human Rights Watch: first, that the Rwandan judiciary needs to be strengthened and rebuilt immediately to deal with the thousands of prisoners awaiting trial; secondly, that the international tribunal should be set up immediately to prosecute the ringleaders of the genocide in Rwanda; and, thirdly, that the civil administration should be rebuilt to deal with the problems of refugees returning to their homes? What particular and practical help can the Government give to achieve those priorities?
  Mr. Baldry: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we were co-sponsors of the resolution that set up the international criminal tribunal. We are donating £200,000 worth of personnel and equipment to that tribunal. Our support for Rwanda is on-going. When the Prime Minister of Rwanda was here last week, we committed a further £500,000 for security in the refugee camps. Only today, we have announced a further commitment of £3.2 million of food aid for use both inside and outside Rwanda. United Nations Zairean monitors are now protecting convoys. We are now beginning to see people moving back into Rwanda. Real progress is being made in resettlement and in ensuring that the international war crimes tribunal starts its work effectively.

Barings
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the insolvency of the merchant bank Barings. The Bank of England announced late last night, ahead of the opening of the far east financial markets, that Barings was unable to continue trading and was applying for administration.
Barings' problems have arisen from major losses caused by unauthorised dealings by the chief trader in its Singapore incorporated subsidiary. The losses arise from contracts on the Singapore, Osaka and Tokyo exchanges. At the close of business last week, total losses appear to have been in excess of £600 million. Crucially, those contracts have further to run, exposing Barings to further unquantifiable losses. As a result, Barings was unable to continue to trade without the injection of substantial new capital.
As the Bank of England announced last night, the British banks were prepared to supply all the capital needed to recapitalise Barings, but only if it were possible to cap the potential liability of the outstanding contracts. In the event, that did not prove possible. Other parties were not prepared to take on open-ended and therefore unlimited liabilities. The Governor did not recommend, and in any event, I would not have agreed, that public funds should take on those liabilities. Regrettably, in the circumstances, there was no alternative to Barings having to apply for administration.
Although it was not possible at the end of the day to recapitalise Barings, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Governor and his staff and the London financial community for their commitment, which I followed closely over the weekend, to the search for a solution.
I stress to the House that these circumstances are unique to Barings and should not apply to other banks operating in London. The Bank of England is ready to provide liquidity to the banking system to ensure that it continues to function normally. Deposits at Barings are, of course, at the moment frozen, and the extent of any losses on them will not become clear for some time. The Deposit Protection Board will be writing to all Barings' depositors who are potentially eligible for assistance.
The House will be rightly concerned about how such huge unauthorised exposures could be allowed to happen and build up so quickly without the knowledge of the company, the exchanges or the regulators. I am determined to address that question rigorously and to review the regulatory system thoroughly in the light of this collapse. However, before we come to any firm conclusions, it will be necessary to establish in detail the facts of the case. Those were transactions conducted on the far side of the world by overseas subsidiaries on overseas exchanges. [Interruption.] I should have thought that the Opposition's knowledge of geography at least would have enabled them to agree with that statement.
There may be some falsification of the relevant records within the subsidiaries concerned. It will therefore take some time to unearth the full and detailed catalogue of events and the methods employed to evade all the required management and regulatory controls.
694
I have asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of this episode and to report back to me. The investigation will include the circumstances in which such unauthorised transactions were able to take place and to remain undetected until too late. The board will need to work closely both with Barings and with the Singapore, Osaka and Tokyo exchanges. The House will recall that the Board of Banking Supervision is chaired by the Governor of the Bank of England and comprises six independent members and three members appointed ex officio from the Bank.
I can assure the House that I am determined that, when the full facts are known, all the appropriate lessons will be drawn and any necessary corrective steps will be taken.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Government said that after Johnson Matthey.
Mr. Clarke: That is when we set up the Board of Banking Supervision, as the hon. Gentleman will recall.
In today's global markets, the regulatory tasks are international and they must be tackled internationally. Over the past two years, with other Finance Ministers in the G7, the G10 and the International Monetary Fund, I have taken part in several discussions on the need to ensure effective regulation of international dealings in derivatives and other instruments in high-technology 24-hour trading conditions. The problems are obvious, but practicable solutions are less self-evident. No system of regulation can ever guarantee total security. There is always the chance of unwise or fraudulent dealing by one or a group of individuals. The better a bank's systems and controls, the less likely that is to happen. Every regulatory authority and every bank must now be considering what further steps it can take to protect itself against such risk.
I shall report back to the House at the earliest opportunity on our analysis of this case, the lessons to be drawn, and any proposals to strengthen security in highly complex financial markets. I would expect to publish the full report of the Board of Banking Supervision subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and any other legal constraints.
Meanwhile, we must also be concerned about the implications of the matter for the employees of what was, until a few days ago, a successful and highly respected firm. The administrator will no doubt take early steps to clarify the position of the 4,000 or so employees, some of whom will be needed to administer the assets of the business, and many of whom work for successful and profitable businesses for which purchasers will no doubt be found. Some redundancies will be inevitable, but the employees in this country will of course be able to rely on a measure of statutory protection in the event of their employer being so insolvent that difficulties arise in the payment of salaries and redundancy payments.
This failure is, of course, a blow to the City of London. But it appears to be a specific incident unique to Barings, centred on one rogue trader in Singapore. Inevitably, there has been some turbulence in the markets since the announcement, but global markets should be quite strong enough to absorb it without lasting damage, since the events have not changed any of the fundamentals that underlie foreign exchange, equity and bond markets.
Mr. Gordon Brown: I thank the Chancellor for making his statement, and for accepting the need for an inquiry and for the report of that inquiry

695
to be published. May I ask him to tell us in more detail what action is being taken to save as many of Barings' businesses, and as many of its 2,000 United Kingdom and 2,000 overseas jobs, as possible? Will he assure us that he and the Bank of England will continue those efforts?
As for the immediate event, will the Chancellor tell us the extent to which depositors are protected so that they do not fall victim to other people's mistakes? Will he tell us the total scale of the losses involved? Will he confirm that the inquiry will examine why there appear to have been warning signals in the far east as many as 10 days ago, which were apparently not acted on?
Does the Chancellor agree that the public will also want to know in some detail from the inquiry why a single trader operating from one desk in Singapore could not just lose £500 million last week and another £200 million last night, but—unknown to his superiors, and without the knowledge of his company—enter into between 15,000 and 40,000 contracts, threatening losses that are still open ended?
The Chancellor said in his statement that the issue was simply the evasion of existing managerial and regulatory controls by a rogue trader—controls that were already in existence. Does he accept, however, that the inquiry must examine whether there were sufficient regulatory and managerial controls in the first place? Will he assure us that the inquiry will examine what the internal control systems at Barings were, why they failed to detect the huge operations of just one trader before it was too late, and what supervisory requirements were imposed on Barings and the other banks by the Bank of England to ensure the existence of adequate controls to detect excessive exposure on a daily basis? The Bank of England, as a supervisory organisation in the United Kingdom, should be the first to find out, rather than just about the last to be told. What changes does the Bank now propose to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to minimise this type of risk?
We join the Chancellor in praising the Bank of England for its efforts over the weekend. Will he, however, continue to agree with the Governor of the Bank of England, whose considered views we examined last summer? He felt that there was no need to worry about the derivatives market, and commented that American legislators were wrong to become
"excited at the need for regulation".
Of Barings and others in the derivatives market, he said:
"These people know what they are doing whether it's at director level or the chaps on the desk."
Of the Bank of England's role, he said:
"We now have an expert team monitoring derivatives. getting better every time".
All that, he said, was "reassuring".
In the light of what I consider to be a culture of complacency, is not a fully independent inquiry necessary, rather than simply a Board of Banking Supervision inquiry chaired by the Governor, so that—among other things—the actions of the Bank of England and regulatory authorities can be examined objectively? Is not it also clear that an analysis of not just the events of the past few days but the wider policy implications involved will be necessary in the inquiry?
696
Given the calls from the Bank of International Settlements, the proposals of the G30 think tank, the requirements of the United States Congress general accounting officer and the call by the Basle committee and other international organisations for much greater transparency, tighter codes of practice, consistent adequacy standards for derivatives dealers and daily accurate risk evaluations by banks, along with the identification by them of concentrations of risk—and given the concern expressed by the Securities and Investments Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission about the need for greater co-ordination among the international regulators—does the Chancellor agree not only that the inquiry should examine those issues, but that he should explain why until now he has refused to act on the recommendations that have been made?
While we recognise that no system can be foolproof, do not the weekend's events demonstrate the clear public interest in better supervision, stronger safeguards and more adequate investor protection, both in the United Kingdom and through international co-operation, so that we can maintain confidence in the integrity of the financial system?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman rightly asked what action was being taken today to examine the interests of both employees and depositors involved with the bank. I assure him and the House that a great deal of work is going on today. The administrator has moved in, and continued inquiries are being made to discover how many depositors are affected, to identify them and to see what can be done to protect them and also to prepare for the management of assets and the disposal of profitable parts of the business in order to restore the position to some stability. A great many people are working on that at this moment. I am updated at regular intervals, but it is a rapidly moving scene.
As for depositors, their deposits are frozen at the moment while work is done to discover to what extent losses will lead to less than a full pound in the pound eventually being distributed. That may take some time. Eventually, we shall no doubt discover the extent of any losses incurred by the depositors. Such money as remains, which may be a substantial proportion of the full amount, will be distributed.
As far as we are aware, although I do not yet know, the bank did not have small retail depositors in any great numbers. The depositors tend to be other banks and institutions. So far, we have not discovered any other bank or institution that is subject to dangerous exposure, given that in any event the assets are frozen, but not necessarily lost. They are almost certainly not totally lost.
I said in my statement that by the end of last week more than £600 million of losses had been incurred. The extent to which the losses continue to build up has yet to he finalised. It depends on the closing of the contracts in Singapore, Osaka and Tokyo. That will become clear in the next few days. Obviously, no further liabilities could possibly be financed by Barings.
I have heard the rumours about warning signals from the far east. I think that they are rather wise after the event. Of course, we still do not have the complete picture of what was going on in the dealings conducted by the trader in Singapore, but the positions that he took, which exposed the bank so fatally, were taken in the

697
comparatively recent past. They built up in the end in a matter of days. So people who claim that there were warnings of those positions some time in advance exaggerate the situation.
The whole point of what I have said is that, of course it is necessary to answer the question that the hon. Gentleman asked. How could activities centred on this one man in Singapore allow such heavy liabilities to build up so quickly to the destruction of the total bank? That is what will be investigated. It will be investigated by the Board of Banking Supervision, because that body was set up in the aftermath of the Johnson Matthey scandal precisely to exercise supervision of the Bank of England's supervisory role and to audit its performance. It is plainly the right body not only to take part in the investigation of the facts of the incident, but to produce a proper analysis and make recommendations, which I shall implement.
The difficulty in this case may well not be the controls and regulatory systems, or even the internal control systems of Barings. We do not yet know. We shall act if we discover that they played a significant part. The fact is that there was undoubtedly falsification of records inside the bank. The controls in place within the bank were avoided. Hence the regulatory controls of the Bank of England were avoided again. It is essential that we first discover the facts of the case, then we can consider whether changes in the regulatory laws could have touched this case or any case in which such fisk might occur in other ways. That is by far the most sensible way of proceeding.
Wild talk of derivatives can also mislead people. It is certainly the case that derivatives are a new and in some ways dangerous development in the financial market, but such problems could have occurred in cash markets, futures and options. It is undoubtedly easier and quicker for them to arise now that we have derivatives. We must discover whether the problems in derivatives were at the heart of the problem.
We have not failed to act on any of the reports that have been produced by the Basle Group of Bankers, the G10 central bank governors and the like. Many of them deal with data and supervision. A great deal of analysis of those problems is taking place. It is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to give a great list of bodies as if he had some authoritative knowledge of proposals made around the world and to claim that we have failed to act on them. No regulatory body has made proposals on which we have failed to act.
I very much hope that the lessons that we learn from this case, involving the activities in Barings' Singapore subsidiary, will enable us and other regulatory authorities to take steps forward in the international control of risks in that area.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: After that initial exchange, I appeal to Back Benchers on both sides of the House to put their questions quickly and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to respond briskly, so that I may call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Whatever the lessons of this bitter affair, will my right hon. and learned Friend be ever mindful of the fact that the pre-eminent position of the City of London derives from its skilful acceptance and management of
698
risk and that if there were excessive regulation to remove risk, along the lines that the shadow Chancellor hinted at, the principal casualty would be the strategic salience of the City of London?
Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. The City of London's reputation is paramount. It was impressive to see the British banks, as well as the Bank of England, mobilise this weekend to provide the necessary capital for Barings to keep going. In fact, an international effort was mobilised, involving overseas banks as well, because most of the major international banks are present in the City of London and have excellent contacts with the Bank of England. Of course, no one could take on those open-ended commitments, which might continue to pile up under the contracts. It is certainly absolutely essential that we protect the reputation of the City by proper regulation. I completely agree that to rush instantly into some wodge of further regulations before we even know where the fault lies in sufficient detail in this case, could lead to our imposing endless constraints on what is the most successful financial market in the world.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor nevertheless accept that this is a black Monday for the City of London and that the implications are not as confined as he suggested? The fact that one trader in Singapore could achieve that scale of loss makes the situation worse and not better, as he tried to imply in his statement. Will he consider the announcement today of a £550 million plunge in the trading profits of the Midland bank as an indication that such gambling is not confined to banks of the character of Barings, but also takes place in the main clearing banks? What guarantee can he give that the Barings bank collapse today will not become a clearing bank catastrophe tomorrow?
Mr. Clarke: It is important to realise that it is likely to turn out that what happened to Barings could have happened to a German, Swiss, French or American bank, if someone trading in derivatives falsified records and evaded the regulatory controls that the bank or the regulator had put in place. We shall have to wait to find out if that is the case. With the greatest of respect, it is a mistake to describe all trading of that type, in such things as derivatives, as pure gambling. There is a need for sophisticated financial instruments that can he used for hedging. They can be used in circumstances in which risk is minimal. It is a difficult and sophisticated world and it needs proper regulation and proper internal processes in banks. We need to discover what went wrong in this case. I do not deny that for one man to be at the centre of something that destroyed a whole bank is a very serious problem, which is why we anxiously await the report of the Board of Banking Supervision, to find out what can be done to reduce the risk of that recurring.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a fundamental difference between futures markets in agricultural products, base metals and oil and a futures market that seeks to guess at the movements of stock exchange indices? That latter form of futures market is so speculative as to deserve the term "gambling" and should perhaps be banned by international law.
Mr. Clarke: All derivatives have to be based on some market—in this case, they were based on dealings in a combination of things, including the Nikkei-Dow average,

699
Japanese Government bonds, Japanese short-term interest rates and futures. Most banks engage in some trading of that kind, including the major institutions. There can be occasions when it is necessary for hedging purposes of one type or another. As my hon. Friend says, we have to ensure that the regulations stop pure gambling or taking positions of a highly speculative and impossibly risky type, but that we nevertheless do not overregulate to destroy legitimate financial activity on behalf of clients. I shall bear my hon. Friend's strictures in mind and no doubt the Board of Banking Supervision will come back with some opinions on that type of trading.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Chancellor aware that his statement will be seen as complacent? The problem is not unique—we have had Maxwell; Lloyd's; the Bank of Credit and Commerce International; Asil Nadir; and a man who made ․1 billion when the British pound fell out of the ERM. This is gambling and speculation, and it characterises the world financial community. Those people create no wealth, yet they play a dominant role in the world economy. To try to pin the responsibility on one man who apparently had the capacity to bring down a whole bank is to miss the point that the global economy is unstable and not run in the interests of those who create the world's wealth.
Mr. Clarke: The financial services industry in this country is a great creator of wealth and employment. Invisibles account for some 15 or 16 per cent. of our gross domestic product. In the modern world, the fact that Britain is so successful in the financial services industry is one of the strengths of our economy, not one of its weaknesses. As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is impossible totally to eliminate fraud or incompetence in any system of trade, manufacture or commerce, but we have tight regulatory controls to try to minimise the risk. With respect, I advise the right hon. Gentleman, before reacting so predictably, to wait for more light to be thrown on the facts of this case and to see precisely what that trader and anyone in collusion with him were doing in Singapore. It would be absurd, on the back of all that, to sweep away every part of the financial services industry and the investment in industry at home and abroad that the British financial services industry provides.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his measured and timely response to these events has been entirely appropriate? Conservative Members believe that he has approached the matter in the right way and that the Governor of the Bank of England is also to be congratulated on his response. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look carefully, however, at the aspect of fraud that may be involved? What jurisdiction, if any, would be relevant to deal with a possible conspiracy to defraud within Singapore?
Mr. Clarke: We do not know whether there has been fraud. The trader has not yet been found. When he is discovered, we must first see whether there was an element of fraud and to what extent he colluded with other people inside the bank or the Singapore stock exchange, or whether it was simply a case of misguided and panicky trading, which was concealed from his employers. I do not want to speculate on the facts as that would be not
700
only unfair to the individual concerned, but totally reckless until someone has done much more work to discover the actual sequence of events. In the event of criminal charges being brought, I assume that problems will arise as to which jurisdiction they will be in. I think that, in the first instance, they will be in the Singapore jurisdiction, but the problem of jurisdiction for financial crimes is not always that straightforward and one would need to take a more considered view.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Chancellor aware that most supervisors, regulators and managers of banks do not have the knowledge of mathematics needed to understand the technicalities of derivatives markets? Will he appoint an expert and experienced committee with knowledge of the moral hazards involved to advise both him and the City on how to proceed in order to restore public confidence in the banking system?
Mr. Clarke: It is the responsibility of each bank and financial institution to ensure that it is properly informed about the exposure of its institution to whatever dealings in derivatives are taking place inside the organisation. I have no doubt that experiences such as this, and that of Orange County in the United States, are making every responsible chairman, chief executive and board of financial institutions throughout the world ensure that they are properly informed about their exposure in that area at any given moment. Numerous expert committees are looking at the evolution of the market in the light of the development of the derivatives market. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, only today the G 10 central bank governors published a further report on the quality of the data and statistics required to give national regulators a better overall picture of what is happening in today's financial world.
Although they are extremely complicated and can be extremely risky investment in the hands of the less sophisticated, I. do not think that we should invest derivatives with this air of awe, as if they represented some new, magic and unintelligible form of investment compared with other forms. It is a question of making sure that our technology, management controls inside banks and national regulatory systems can keep abreast of continual developments.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that financial futures, properly used, are a means of reducing risk for corporate entities and banks? Does he further agree that regulation of the financial futures markets in London is already close and effective? Does he accept that before we rush in with new regulations, we need to make certain whether the losses that Barings sustained were not caused by abuse of the existing regulations and flouting the existing internal controls in the bank?
Mr. Clarke: I agree. The reason why the futures markets, such as the highly successful London International Financial Futures Exchange—LIFFE—have developed so rapidly is that they fulfil a real financial need. They enable some of those participating in the market—not all of them—to hedge themselves against risk that they might otherwise face. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that, first, we must discover to what extent this case depended on any deliberate

701
evasion of controls and systems that otherwise would have protected anyone against the disastrous risk that unfolded in this case.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does not the Chancellor call a spade a spade? Derivatives and gambling on derivatives are based upon, in this case, betting on the Japanese stock exchange in another 12 months' time. What wealth creation is there in that? Why does not the Chancellor admit that this case has come about partly as a result of the total deregulation in the exchange markets and the rest of them, which the Government have supported? They have learnt no lessons whatever from Johnson Matthey. One of the top elite banks is going under because someone gambled and gambled, just like someone in a betting shop—one bet after another, trying to recoup his losses, when all those jobs were at stake. You cannot run a country with a betting shop mentality.
Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) just said, people can invest in futures markets precisely to protect their firm and their jobs against movements in markets, which might otherwise jeopardise the business and the trade in which they are engaged.
One never listens to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) without sensing the warming touch of nostalgia about him. The hon. Gentleman belongs to that section of the Labour party that has always regarded all investment—the stock exchange and the process of capitalism and free markets—as gambling of which it disapproves. He knows no more about derivatives and he understands derivatives as little as he understands the rest of the process of financial markets in a free market economy. I do not think that his advice should be heeded in this case.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it is a fundamental principle of English and, I believe, Singaporean law that a principal is not responsible for the unauthorised acts of its agents, and in some cases, employees? I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend said that the acts were unauthorised dealings, so could he explain that inconsistency?
Mr. Clarke: I do not want to engage in a legal argument with my hon. Friend about whether an agent is acting within the apparent scope of his authority and so on, but there is no doubt that Barings is liable for the losses on the contracts. Those contracts were engaged upon as Barings' contracts or contracts of a subsidiary, and the group—certainly the subsidiary—has been left exposed to open-ended risks, which cannot be covered. When I say "unauthorised", I mean that we must discover how far the person, or people responsible, was evading the internal controls of the bank and exceeding or avoiding the restraints that the bank would otherwise have put upon him.
We must also consider the extent to which the Bank of England's regulatory requirements and investigations of Barings were being avoided. Although I use the word "unauthorised", I regret to say that I do not believe that there is any question but that Barings remains legally liable for the losses that are still piling up on those contracts, if they have not already been closed.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Chancellor accept that one does not need to be an expert on financial markets to be worried
702
that thousands of British jobs and a major British company can be put at risk by an individual gambling on the movements of the Japanese stock exchange? If that transpires to have been the consequence of regulatory failure, and as the bank itself is the regulator, is not it true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said, that there must be an objective consideration of what went on surrounding the collapse of Barings?
If it proves, as some of the press comment implies, that it is not possible properly to regulate speculation in those financial instruments offshore, perhaps, as other hon. Members have said, that type of activity should be banned altogether.
Mr. Clarke: I share the hon. Lady's concern for the people who work for Barings, including over 2,000 employees who work in this country. They worked for one of the most successful and respected banking groups in the City, and they turned in an extremely good performance. It is wrong to say that they were gamblers or that they were engaged in any improper activity; they were among the best in the financial services world in this country. I trust that the successful parts of the Barings Group will rapidly be sold by the administrator to people who will take on those successful businesses.
We need to discover the way in which operations in one subsidiary have brought the whole group to a state of financial collapse. There are regulators in both countries. One cannot ban international financial dealings; financial markets are moving on to a global basis extremely rapidly. It happens that the country at the other end, Singapore, is one of the most effectively regulated countries in the world. The Monetary Authority of Singapore is also highly regarded as a rather strict and severe regulatory authority, with which the Bank of England happens to be on very good terms.
The conclusion is that something happened in Barings' Singapore subsidiary that evaded the Bank of England's regulatory controls, evaded, through the counterparties, the Monetary Authority of Singapore's controls and evaded whatever controls were being applied by Barings. That is why we are all agreed that 2,500 jobs are at risk; we hope that soon that will all be resolved. We need to know the facts about the way in which it happened, instead of making broad-brush statements about gambling, the financial world, international dealing and so on.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When my right hon. and learned Friend considers all that, will he bear in mind the fact that, in the past year, the financial services of the City earned a £16 billion surplus in export trade for this country, so the fact that they do not produce anything goes by the by on that basis? Will he also consider the fact that industry here and abroad relies on access to capital, which is what that is all about, so by retaining a light touch and being very careful about what he does regarding future regulation, my right hon. and learned Friend serves both the City and industry well?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. The management of our investments overseas and the flow that that produces hack to this country is vital, not only to our economy, but to the well-being of pension funds and other institutional investments here, which are of extreme importance to the country.

703
In that area, as in every other area of commerce, regulation is essential to avoid fraud and mismanagement and to protect the depositor. Excessive regulation is destructive of a successful economy and destructive of jobs. When one investigates a matter of that type, one must get the balance right, so that there is no unnecessary risk, but so that one is not panicked into doing things that will damage the legitimate activities of the City of London.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not it true that Mr. Leeson may well have a very different story to tell from the one that is being peddled in London by people who have an obvious motive to blame him? Is not the truth that it might well be that Mr. Leeson's life is at risk, and that he would do well to consider to whom he should give himself up? Will the Chancellor join me in asking Mr. Leeson to ensure that he gives himself up as soon as possible, and to authorities in which he can place his trust?
Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman dramatises matters—I hope, excessively. He is right to say that we cannot leap to the conclusion that fraud or criminal offences have been committed, as we have no idea. Mr. Leeson has left his desk, no doubt because he finds it, at the very least, embarrassing to describe his responsibility for a series of investments that have brought down a 250-year-old banking group. His explanation will be interesting when he emerges. I have been cautious about what I have said about the facts. It would be wrong for me to act on the best information that I have at the moment and find, as more and more investigations are done, that the picture becomes clearer. I fear that it appears to be clear that an accurate description of the transactions was not being fed back by those engaged in them in Singapore.
Sir Terence Higgins: Will the Chancellor confirm that the previously open-ended contracts are now closed? What priority do the holders of those contracts have compared with depositors and other creditors?
Mr. Clarke: Again, I shall check and give my right hon. Friend the most up-to-date information that I have. My belief, as I stand here, is that the Singapore contracts have been closed. I do not think that the Osaka contracts have been closed, and I do not know what has happened at the Tokyo stock exchange—it has been a moving picture all day. The issue of the various creditors is in the hands of the administrator. The capital of Barings Group has already been absorbed by the losses incurred on those particular contracts. That is why the deposits have been frozen and the depositors will doubtless, in due course, discover to what extent their deposits can be released without deduction or, if with deduction, the extent of that deduction. These are early days, and those are exactly the sort of matters that the administrator is meant to be sorting out.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Does not today's significant fall in the value of the pound as a direct result of what has been described as unauthorised dealing on far eastern stock markets demonstrate the limitations of the concept of national sovereignty when it comes to international money markets?
Mr. Clarke: Other currencies have fallen today—the franc, lira and peseta are not having too good a day. We
704
live in a system of floating exchange rates, where such things move all the time. The hon. Gentleman's question did not have much bearing on dealings in Japanese futures and is not relevant to today's statement.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the Governor of the Bank of England has been able to give an assurance that other banks in the City of London have better and more efficient financial and internal controls? Will he also assure the House that recommendations are being put in place? Can he assure the House that when people deal in the derivatives markets, which operate on a minute-by-minute basis, financial controls are set up that also operate on a minute-by-minute basis? In this instance, there seems to have been an enormous delay between reporting what was going wrong in Singapore and reporting it in London. The information never seems to have got to London in the first place.
Mr. Clarke: The Bank's responsibility is to regulate banks and obtain the information required, but that is not done minute by minute. It would be totally impractical to suggest that the Bank of England could possibly supervise every transaction carried out by every bank. The Bank of England has to ensure that a bank's internal systems are satisfactory, and that any controls on which the Bank of England has insisted are adhered to by the bank that it is supervising. The Bank keeps a regular check on banks' balance sheets and calls for audits of particular aspects of banks' performance about which it is concerned. All those issues must be addressed.
My most up-to-date information on the information coming back is that Barings in London first seemed to become aware of serious problems in Singapore the weekend before last. It sent someone out from London to investigate the position on about Monday of last week. By Wednesday or Thursday of last week, it had become obvious that there was a serious problem. The Bank of England was notified at about noon on Friday and the Treasury was notified during the afternoon. Although that sounds very late, most of the liabilities had piled up in a very short time. Most of the contracts that now give rise to Barings' exposure—as the market moves against the various options taken—were built up in a remarkably short time.
Mr. Peter Shore: When a bank fails, the secondary effects are often the most grievous. In his statement, the Chancellor said that the Bank of England is ready to provide liquidity to the banking system. Does that give some assurance to major depositors with Barings that they will receive help if they are in difficulty?
Mr. Clarke: Inevitably, some turbulence and uncertainty in the markets surrounds a blow of this kind to the financial system, which can give rise to liquidity problems within the banking system as a whole. If such problems arose, the Bank of England would fulfil its function as the central bank and ensure that liquidity problems were overcome and that the London banking system could operate normally. My reference does not relate to the depositors with Barings.
Madam Speaker: We will now move on.
4.15 pm

Points of Order
4.15 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to rule on a case of "gross discourtesy"—to use his own words—on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, who visited my constituency at the weekend without giving me prior notice of his intention to do so. I understand that the purpose of his visit was to instruct members of the Gravesham branch of the Labour party to vote against clause IV. If he had given me notice of his visit, I could have told him that the people of Gravesham have voted against clause IV in the last four general elections.
Madam Speaker: I have made my views on such matters known on a number of occasions.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, of which I have given you notice. My point of order is not really a matter of complaint, but a matter of curiosity.
I have been banned from putting down any more written questions on the subject of Lockerbie. Madam Speaker, will you clarify the conditions under which a Member of Parliament can be told that he should not put down any more questions on the same subject on the ground that it is part of a campaign?
I would not raise a point of order about a trivial or frivolous subject. However, Lockerbie represents the worst mass murder of civilians anywhere in the western world since 1945. As a result, our relations with the Arab world are at stake, British industry is being damaged severely and 5,000 of our fellow countrymen are working at a disadvantage in Libya because of continuing sanctions. They are hardly trivial matters. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I ask you what the rules are.
Madam Speaker: If the point raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was trivial, I would not give it a serious answer—although, as he says himself, it is by no means a point of order
706
The hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished and successful campaigner and I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said and with the way in which he has pursued his campaign. In my view, a legitimate campaign through the means of parliamentary questions is one of the most effective weapons available to a Back Bencher. At the same time, I must uphold the rule that is set out on page 294 of "Erskine May", which prohibits the asking of questions that
"are multiplied with slight variations on the same point".
Without such a rule, there is potential for total abuse of the Order Paper. The Table Office will continue to apply that rule sensitively and it will not seek to prevent any Member from pursuing, by reasonable means, a matter about which he or she feels very strongly.
In the case cited by the hon. Gentleman, I have to say—I think that he will agree with me—that the Table Office has bent over backwards to help him. The hon. Gentleman has properly pursued his campaign for more than six years. He recently tabled about 90 questions in two days, which are to be answered next Monday, 6 March. I have to rule that he must await those answers before he proceeds further and before he tables any further questions.
Much will depend on the answers that the hon. Gentleman receives to those questions, but I am sure that, given his ingenuity and the help that the Table Office provides to him and all other hon. Members, he may have further opportunities to ask questions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very satisfied with my response to his comments. We will now proceed.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter, on which I gave a thorough ruling.

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.19 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  No one can be in any doubt that this Government are at the forefront in the fight against crime. Making this country a safer and more secure place to live is one of our top priorities, and has been since we came to power. But that task is not for Government alone. Our approach to crime prevention has always emphasised the role that all sections of society—individuals, community groups and businesses, as well as public agencies—can play in tackling crime.
  Before proceeding to deal with the detail of the Bill, I must comment on the terms of the extraordinary amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition which you, Madam Speaker, have just intimated has been selected. Its terms are wrong, misconceived and inaccurate in almost every particular. The amendment shows a remarkably muddled approach to policy by the Opposition, in that they supported—in fact, passed with acclaim—this important measure when it recently came under careful scrutiny in another place, only to turn on it now with such unselective and ill-informed hostility.
  In the other place, the official Opposition spokesman said:
  "The Government can rest assured that from this side of the House everything will be done to expedite the passage of the Bill".— [Official Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1994; Vol. 559, c. 552.]
  Yet now, for what can only be partisan purposes, Labour seeks to frustrate a Bill that will do a power of good to the dispatch of criminal justice in Scotland.
  The amendment suggests that the Bill
  "is not an acceptable or effective measure to tackle crime … in Scotland".
  It states that the fight against crime is under-resourced, and that we are making a major assault on the right to silence and moving towards an adversarial system. That is simply bunkum, and it reflects the apparent cynicism with which Labour approaches the issue.
  How can Labour Members sit there and say that we are not tackling crime in Scotland? Of course, not many of them are sitting there. The number of recorded crimes in Scotland has fallen for three successive years—most recently by 8 per cent. in 1993, and by a further 3 per cent. in 1994. Coming as they do after a period when recorded crime was on an upward trend, the figures for recent years are encouraging and an indication of the success of our crime prevention and other policies aimed at tackling crime.
  We have committed substantial resources to crime prevention. We have backed the police with substantial extra resources, new technology and almost 1,600 extra officers since 1979, to help in their fight against crime. Almost £5 million extra, after allowing for inflation, is
  708
  spent on the police force in Scotland each week than when Labour was in power. That is in stark contrast to the actions of Labour-controlled Strathclyde region, which we have had to cajole for years to bring its police force up to establishment standards.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State concerned also about the squandering of police time? Police witnesses still are kept hanging around sheriff courts such as Linlithgow. Is he aware also of the importance of the streamlining of courts? To take a Lothian example, it would be highly desirable to move the court structure from Linlithgow to Livingston, for reasons that the Minister of State—Lord Fraser of Carmyllie—knows well, because he received a delegation led by Mr. Jim Keegan, on behalf of solicitors, and myself.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right to put his finger on a central issue that concerns us and the various committees that we established to review criminal justice procedural systems. I will return to that theme at various points in my speech.
  The fight against crime is not one that the criminal justice system alone can win. If we want to divert potential offenders before they begin offending, we must begin the process much earlier. That is why we are tackling crime prevention in schools through the national guidelines, emphasising social responsibility and respect for others. We are taking measures to combat truancy, indiscipline, bullying and vandalism. We believe that if these problems are tackled at an early stage there is a significant possibility that those children will not later turn to more serious offences and start to commit crime.
  We are not content, however, to rest on initiatives in schools. We are also very much aware that the problem of offending by young people needs close attention. We are addressing this by new initiatives through the children's hearings and through new community-based development projects to address the problems caused by persistent young offenders.
  We are also pursuing traditional crime prevention measures, and a more general national crime prevention publicity campaign to engage much more widespread public awareness of the part which individuals can play in the fight against crime. The multi-media campaign will be launched in spring 1995 and will focus on housebreaking.
  I find it extraordinary that Opposition Members wish to oppose the Bill on the basis that the Scottish court system is under pressure from increasing work loads. One of the principal aims of the Bill is to relieve the pressure on the courts and prosecutors. We are making changes to the bail system, to late pleas, to pre-trial procedures, and improving procedures without unbalancing the scales of justice. If the Opposition have further suggestions to make, I hope that they will offer them to the House today.
  If Opposition Members oppose the Bill, they oppose measures to improve the operation of bail; they oppose giving the courts powers to deprive criminals of the proceeds of their crimes; they oppose measures to assist the police in detecting crime through extending the use of DNA; and they oppose taking the opportunity to improve the operation of the criminal justice system in Scotland. And they oppose measures, of the kind referred to a moment ago by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), to reduce the waste of police time involved in waiting unnecessarily at court.

  709
  It does little credit to the Labour party and its pretence to care about these issues that it should so distort the facts and oppose a measure designed to reinforce the fight in which we should all be joining against crime in Scotland.
  Mr. George Robertson: I know that the Secretary of State is under pressure on almost every front today, but that really is no excuse for his misrepresentation of our reasons for tabling a reasoned amendment in a Second Reading debate. He tries to imply that we oppose the Bill's Second Reading, but we do not. The amendment, in the tradition of reasoned amendments down the years, regrets certain aspects of the Bill, and states that the House should not give the Bill a Second Reading on certain specific grounds.
  I intend to welcome certain aspects of the Bill, but its general failure to tackle the crisis of crime that so many people fear has led us to table a reasoned amendment, not to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity in his speech to tell us whether his party will vote against the Bill tonight. He will also be able to tell us which measures he will propose in Committee; and he will have a chance to respond to some of the points that I have just made in answer to the terms of his reasoned amendment.
  The Bill contains provisions which will mark a watershed in the operation of the criminal justice system in Scotland, and will equip it to deal with the challenges that we will all face in combating crime as we move into the 21st century. It is a Scottish Bill tailored to Scottish needs and circumstances which builds on the best traditions of our distinctive legal system.
  The measures in the Bill were drafted after a comprehensive and detailed review of the present system and a consultation process which took account of the views of all the major organisations associated with the criminal justice system in Scotland and of a great number of individuals with particular knowledge and expertise. We are grateful for the many thoughtful comments that we received, which have informed the development of our proposals.
  Mr. George Foulkes: At least one Opposition Member—namely, me—would be more sympathetic to the Bill if it included some provisions to give power to licensing committees, along the lines suggested by Sheriff Gow, in relation to places such as Hangar 13 which run raves. I know that the right hon. Gentleman shares my concern about the increase in drugs crime. I have tabled a parliamentary question, which has not yet had a reply, asking him to give some consideration to legislation that would take account of the recommendations of Sheriff Neil Gow in the wake of a fatal accident inquiry.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of including some such provision in the Bill?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman raises a topic that has the makings of an interesting debate in Committee. I have no doubt that he will look forward to participating in such a debate.
  I am confident that we have struck the correct balance with the proposals in the Bill. We have been prepared to listen to the advice that we have been given and to come
  710
  to conclusions in the light of that advice. That view was endorsed by the support that the Bill received in another place.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I understand the approach that the Secretary of State is adopting about the extent of the consultation that was carried through. Will he tell us why the Scottish Office rejected the approach that was exemplified in the early 1970s with the appointment of Lord Thomson to head a committee that was given the task of examining Scottish criminal law and procedure, which produced two extremely valuable reports? Why was the same approach not followed in this instance?
  Mr. Lang: I shall have something to say about Lord Thomson's report or reports when I reach that stage in my comments on the contents of the Bill, if the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear with me until then.
  The Bill seeks essentially to do two things: first, it contains provisions that will significantly enhance the powers of the criminal justice agencies in the fight against crime; secondly, and equally important, are provisions that are aimed at making the system work more effectively and efficiently.
  I turn to the specific proposals in the Bill. Concern about the operation of bail, and especially offending while on bail, has featured in correspondence from hon. Members on both sides of the House in recent years. Breach of bail is a breach of the court's trust. We intend to tighten bail procedures by restricting the circumstances in which bail may be granted or reviewed, and by increasing the courts' powers to deal firmly with offending on bail. These proposals are contained in clauses 1 to 5.
  In particular, the provisions on bail would enable a court to increase any sentence beyond what it would otherwise impose if a person has offended while on bail. Separately, we are extending to a limited, but desirable, degree the circumstances in which bail cannot be granted. Fewer than one in five of court cases is made the subject of a bail order, but there were an estimated 27,000 offences committed while on bail last year. Those offences were carried out by relatively few offenders. An extra six months, or 60 days in district courts, and/or a fine of £1,000 will, with the other provisions, send a clear message that release on bail is not a right to be abused. The provisions that are set out in the Bill will offer greater protection to the public from the menace of offending on bail.
  Fundamental to our criminal justice system is the principle of trial by jury. The Bill contains a number of proposals to improve the selection of juries; to make there more representative and to reduce the inconvenience that is experienced by those who are called to court but not asked to serve. Those proposals are contained in clauses 6 to 8. They include the abolition of peremptory challenge, a procedure which the Government believe is widely abused and which serves no useful purpose that cannot be achieved by the other more rational means of exemption, namely, of cause shown to the court.
  There are about 1,300 jury trials a year. Of the 100,000 people cited annually for jury service, only about 20,000 serve on a jury. That is one in five. Clearly there is a need for more effective ways of avoiding such a huge waste of time and waste of resources.
  Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the present system of peremptory

  711
  challenge, people turn up wearing nice suits, shirts and ties and are challenged by defence lawyers because they look respectable? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a disgrace and that it is one of the reasons for voting for the Bill?
  Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will find that the package of measures that bear on juries in clauses 6 to 8 meets the concern to which he has properly drawn attention.
  The Bill contains two proposals flowing from a review of judicial examination and the right to silence. These have given rise to some controversy. That must be because they have been misunderstood. I look forward to hearing how Opposition Members justify their opposition. It may be helpful to the House if I try to make clear exactly what is involved.
  The proposal in clause 10 to allow prosecutors to ask accused persons under examination whether they admit rather than deny certain facts is little more than a technical change. Judicial examination takes place at an early stage, usually just after the accused has been arrested and charged. It enables the accused in the presence of his solicitor, and under the protection of a sheriff, to answer the procurator fiscal's questions and, if he wishes, to state his own position at the earliest opportunity.
  At present the procurator fiscal's questions must be framed in a convoluted form to avoid appearing to seek an admission, even though a failure to deny could be just as incriminating. The proceedings can be difficult for everyone, not least the accused, to understand. Clause 10 will enable a simpler and more intelligible form of questioning to be adopted, which will benefit all who participate in judicial examination and a subsequent trial, including the accused person.
  The clause will not, contrary to what some have suggested, require the accused person to break his silence, or to incriminate himself. If the accused chooses not to answer questions, he could do so, as many accused persons do now. If he chooses to answer, his answers need not be any different from what they would be under the current law. After all, he can refuse to admit just as easily as he can deny.
  Nor will clause 10 enable procurators fiscal to engage in cross-examination or to try to drag confessions out of the accused. The fiscal is prohibited from asking leading questions, or reiterating questions, or challenging the truth of anything that the accused has already said. The sheriff is under a duty to ensure that all questions are fairly put to and understood by the accused.
  There appears to be some confusion among Opposition Members about adversarial and inquisitorial systems. Judicial examination, which is a quasi-inquisitorial procedure, has existed in one form or another for centuries, although it fell into disuse in the early part of this century. The procedure was revived in 1980 following the recommendation of the Thomson committee on criminal procedure, which recommended that the procurator fiscal should be able to ask questions designed to prevent the fabrication of a false line of defence at an early stage; and that the accused should have an early opportunity to state his or her case and perhaps clear himself or herself.
  712
  The committee also suggested the type of questions that should be permitted at judicial examination. I entirely agreed with the committee when it said:
  "it is difficult to see how such questions could prejudice the position of an innocent accused and even more difficult to see why they should be regarded as unfair to a guilty accused".
  Clause 28 will allow the prosecutor to comment on an accused person's failure to give evidence at his trial. I believe that that is simply common sense. When an accused person has not given evidence, everyone in the courtroom is aware of that fact. The judge and the defence may, in appropriate circumstances, comment on it, but the prosecutor may not. Such prohibition is a wholly artificial constraint on the prosecutor's ability to put the full case before the court. In Scotland, juries have always been able to draw inferences from an accused person's silence and it defies common sense to suggest that they should not. We believe that it is far better that the prosecutor should be able to raise the issue directly and in open court, when it can be dealt with fairly under the direction of the judge.
  There is no need to fear that the ability to comment will result in unfairness. Comments are likely to be made with restraint, lest they are challenged on appeal. The defence has the opportunity to respond to any comments made in its summing up, and the judge has a duty to ensure that comments made by both sides are fair and that the jury understands the law.
  Both provisions were supported by a wide range of parties, including the Scottish judiciary, in consultation, and both received endorsement in another place from Lord McCluskey, a senior High Court judge. I think that we may therefore claim authoritative support for these modest but sensible reforms. I hope that Opposition Members will resist the temptation to indulge in knee-jerk reaction to the proposals for their own reasons.
  The Bill contains important proposals, in clauses 13 and 14, for reducing needless attendance in court by victims and witnesses of crime. At present, no fewer than four out of every five of those called to court do not have to give evidence. About half of them are police officers, who could otherwise be out investigating and detecting crime; many others are victims, whose stress and trauma is increased by attendance in court; others are simply law-abiding citizens who have witnessed a crime and have come forward to assist the police and prosecution in upholding the law. It would very serious if such people became disenchanted by their experience and, therefore, less likely to come forward in future.
  Our proposals for mandatory intermediate diets in summary cases, and the introduction of first diets in sheriff and jury cases, have the potential to cut by half the number of people who attend court unnecessarily. We know that because similar proposals have been tested in pilot schemes and because more and more courts are introducing those procedures voluntarily. For example, in Edinburgh sheriff court, 1,500 civilian and police witnesses are being relieved from court attendance each month. That is the equivalent of 18,000 in a year. In Dunfermline sheriff court, 340 witnesses are being excused each month and a similar number are being excused in Kirkcaldy sheriff court.
  Taken together, the courts which have introduced intermediate diets are already releasing more than 1,000 police officers for operational duties each month. A

  713
  similar rate of success across the country would result in several tens of thousands of police officer days each year being freed for the fight against crime.
  Mr. Foulkes: I welcome what the Secretary of State has just described. However, that cannot work in a sheriff court such as Ayr sheriff court, where there are not even enough witness rooms. That puts witnesses off. When witnesses for the prosecution are put in the same room as witnesses for the defence, they can be intimidated. That causes a great deal of concern.
  I have been writing to the Secretary of State—the matter is being dealt with by the Minister—and to Strathclyde asking them to get together to sort out the accommodation problems in Ayr sheriff court. The problem has been going on for years. What is the Secretary of State going to do about that, because that point is even more important than the provisions in the Bill? I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to answer that question because he seems to be unable to answer questions. I know that he has a lot of problems on his mind at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has been attacking him—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow the Secretary of State to respond.
  Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the extensive capital programme of upgrading sheriff courts on which the Government have embarked since coming to office in 1979 and having found a somewhat derelict case. With regard to the provisions in the Bill, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that precisely the same consequence can be achieved in Ayr as has been achieved in Kirkcaldy, Dunfermline and Edinburgh.
  The purpose of the provisions in the Bill is to provide a firmer and clearer statutory framework for the best practice that has been identified and to ensure that those benefits are brought to victims and witnesses all over Scotland. If the experience so far is repeated across Scotland, we can expect many thousands of victims and witnesses to be relieved of the burden of attending court unnecessarily. That would represent a dramatic improvement for the victims and witnesses of crime, on whose support our criminal justice system relies. It would also provide an enormous boost to the capacity of the police to fight crime.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is any action going to be taken against solicitors who allow their clients to plead guilty at the last moment when they must have known jolly well, for weeks if not for months, that they were going to do that? Is that not a deep abuse of professional conduct?
  Mr. Lang: Again, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a very germane point which I will address, if he will permit me, when I reach that stage in my speech.
  The burden which being called to give evidence can impose on witnesses is also being tackled in the Bill. Clauses 16 to 25 contain important measures for the agreement of routine evidence. That will reduce the extent to which witnesses, in particular police witnesses, have to attend court to give evidence which is uncontroversial and, in the event, not disputed.
  714
  The Bill contains two important provisions on sentencing. Clause 29 will make it clear that courts may take into account the fact that an accused person has pleaded guilty and the timing and circumstances in which the plea was made when deciding the appropriate sentence. Nearly 70 per cent.—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow—of accused persons plead guilty straight away while 90 per cent. do so eventually. Of those accused persons who at present plead not guilty up to the day of the trial, two out of three will plead guilty on the day of the trial. Clause 29 will clarify an area of law on which there has been some uncertainty in Scotland and may encourage those who will plead guilty anyway to do so at an earlier stage.
  Clause 30 provides expressly for the Appeal Court to issue opinions on the appropriate sentence for cases similar to the particular case before it and requires the lower courts to have regard to those opinions. That should help to make available to the lower courts, on a systematic basis, the wisdom and experience of our most senior judges and so should help to increase consistency in sentencing without eroding judicial discretion.
  The courts will continue to be able to take account of genuine variations in circumstances, which may not be apparent to the public in superficially similar cases. I believe that we should do all that we can to encourage consistency of sentencing in genuinely similar cases.
  I want now to consider appeals. Further provisions aimed at reducing delay in the criminal justice system are contained in clause 37, which introduces a requirement for leave to appeal. The test which an application will have to pass in order for leave to appeal to be granted will be that it demonstrates arguable grounds of appeal. At present, many appeals are abandoned before they come to a hearing and the provision will allow frivolous and unmeritorious appeals to be sifted out at an early stage. There has been a threefold increase in the number of criminal appeals over the decade to 1992, but almost 40 per cent. are abandoned before the hearing and only about one in five is successful.
  The new leave to appeal procedure, along with the proposals in clause 38 to reduce the number of High Court judges required to consider appeals against sentence only, should help the Appeal Court in dealing with the high number of appeals that have been lodged in recent years.
  Clauses 41 to 49 contain proposals to change the way in which our criminal justice system deals with the small but vulnerable category of accused persons who are insane and therefore unfit to stand trial, and those who are tried but acquitted because they were insane at the time they committed the offence.
  Our proposals will mean that, in future, when there can be no trial there will at least be an examination of the facts to establish that the accused did the act with which he is charged, before he is perhaps committed to hospital without limit of time. We also propose that the courts should have a wider range of disposal options in such cases, including a community-based "supervision and treatment order". However, let me stress that a court will still be able, on the same basis as now, to impose a hospital order with restrictions when it considers that necessary to protect the public from serious harm.
  Clauses 54 and 55 provide for the extension of fiscal fines, a disposal unique to Scotland within the United Kingdom. The provisions will extend the scope of fiscal fines to a wider range of minor offences.

  715
  I should make it quite clear, since some commentators have misunderstood our intentions, that those proposals have nothing to do with decriminalisation; nor are they targeted on drugs offences. They provide an additional weapon in the procurator fiscal's armoury. The consequence will be an increase in the capacity of our prosecutors and our courts to deal with more serious crime. In deciding whether to offer a fine in a particular case, the fiscal will be operating under clear guidance from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
  The Government recognise the significant potential which criminal justice social work services have to reduce offending behaviour. Our intention continues to be to reduce, so far as is possible, the use of imprisonment by the courts in cases where a community-based disposal would be appropriate. That policy is particularly important for fine default and the proposals in the Bill will encourage the use of supervised attendance orders in place of custody or, for 16 and 17-year-olds, in place of the fine itself.
  Part II contains comprehensive provisions to deprive offenders of the proceeds and the instruments of crime. These are simple objectives which will, I hope, draw support from both sides of the House. The provisions in part II are derived from the report on confiscation and forfeiture which was presented to Parliament last September by the Scottish Law Commission. That report recommended the extension of confiscation arrangements to general crime where the offences are prosecuted on indictment or the maximum sentence in summary proceedings exceeds the normal penalties. It also recommended the reform of forfeiture provisions to improve the effectiveness of court forfeiture of the instruments of crime and to clarify the rights of third parties.
  The Government moved quickly to present those provisions to Parliament by including them in this Bill. While we accept the main recommendations, minor amendments to the Scottish Law Commission report have been necessary. Some further minor changes may be required.
  We have also announced our intention to consolidate Scottish criminal procedure. It is now 20 years since the last major consolidation of criminal procedure legislation. A number of provisions to facilitate that exercise are included in the Bill and we will be bringing forward others. This modernisation and rationalisation of the legislation will, I am sure, be welcomed by all who use our criminal courts.
  At the same time the Bill includes, at the suggestion of the Lord Justice-General, arrangements for a new rules council for criminal court proceedings. With similar functions to the existing rules councils for civil court proceedings and a broad-based membership, the new council will provide a structured consultative forum for considering and commenting on proposals for changes to the court rules.
  I have outlined thus far the main provisions in the Bill. I should not conclude without referring to three issues on which there has been public debate recently, but which are not included in the Bill presented to the House.
  The Bill does not contain any proposals to change the verdicts which may be returned in Scottish courts. We reviewed the three-verdict system very thoroughly. We set
  716
  out the arguments for and against three verdicts impartially, and consulted widely before reaching a decision. The responses to that consultation made it clear that the three-verdict system continues to be valued in Scotland and that, although there are strong views on both sides, there is considerably more support for the retention of the not proven verdict than for its abolition. After full consideration of all the arguments, we concluded that the not proven verdict should remain. The Government's position is therefore based on the clear outcome of consultation with the people of Scotland, and I am sure that the House will take careful note of that.
  We also consulted on whether there should be changes to the criteria for the consideration of appeals by the Appeal Court and the way in which alleged miscarriages of justice are handled in Scotland. We had in view the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice, which recommended changes for England and Wales.
  The outcome of our consultation was inconclusive. Many of those who responded felt that the issues were too complex to comment on in detail. We received no evidence that there was any consensus on the way forward in Scotland in that sensitive and complex matter.
  As a result, I decided to ask Sir Stewart Sutherland, the principal of Edinburgh university, to chair an independent committee to advise on whether any changes were needed to the current criteria for the consideration of appeals by the Appeal Court and to the machinery for handling alleged miscarriages of justice and, if so, what the nature of those changes might be.
  The committee has started its task energetically and it has extended a general invitation to interested parties and to members of the public to submit comments. I have asked the committee to report by or before July 1996. If the committee is to give those difficult issues the consideration that they deserve, it will need time to do so. Those who call for an early report from the committee perhaps underestimate the task that it has been set.
  I do not believe, therefore, that it would be right to include in the Bill provisions which purport to deal with miscarriages of justice. I intend to await the report of the Sutherland committee before deciding how to proceed.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Secretary of State may be aware, there is some judicial controversy in Scotland as to whether existing provisions allow for the use at appeal of evidence which was not available at the time of the original trial. Indeed, it appears that the illustrious Lord Justice-General, Lord Hope, takes one view and that the equally illustrious Lord Justice Clerk takes another. As the Secretary of State is probably aware, it is proposed to convene a court of five judges to try to deal with the matter. May we take it that the Sutherland committee will take evidence from the two senior judges in Scotland?
  Mr. Lang: The hon. and learned Gentleman will understand why the idea of my coming between the Lord Justice-General and Lord Justice Clerk would be to put myself between a rock and a hard place. I will allow the Sutherland committee to consider how best it should proceed in considering that matter, as I am sure that it will wish to do.
  Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State is aware that the Home Secretary has published a miscarriages review authority Bill for England and Wales. It will mean a mismatch of remedies available to United

  717
  Kingdom citizens regarding miscarriages of justice—one rule for England and Wales and another for Scotland. In the event that the Sutherland committee recommends legislation, will the Government ensure that the matter is given sufficient time in the lifetime of this Parliament?
  Mr. Lang: In our legal procedures, perhaps more than in any other matter, we in Scotland should decide upon what is right for Scotland and Scottish circumstances rather than be driven by what is decided upon south of the border. That has certainly always driven our approach in the past. However, I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall await with considerable interest the outcome of the Sutherland committee's report before we are able to consider how to react to it.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the committee's decision will not interfere with applications for the prerogative of mercy that are currently before him? Of course, the Secretary of State has used his discretion, for which we are very grateful, to look again at the Raymond Gilmour case. There is no need to wait for the committee's decision before that case is considered.
  Mr. Lang: Of course, I cannot bind myself or my officials in the context of forthcoming cases, but, in respect of the cases that are before us, I see no reason why that should be the case. I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman to ensure that such cases are considered with all due haste but without prejudicing the interests of justice.
  Certain amendments addressing various aspects of the interests of victims in the criminal justice process were tabled for consideration in another place. They generated widespread debate, which the Government welcomed.
  Let there be no doubt about our commitment to improving the provision of support and information to victims. Our funding next year for the organisation Victim Support (Scotland) will rise by 11 per cent. to £975,000. Local court-based initiatives, such as that at Hamilton sheriff court, are looking at how best to improve victims' understanding of and experience at court. Also, research is under way into the delivery of support services to victims and into exactly what information victims at court need and want. Those projects will inform our decisions as to what further improvements can be made.
  This Bill will also play an important part by reducing the demands made on victims by court procedures and improving the capacity of the police, the prosecution and the courts to deal quickly and efficiently with crime.
  This is a substantial Bill, which aims to make significant improvements in the effectiveness and efficiency with which crime is tackled in Scotland. It builds on the best elements of our distinctive system of Scots law and takes account of the views of those who have participated in the comprehensive review that we have conducted in Scotland over the past two years.
  Mr. Dalyell: Have the Government considered what some of us regard as the very unsatisfactory nature of fatal accident inquiries?
  Mr. Lang: I do not think that anything in the Bill deals directly with fatal accident inquiries, but that issue could perfectly reasonably be raised in Committee.
  718
  We are fortunate in Scotland in enjoying a criminal justice system which commands widespread respect. Nevertheless, there can be no room for complacency, and none exists among Conservative Members. The public rightly expect justice to be delivered quickly, fairly and efficiently by our criminal justice system. I believe that the Bill, building on the strengths of our distinctive system of criminal justice, will, if enacted, mark a step change in the efficiency and effectiveness of our system. It will play an important part in reducing demands on victims by court procedures, and ensure that the system is more sensitive to their needs. It will help to clamp down on the unnecessary attendance of witnesses in courts, reduce the burden on the police and the public and, more important, allow thousands if not tens of thousands of police days to be spent back on the beat, not idled away in our courtrooms. It will bring in new provisions to tighten up bail procedures and help to tackle offending on bail, which the public rightly abhor.
  In contrast, the frivolous and opportunistic approach of the Labour party is reflected in the preposterous amendment. The Bill is one more set of measures that have been developed with care, thoroughness and determination, based on the authoritative reports of four distinguished review bodies to help us to fight crime, deal with the criminal, assist the victim, and improve efficiency, for the benefit of police, witnesses and society generally.
  In recent years, we have substantially strengthened the police, increased the funding of law and order maintenance, toughened sentences, and built up crime prevention measures. For three successive years, we have turned back the tide of crime. Now we must make sure that the criminal justice system plays its full part in continuing that battle and in preparing for the needs of the next century. The Bill enables it to do that, and I commend it to the House.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] a Second Reading because it believes that the Bill is not an acceptable or effective measure to tackle crime because fails to address adequately levels of crime in Scotland, particularly the rising trends in violent crime, vandalism, robberies and drugs offences, does nothing to address the underlying causes of crime, represents a major assault on the presumption of innocence and the right to silence as well as a tacit shift away from Scotland's present adversarial system of justice to an inquisitorial system, and fails to relieve adequately the pressure on the Scottish court system created by increasing workloads and under-resourcing.
  It is staggering how sensitive the Secretary of State is to a reasonably expressed, reasoned amendment. The Secretary of State, perhaps rattled by criticism over the weekend, has decided that the procedure, which is well known in the House, is opposition to the Bill. Our reasoned amendment is as reasoned amendments always have been—a reason for the House of Commons to delay consideration of a Bill until issues identified in the amendment have been addressed and settled. Nothing in the amendment is controversial. Indeed, I am sure that, if they examine it, other Conservative Members—although precious few are present—will find that it has attractive aspects.

  719
  The Secretary of State, of course, may consider debates such as this as big a burden on the Conservative party as the whole Scottish contingent seems to be.
  Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why 43 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament are not present?
  Mr. Robertson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they are not all out on the Pollok estate. The Pollok estate is probably quite safe; they are all out undermining the Government's credibility—which is low enough already—without the aid of any artificial implement.
  The House greatly regrets the absence of the late hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross—
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) clearly cannot count. He suggested that only seven Labour Members of Parliament were present; at least 12 are here.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman had been paying attention to his Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), he would probably not have chosen that moment to make a frivolous point of order.
  Mr. Robertson: Let me repeat that we regret the absence of our late hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. He would have brought his distinctive knowledge and experience of Scottish law to our debate, and I venture to suggest that he would have had a few acerbic comments to offer the Secretary of State about some of the Bill's provisions.
  Mr. Lang: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose remarks are much appreciated by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State, but I do not think that much of what follows will be greeted in the same way.
  I welcome the fact that the Government have at last introduced a separate Bill to reform the criminal justice system in Scotland. It makes a pleasant change from Ministers' usual practice of tagging Scottish measures on to English Bills. Many of us remember with considerable dissatisfaction the disgraceful way in which the crime of aggravated trespass—an alien concept—was introduced into Scottish law: it was simply added at the end of the Criminal Justice Bill affecting England and Wales.
  I am sure that the Secretary of State will forgive me for saying that my colleagues and I look forward to the day when matters such as this will be decided in a Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh, and when Scotland's legal system will at last have its own legislature.
  Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman be there?
  Mr. Robertson: I certainly hope to be. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will be elected to any Parliament at the next general election.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that is not frivolous, but important and fundamental. If he plans to sit in a Scottish
  720
  Parliament in Edinburgh, will he tell us where he proposes to pay his tax and where it will be deducted for the purposes of that Parliament?
  Mr. Robertson: I have said—I will say it no more—that I shall be proud to be a Member of a Scottish Parliament: the Scottish Parliament that we alone will provide for the Scottish people, in accordance with their views. Even given the breadth of the Bill's long title, the details of taxation relating to that Parliament are not relevant to today's debate, but there is a perfectly reasonable answer to be made.
  Ministers have spoken at length, in the other place and outside Westminster, about the painstaking consultation that preceded the publication of the Bill. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that we shall have adequate time in Committee to debate all aspects of the Bill. It may well be some time before we have a chance to debate such matters again; I hope that we shall do so in a devolved Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, but it is vital for us to get the balance right at this stage.
  In the House of Lords, the Minister of State described the Bill as
  "the most substantial overhaul of the criminal justice system in Scotland in the last 15 years."—[Official Report, House of Lords; 29 November 1994; Vol. 559, c. 545.]
  Although the Bill contains some worthy reforms, it hardly amounts to a major assault on crime and its underlying causes. No one would recognise it from the Minister of State's description.
  The White Paper "Firm and Fair", which preceded the Bill, said:
  "This White Paper is a further step in our fight against crime…our highest priority is to protect the public from crime and criminals."
  Some people in Scotland, sickened and let down by the rise in crime and the consequent fear of crime, will gain some comfort from the Bill, thinking that it may contribute to allaying their distress. They will be deeply disappointed. There will be victims of crime, left scarred emotionally and physically long after a trial and even a sentence, who are looking for hope—people trapped in their houses after dark, afraid to walk the streets or leave their cars unattended in the streets of the Scotland of 1995. They, too, will look today for reassurance and peace of mind and they, too, will he disappointed.
  Reform and reorganisation of the Scottish criminal justice system on a piecemeal basis, containing inexplicable, alien and party political attacks on certain basic Scottish characteristics of the system, are no contribution at all to tackling some of the most worrying and depressing features of the way in which crime and criminality affect people in Scotland today.
  Of course I welcome the recent drops in recorded crime figures. It must be said, indeed, that it is in the big Labour regions in Scotland that the most progress has been made, and it is there that some projects have had their impact. But is it not strange that when the crime figures are good and progress has been made it is to the Government's credit, while when things go wrong or establishment levels cannot be attained it is all the fault of local authorities? Those of us who observed the success of Operation Blade—pioneered in Strathclyde by a chief constable under a Labour local authority—can have no doubt that a locally accountable police force in an area

  721
  that was responsive to its own people and their needs was able to make a dramatic impact on a form of crime that intimidated people. The Labour regions should be given some of the credit for the impact that has been made.
  There is, however, no justification for complacency. The most recent figures must be set against the massive increases of previous years. Between 1981 and 1991, for example, the number of recorded offences in Scotland increased by 44 per cent. The fact remains that, although crime figures have dropped recently, they have increased substantially as a whole since the Conservative party came to power.
  Mr. William McKelvey: The number of violent crimes is increasing, but they are not always reported or recorded.
  Mr. Robertson: As my hon. Friend says, we must also recognise that crime figures do not take into account the significant number of offences that are either not reported or not recorded. We are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. The Scottish crime survey, published in April last year, estimated that in 1992 just over 1 million crimes and offences were committed in Scotland. Of that number, only 39 per cent. ended up in police statistics on recorded crime. There is good reason to believe that the Government's figures do not tell the whole story.
  Beyond that, there are some disturbing trends that are hidden within the overall figures: the rise in violent crime, the explosion in drug offences and the increase in vandalism, robberies and car thefts. Between 1989 and 1993, robberies in Scotland rose by 26 per cent. and car thefts by 47 per cent. Since the Conservative party came to power, drug offences have increased by 1,056 per cent. That is proof, if statistical proof were needed, that the Government are losing the battle against drugs. It is a battle with which we have as much sympathy and concern as anyone on the Government Benches. It is a bleak picture that we see before us.
  There is precious little in the Bill to tackle the underlying causes of crime. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Social Security on television last week finally admit that there was a link between poverty and crime. There is a blinding flash of inspiration for that last, free market, neanderthal individual. Not only have Ministers now admitted that they bear a responsibility for tackling inequality but they have at long last conceded the link between poverty, deprivation and crime. Those two key concessions clearly show that Ministers are now being forced on to Labour's agenda and that Labour is winning the battle of ideas on how to tackle crime.
  Of course poverty can never excuse crime, nor does it always lead to criminal behaviour; but it would be folly to ignore the clear links that exist between poverty and crime. They are there. They are manifest. They stare us in the face. For that reason, any strategy for tackling crime that fails to deal with its underlying social causes is bound to fail. A root-and-branch attack on crime and the causes of crime is needed. By any standards, the Bill cannot be said to meet that task.
  Nevertheless, as I said before, several provisions in the Bill are commendable and will enjoy our support. I was interested to note that the Minister of State in the House of Lords was kind enough to concede that many of the Government's proposals were included in our party's consultative paper "Protection and Justice", which arose out of the working party chaired by my hon. Friend the
  722
  Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). We welcome, for example, the greater use of pre-trial hearings to prevent last-minute plea changes and to establish non-controversial evidence. That will greatly reduce the inconvenience and waste that are created throughout the system by the adjournment or cancellation of trials and spare many thousands of police and civilian witnesses unnecessary attendance at court.
  Similarly, we support the greater use of fiscal tines. We note the contrast between the different approaches north and south of the border. Fiscal fines will provide much-needed relief to our overburdened court system and allow those who may have offended once or in minor ways to accept responsibility for their conduct without getting a criminal record. The use of fiscal fines has so far proved extremely effective in keeping a range of minor offences out of our courts. Therefore, we welcome the proposals in the Bill to extend the range of offences for which fiscal fines can be offered, provided that they are not applied inflexibly. With fiscal fines in mind, we also support, as my hon. and noble Friends said in the House of Lords, the use of a sliding scale for fiscal fines and of attendance orders as alternatives to imprisonment for 16 to 17-year-olds as a means of dealing with fine defaults.
  We welcome the proposal to extend the powers of our courts to confiscate the proceeds of crimes such as pornography, fraud, extortion, insider dealing and corruption. The powers exist now in respect of drug dealing and it is right that they should be extended to other serious crimes.
  We also welcome the new safeguards in the Bill for dealing with accused persons who are insane and therefore cannot stand trial, and persons acquitted on grounds of insanity. It is wrong that, at present, a man or a woman found unfit to stand trial may be detained in a mental hospital, possibly for the rest of his or her life, without our courts reaching any view of the innocence or guilt of the individual. Therefore, we support the requirements in the Bill for courts to undertake an examination of the facts to determine whether the accused person committed the offence for which he or she was charged.
  Although the Bill contains many sound proposals, we have concerns on several matters which led us to table the reasoned amendment. First, although we support the Government's aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, we believe that there must be a balance between streamlining the operation of the system and preserving the rights of the individual in criminal proceedings and the presumption of the defendant's innocence. The Secretary of State will be aware of the deep concern in Scotland that the Bill does not properly respect that balance.
  It is all very well the Secretary of State coming to the Dispatch Box and pretending that everything in the reasoned amendment and everything that is likely to be said by the Opposition are purely partisan. He knows that bodies as conservative—I use that word with a small "c"; few organisations in Scotland would any longer be described as Conservative with a capital "C"—as the Law Society of Scotland and the Glasgow Bar Association have deep misgivings about the Bill.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Glasgow Bar Association is not very conservative.
  Mr. Robertson: That is an accusation which I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will substantiate later in

  723
  the debate. I wonder whether it would describe itself as liberal. Does anyone these days? That is the problem for the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  It is right that, in the light of those misgivings, we should streamline procedures and eliminate waste, but we should not at the same time sacrifice the basic principles of our legal system for reasons of expediency and cost cutting.
  Unfortunately, the bulk of the proposed changes in the Bill, designed as they are to tip the balance of justice away from the accused in favour of the prosecution, will do just that. The accused's right of silence will be curtailed. The defence's right of peremptory challenge of a juror will be abolished. The disclosure of the accused's criminal record to juries will be permitted and the judicial examinations will be allowed to elicit an admission of guilt from the accused before there has been sufficient time for the defence to advise his or her client.
  Taken together, those measures amount to a fundamental shift in the balance of justice away from the defence and in favour of the prosecution. More than that, they potentially represent a change in the very nature of the criminal justice system. At present, we have in Scotland an adversarial system in which the burden of proof is placed on the Crown. If we are to move towards watering down that obligation significantly, we will have, by default and without any real debate on what is proposed, an inquisitorial system such as that which exists on the continent. If that is the Secretary of State's intention, he should say so and make proposals for consultation on that grave and important matter. He should not pretend that he can introduce those changes without fundamentally altering the nature of our legal system.
  Apart from making those general criticisms of the Bill, we shall examine more closely in Committee a number of other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton will deal with some of them in his reply. They include the abolition of the right of peremptory challenge of jurors, the requirement that the defence should know the occupation and address of prospective jurors, the proposal for more judicial investigations and the new restrictions on bail.
  I should like to highlight a few of the key issues that worry Opposition Members and many more people in Scotland. Clause 28 of the Bill permits the prosecutor in a trial to comment on the failure of the accused to give evidence at his or her trial. No one should be in any doubt that that represents a major attack on one of the most fundamental rights of Scottish law. Our criminal justice system in Scotland is based on the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty. The change proposed by Ministers will erode that principle and is, therefore, a fundamental attack on the nature of our criminal justice system.
  Mr. Lang indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robertson: Predictably, the Secretary of State shakes his head and mutters under his breath that that is not true, but what about the words of Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland? He is a distinguished representative with no partisan view. He is in hospital and I am sure that the whole House would want to send its
  724
  best wishes for a quick recovery. He is someone of real substance in Scotland—the deputy secretary of the Law Society—and he was quoted in The Herald last November as saying,
  "This is not just tinkering. This is the abolition of the right to silence."
  Mr. Clancy said that it was not merely a modification or a qualification, but the abolition of the right to silence in Scotland.
  The Scottish Council for Civil Liberties described the Government's proposals in this area as "ill-considered" and even the liberal, conservative or revolutionary—depending on how one thinks of it—Glasgow Bar Association warned that clause 28 might well conflict with articles of the European convention on human rights.
  To make matters much worse, that major change has been tagged on to the Bill as a mere afterthought with only minimal consultation. Indeed, the proposal virtually or completely to abolish the right to silence in Scotland was introduced into draft statute two weeks and three days after the consultation period on the right to silence had been closed. In rushing ahead with such proposals, Ministers even ignored the advice of their own advisers, the Scottish Law Commission. To try to sneak in that change under the wire and to ignore the advice of their advisers displays a degree of contempt and arrogance that is breathtaking even by the Government's standards.
  Will the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State explain why such a fundamental change was introduced at such a late date? What is the reason for the sudden decision by Ministers? The official justification offered by the Minister of State in the other place was that the prosecution should have the same right as judges to comment on an accused person's silence, but that is no justification at all. The fact that the right to silence has already been eroded is not a reason for, justification of or explanation why it should be eroded still further.
  Moreover, the prosecutor is already able to point out that Crown evidence is uncontradicted. As the Law Society of Scotland has noted, allowing the prosecution to comment further will only discourage accused persons from refraining to give evidence and the right to silence will inevitably be undermined. I therefore urge the Government to think again on that matter and to listen to what will be reasoned debate in the Standing Committee.
  I must discuss two major omissions from the Bill. We already tackled one in our interventions—the lack of provision for new machinery for considering alleged miscarriages of justice. Of course, I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that he has established the Sutherland committee, which will report on that matter no later than the summer of 1996. Now that the committee has been set up, it is right that that complex subject should not be decided on precipitately, but why has it taken so long for the committee to be established?
  The Royal Commission on criminal justice in England and Wales was appointed in spring 1991 to consider that matter, among others, in respect of England and Wales. It reported in June 1993 and the Government have acted on its recommendations by establishing the new criminal cases review commission only last week. Why then has it taken so long for a similar committee to be established in Scotland? Clearly, there have been more high-profile examples of miscarriages of justice south of the border—

  725
  that remains a fact—but is the Secretary of State seriously arguing that there is no concern about the matter in Scotland?
  The second notable omission from the Bill concerns the question of the not proven verdict. I would be the first to concede that there are passionate advocates on both sides of that argument and, for that reason, the question should be decided in Parliament on a free vote. When the matter is raised on Report, there will be a free vote among my colleagues in the Opposition on whether to retain or abolish Scotland's third verdict in Scotland.
  I have long campaigned for the abolition of the not proven verdict, which is a bad and unnecessary verdict. Indeed, Sir Walter Scott described it as
  "that bastard verdict, illogical, contrary to legal principle and wholly indefensible."
  Since then, many other people have come to that opinion. It neither clears nor convicts the accused and, as a consequence, it undermines the fundamental principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty.
  As a verdict, it leaves the accused and the victim hanging in limbo and for the rest of us it leaves a permanent question mark. The accused person may well be acquitted but will still bear a stain on his or her character. The accused may never be tried again but may never be able to clear his or her name. It is as unjust to the accused as it is to the victim and the victim's family.
  Obliging a jury to choose between a guilty or a not guilty verdict, as is the case in every other country, means that the accused and the victim at least know where they stand. More importantly, the presumption of innocence that is at the heart of our Scottish legal system demands that if the Crown cannot prove its case "beyond reasonable doubt", the accused should be completely cleared.
  Not proven has some backers among the legal fraternity and among the criminal fraternity, because it increases the chance of acquittal in a difficult case. It is also popular among some juries because it enables them to avoid a difficult decision. Undoubtedly, it is an attractive proposition for defendants who view it as an alternative to conviction and gaol.
  In the White Paper on which the Bill is based, the Government make it clear on page 49 that
  "Although the remit of the Royal Commission did not extend to Scotland, the Secretary of State undertook to consider the implications of the Commission's recommendations in the Scottish context".
  The Secretary of State has hardly dealt with some of the issues that fall into that category. For the record, I shall tell the House what the Royal Commission on criminal justice in England and Wales had to say about the not proven verdict, as it is germane to the debate. It states:
  "During our deliberations we considered the case for introducing into England and Wales the Scottish verdict of 'not proven'. This is available in Scotland as an alternative to 'not guilty' although it still counts as an acquittal. Most of those who gave evidence to us did not favour such a verdict. We too regard it as an unsatisfactory option, particularly from the point of view of the defendant, who is left with a cloud hanging over his or her reputation. If the jury does not convict, it means that the prosecution have been unable to discharge the burden of proof and the defendant should in our view be entitled to a verdict of not guilty."
  In one short, concise and economic paragraph, the royal commission, which studied that matter in some depth, came to precisely the right conclusion. My opinion is that,
  726
  for the Scottish criminal justice system and the public, it is an anomaly and an anachronism and it should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
  Finally, on the resource implications of the Bill, the explanatory and financial memorandum states that it is to be "cost neutral". Frankly, that claim stretches all credulity. Indeed, I remind the Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State of Lord McCluskey's description of that claim in the House of Lords as "cloud cuckoo land".
  I appreciate that there are difficulties in producing detailed estimates of the additional expenditure required to implement the Bill's provisions, but I understand that the Government provided some estimates of the financial implications in the consultation paper.
  Will the Secretary of State now act on the suggestion of the Law Society and assure us today that we can see the information on which that cost-neutral estimate was made? In that way, hon. Members may have a proper reasoned debate about the Bill's financial implications. It is vital that we have that debate, because it is widely recognised that the fiscal system in particular is overburdened and under-resourced. If the Bill is to he enacted on a cost-neutral basis, it will have serious implications for the way in which justice is delivered in Scotland.
  Far from the House of Commons, and even further from Ministers' offices in St. Andrew's house, crime and its impact are the overriding concerns for millions of ordinary Scots, who are told that crime statistics are falling but see in their daily lives a totally different picture. They know what Ministers simply refuse to learn: that the roots of crime are deep in deprivation arid poverty, in gross inequalities and stark financial inequities that have grown during the Conservative party's period in office. Those causes are fed by the unemployment that is still so damagingly high in Scotland.
  Crime and criminality hit us all, some much more than others, and cost everyone in society a vast amount in human and financial terms. That is why those tinkering knee-jerk measures go nowhere near far enough to tackle the crime crisis that affects Scotland today. That is why the Bill should be taken away and looked at again and that is why the House should vote for the reasoned amendment. Although we shall not vote against Second Reading, I commend the reasoned amendment for the attention and support of the entire House.
  5.31 pm
  Mr. Allan Stewart: This is an important debate on an important Bill. It has already resulted in an important statement from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). In dealing with the procedures that he believes should in future apply to the Bill's measures, he said that not only should they be considered by a Scottish Parliament under a Labour Government, but that he would serve in that Parliament. Let us be clear, therefore, that he has told the people of Hamilton that there will be a by-election in the middle of the next Labour Parliament.
  Mr. George Robertson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Will he or will he not serve in a Scottish Assembly if there is a Labour Government? I understood that he told

  727
  the House that measures should be considered by a Scottish Parliament in which he would serve, which means a by-election.
  I strongly support the Bill. Furthermore, I shall even apply to the Committee of Selection to serve on the Standing Committee. The queue of Conservative Members may be so long that I shall be killed in the rush, but I should be delighted to be considered to serve on the Committee because I believe that the Bill is extremely important.
  I have good and bad news for the hon. Member for Hamilton: the good news is that I welcome the fact that the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment and will not vote against Second Reading; the bad news is that I shall not vote for it.
  I wish to discuss three major issues relating to the Bill. The first is the right to make a peremptory challenge. The Government's proposals are absolutely correct because hon. Members on both sides of the House know what happens with the right of peremptory challenge. It is easy to turn up for jury service in Scotland and ensure that one is challenged by the defence lawyer. One simply turns up looking like the hon. Member for Hamilton or his hon. Friends—respectable, wearing suits, nice shirts and ties. One is then challenged and can leave. Everyone knows that that is what happens, so I strongly support my right hon. Friend's proposal.
  Secondly, I strongly support the proposals to deal with further offences committed while on bail. Nothing outrages ordinary citizens more than when someone on bail reoffends.
  Thirdly, I strongly support the proposals, in clauses 13 and 14 in particular, on witnesses who are not called. The hon. Member for Hamilton made it clear to the House that the Labour party also supports those proposals. There is no doubt about what happens in Scottish courts. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who has slipped out of the Chamber for a moment, made a valid point on that matter. Witnesses turn up at court and find that the case has been deferred or the plea changed. Prosecution and defence witnesses are in the same room and intimidation takes place. The result is not just inconvenience but that ordinary citizens vow that they will not go through that again. They decide that, the next time they see an offence being committed, they will walk on the other side of the street.
  Mr. McMaster: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that another group of people who suffer inconvenience are the police? When I last asked for an estimate of the amount of police time wasted in courtrooms on cases that would not be heard on the specified date or at the specified time, I was told that up to a third of the police overtime budget can be wasted on time spent hanging around courts.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a waste of police time and is extremely frustrating for the police, who simply want to get on with their job. They do not want to sit around waiting for trials that do not take place.
  The Bill will spare thousands of victims and witnesses unnecessary attendance at court by reducing late cancellations and adjournments of trials. The figures are well known and accepted on both sides of the House. In
  728
  sheriff courts, more than 40 per cent. of trials are cancelled and 30 per cent. are adjourned, while only some 20 per cent. go ahead on the day specified. The Bill will help to deal with those problems and should be supported by the entire House.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but that is not the only issue that concerns people who attend court as witnesses. They are also concerned about the provision for witnesses. In some courts in Scotland, witnesses are not separated, which leads to intimidation of witnesses by others present, such as friends who may be there to give evidence for the defence rather than the prosecution. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Hamilton) is right to ask for the financial cost of implementing the best parts of the Bill. That needs to be spelt out so that we can ensure that facilities for witnesses attending sheriff courts do not allow for the aggression that takes place in many courts.
  Mr. Stewart: In principle, the hon. Gentleman is entirely right. As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has said, I have no doubt that intimidation takes place. My hon. Friend the Minister will be delighted to hear, however, that I am not advocating a general increase in public expenditure to deal with that—that would astonish the House—but the hon. Member makes a perfectly fair point. It is all very well for senior lawyers in Edinburgh to say that everything is all right but other hon. Members and I are well aware that intimidation occurs in such circumstances.
  I strongly support the record of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister on law and order in Scotland. Expenditure is not, of course, a measure of effectiveness, but there is no doubt that spending on law and order in Scotland has increased by 55 per cent. in real terms since 1979. There are now 1,500 more police officers in Scotland than there were in 1979; police constables' salaries have increased greatly; and victim support groups now receive substantial funding. I therefore believe that the Government's record is outstanding. I also believe, however, that there is never any room for complacency.
  I do not want to speak at length on the clear challenge to law and order that now exists in relation to the M77 extension. Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson), perhaps the most right-wing member of the Scottish Labour party, will disagree with me about the principle of the road. That is their right, but there was a demonstration at the weekend—we all saw the pictures—which was illegal. It did not conform with the terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which was passed by the House. As I recall, the provisions governing demonstrations were passed without a Division. That illegal demonstration was against the law of the land.
  The Minister has worked enormously hard in his capacity as the Minister with responsibility for roads—no one could have worked harder for the extension. He must accept that that demonstration, which is a challenge to the House of Commons and to the law of the land, must be met. The issue is not about trees or roads, but whether people can act illegally against the law that the House has passed.
  Mr. Mike Watson: Since the hon. Gentleman has impugned my reputation by describing me

  729
  as the most right-wing member of the Labour party in Scotland, I am bound to respond. I do not condone the violence that has occurred at the site of the proposed M77 extension, but when the hon. Gentleman speaks about upholding the law, he must recognise that those hon. Members who do not support that extension are concerned about the legality of the decision. In fact, we have the backing of official Labour party policy, which is in favour of a moratorium on motorway building. We are comfortable about that decision.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is some doubt about whether the motorway extension is legal, as it has not yet been clarified whether an environmental protection order was established before permission to give the go-ahead was granted? Does he accept that there are different aspects to legality and that whether the extension is built remains to be put firmly in a sound legal context?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot debate the M77 when discussing the Bill.
  Mr. Stewart: I wholly support the hon. Gentleman's right to put his point of view democratically. No doubt those on the Opposition Front Bench will, at an appropriate juncture, make it clear whether they support Strathclyde regional council.
  The Bill is about law and order, criminal justice and improving the legal system. A challenge has been launched against the law of Scotland, irrespective of our democratic views, by the Pollok free state and the illegal march. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, he will make it unequivocally clear that the House passes legislation about the laws of the United Kingdom and that the Government, or any other Government, are thereby committed to implementing those laws on behalf of the citizens of our country.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Ian Davidson: I would like to consider whether the measures in the Bill are likely to improve the real situation that faces people in the community. I want to look in particular at the provisions dealing with bail and to highlight a real difficulty faced by many of my constituents. It has been caused by groups of marauding young men and women, in gangs, who are terrorising decent people and committing serious assaults and robberies in small geographical areas.
  A particular gang, which has been active in part of my area for a while, is not being dealt with adequately by the existing legal system. I do not believe that the Bill's provisions will overcome that difficulty. The gang, which is known as the "Crossey Posse"—the name comes from the Crossloan road and, presumably, the diet of westerns of those youngsters—has been causing havoc. The police have identified them and are now taking some action against them. Of the 18 members, they have accumulated between them 259 arrests for violence, dishonesty, breaches of the peace and carrying weapons. It is clear that detection has not acted as a deterrent to those youngsters. The legal system does not seem able to protect decent people from them. The delays in the system and the way in which it operates often mean that those people, once caught, are freed to commit a similar or different offence that same weekend. I do not believe that any provisions in the Bill would remedy that problem.
  730
  The police, having identified that gang, are taking steps, with my support, to target those individuals. They gave me their case notes on the individuals involved and it is interesting to note that they all have one thing in common. If I go through their ages and their descriptions, even the Minister will recognise it. They are described as follows: aged 17 and unemployed; aged 17 and unemployed; aged 18 and unemployed; aged 21 and unemployed; aged 18 and unemployed; aged 18 and unemployed; aged 17 and unemployed; the next is 15 and is still at school; another is aged 19 and is unemployed; the next is 19 and is unemployed; another is 15 and is described as unemployed. Perhaps that information about the latter youngster came from a highland policeman with the gift of second sight, because a youngster of 15 will not yet be unemployed. Given his background, however, he is likely to be so in due course. The other members of the gang are described as follows: aged 20 and unemployed; aged 17 and unemployed; aged 16 and unemployed; aged 19 and unemployed; aged 16 and unemployed; aged 19 and unemployed; aged 17 and unemployed and aged 16 and unemployed.
  I believe that the fact that all those people are unemployed is more than a coincidence. The circumstances in which they grew up and developed do not excuse their behaviour, but the fact that they are unemployed, with, in the vast majority of cases, no prospect of gainful employment, affects the way in which they live their lives, alters their horizons, limits their choice and channels them into anti-social paths.
  The system does not appear to be dealing adequately with those people, given the offences that they have committed. One of those youngsters, aged 17, and unemployed as I mentioned, committed 34 offences and has 28 cases pending. Obviously, the system is not operating quickly enough if it allows someone to build up a backlog of 28 cases pending, eight of which were offences under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, whereby offences were committed while that person was on bail. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to occur.
  Another member of the gang had 41 arrests for various offences, and 31 of those cases are still pending, including nine under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act. If the system allows someone to accumulate that number of offences, the purpose of detection is partly lost. Detection should act as a deterrent. Those youngsters have been detected; they have been arrested; the papers are lying there, and nothing has happened.
  Another member of the gang had arrests for 19 offences, 14 of which are still pending, two under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act. Another member of the gang had arrests for 35 offences, 13 of which are still pending. Another had arrests for 42 offences, 18 of which are still pending, six under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act. Another had arrests for 52 offences, 15 of which are still pending, eight under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act. Another had arrests for 23 offences, 18 of which are still pending, four under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act.
  Can the Minister guarantee that the proposals in the Bill will ensure that offences do not accumulate to such an extent before a trial takes place? It causes great distress to many decent people in the community when they realise that youngsters committing crime are being caught but nothing is seen to happen. There is simply an accumulation of arrests and of pending cases, with no

  731
  penalties whatsoever. That discredits the system. I hope that the Minister will tell us clearly and unequivocally that action will be taken to ensure that that is not allowed to continue.
  I also hope that the Minister will clarify whether there are any measures in the Bill, or in the Government's mind to introduce in future, that affect the way in which the system deals with those who are involved with gangs, such as the one that I have described, whose members are under 16.
  One of the young people in the gang, aged 15, committed 36 offences and received eight supervision orders, 14 "no proceedings" decisions—largely, I am told by the police, on the basis that the enormously overworked procurator fiscal's department has better things to do with its time—referral discharges and 10 abandoned charges. Those were not light offences. They were crimes of dishonesty such as breaking into cars, shops and houses. There are several assaults and offences of dishonesty.
  When the system abandons any pretence at punishment, it is no wonder that the system is seen to be failing the people whom it is meant to protect.
  In my area, complaints from members of the public were so frequent that there was the threat of vigilante groups forming to deal with some of the gang members. The police, to be fair to them, acted after they were approached recently by a substantial delegation with petitions and they have drafted in extra personnel, but such support to the community is not sustainable in the longer term. The system must be adjusted so that decent people may be confident that wrongdoers will be punished.
  An argument was made earlier about the scale of police overtime wasted in courts. Certainly the staff of Govan police station tell me that a third of their overtime is wasted by waiting in court. In my opinion, that underestimates the scale of the problem, because many officers have their leave days adjusted in order to keep them in the station during the days when they are scheduled for trials. That is an enormous loss—an opportunity cost, as it were—when those officers should be doing something else. The figure of onethird grossly understates the real scale of wasted resources.
  The judicial system is seen to be failing decent people, and I do not think that the Government response is adequate to deal with the scale of unhappiness in the community about those matters.
  I see no evidence that the Government are prepared to do something that will make the existing bail system operate more constructively. For example, I would welcome the possibility of bail being conditional on a curfew in some circumstances—on the individuals involved staying away from specific areas where they have committed a series of offences in the past. We need fresher thinking from the Government on some of those issues.
  Several issues have not been adequately tackled by the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be minded to consider those under the Bill or elsewhere.
  One of the major difficulties is the problem of taking action against those who use houses owned by public authorities—council houses or housing association
  732
  properties—for dealing in drugs. I believe strongly that those involved in dealing in drugs from such houses should be evicted from them, and I think that the Government have a responsibility to try to make eviction easier than it is at the moment, because it can be a long and convoluted process. As the Government have been prepared to consider forfeiture of the artefacts used in the commission of crimes, they should consider seriously making it easier for local authorities or housing associations to evict people who are involved in drug dealing from houses that are owned by associations or councils.
  The Government should consider carefully the way in which they can introduce new legislation to help to curb anti-social behaviour by tenants in council or housing association property, especially when that involves excessive noise. That issue worries many people yet is not given the attention that it deserves, because few hon. Members live in property that is affected by noisy or anti-social neighbours. When one's next neighbour is two acres away, it is much easier to ignore the problems caused by noise than in circumstances where the neighbour lives next door and plays a stereo in the early hours of the morning.
  Mention has been made of the circumstances in which the court system can allow the intimidation of witnesses. However, the intimidation of witnesses before cases come to court is prevalent in many areas, and I am aware of little evidence that the Government are prepared to treat the problem seriously. One of the means of tackling the problem is housing transfer, but it is difficult to envisage how housing transfer can accommodate the justified fears that witnesses have, in circumstances where public housing is being cut so drastically.
  I am aware that, in my area, people living in public sector housing have appeared as witnesses for the prosecution. Their evidence has been vital to the prosecution cases yet, the case having finished, they are now being tormented by the friends of the guilty and the council cannot find adequate accommodation into which to transfer them. In those circumstances the Government have a responsibility to tackle that issue seriously. I recognise that there is no simple solution, but the problem must be recognised.
  Finally, the Government must consider the fact that prevention is better than cure. I have already mentioned the fact that crime breeds in situations of unemployment and poverty, and it is a cause of regret to me that, having been a councillor in part of the area that I now represent as a Member of Parliament, I have known many youngsters growing up in that community who, bereft of hope and prospects, have now turned into criminals. In many cases it was the best and brightest, with little chance of an apprenticeship and little chance of employment, who perhaps were not bright enough to go on to higher or further education. In some cases they were bright enough, but did not believe that higher or further education would guarantee them a job, and they realised that the people in their communities who were making the most money the fastest were those involved in drug dealing. To my regret, many of them have become involved in such practices. The Government have a responsibility—which they are too willing to ignore—to tackle the problem seriously. Many of the youngsters drift into crime—petty crime initially and more serious crime subsequently—because there is little alternative.

  733
  For the youths in my area, where the opening hours of community centres are being restricted and youth clubs are being closed, there is little alternative to hanging around on street corners. In those circumstances, the prospect of breaking into a chemist, a shop or a house is often more attractive than doing nothing. We live in a consumer society and such youngsters have aspirations the same as everyone else. They want money in their pocket and can see no legitimate way to achieve that. Regrettably, many of them—those with a bit of entrepreneurial flair—turn to crime. The Government cannot and should not continue to bury their head in the sand.
  Public spending will be necessary to try to combat crime. I have been struck by the way in which target hardening in my district has helped to protect houses, shops and business premises against break-ins. The concierge systems and closed circuit television cameras have combined to reduce drastically the prevalence of crime in specific areas, but such measures are not cheap and the Government must be willing to invest some money in trying to cut the cost of crime. Otherwise, the Bill will simply reorganise and improve some aspects of court procedure, but will not tackle the real burdens of crime carried by many citizens.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. I wish to associate myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) about Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. It seems strange to be debating the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill without Sir Nicholas behind me, egging me on and giving me the odd word of what he considered to be advice. I am sure that he is looking down on our proceedings today and shaking his head in disbelief that those of us who are left should have the temerity to tamper with his beloved Scottish legal system.
  In placing before the House the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, the Government send two clear, distinct messages. First, the passing of a specifically Scottish legal Act re-emphasises the uniqueness of the Scottish legal system, which we, north of the border, have always regarded as superior to that in England. Scotland's constitutional future appears to be the subject for almost daily deliberation and speculation in the pages of the newspapers. The fact that Scotland's legal system remains so distinctive and unique after almost 300 years of union, reiterates clearly that, far from the Union anglicising Scotland, it has given Scotland the identity and confidence to preserve and build on all that is distinctively and uniquely Scottish.
  The Scottish legal system joins our education system and our national Church in helping to form the basis on which our national identity is founded. We in the House would never seek to change that. Our passionate defence of the Union is grounded in the firm belief that, through union, Scotland's nationhood and institutions have flourished. That today's debate takes place in the House of Commons underlines the fact that the correct and proper place in which to debate Scottish affairs is here in the sovereign Parliament of Scotland.
  The second message from today's debate is that the Government remain determined to fight crime in every way that they can and to focus on driving fear from our streets and communities. My right hon. and hon. Friends
  734
  will be interested, although not surprised, to learn that a recent survey carried out in areas of my constituency showed that people's fear of crime remains one of their key concerns.
  People realise that much has been done to tackle crime. There are more policemen on the streets—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, about 1,500 more than there were when the Conservative party came to power in 1979. Crime detection is at its highest level for five years. There are stiffer sentences for some offences and more powers for courts to deal with offenders. However, despite all those developments, many people still believe that the legal system often fails the very people whom it is designed to protect. It is self-defeating for the police to gather evidence and make arrests, if the court system does not deal with cases quickly and efficiently, and ensure that justice is seen to be done.
  In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminded the House of the Bill's background—of the lengthy period of consultation that has involved the legal profession in Scotland, the police and, most importantly, the public, all uniting to create a coalition for change. In examining all aspects of the Scottish criminal justice system, from legal aid to juries, from sentencing to admissible evidence, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have drawn up a Bill that is balanced and thorough and commands a good deal of public and professional support.
  Through a detailed and systematic review of the criminal justice system, the Government have ensured that Scots will continue to have respect for the law and to have confidence in the system. Our legal system works well. Nevertheless, it makes good sense to carry out a regular and full audit, and to evaluate whether the system is working as smoothly and fairly as we would all want. Through what my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has referred to in another place as an "overhaul", the Scottish criminal justice system is being prepared for the challenges of the new millennium. For those reasons, I warmly support the measures in the Bill, which will serve to reinforce public confidence in our justice system.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined the Bill's major aspects and I have no intention of prevailing upon the patience of the House by merely repeating what he said. I shall, however, comment briefly on a few aspects of the Bill. The introduction of intermediate diets will be welcomed throughout Scotland. People will see cases coming to court much more quickly than at present. The Government have often emphasised the duty to highlight the needs of victims and witnesses, rather than just the criminal. Intermediate diets will provide an opportunity for both the defence and the prosecution to agree upon matters relating to a case that are not in dispute. Any such measure, which avoids the need for a witness or victim to undergo the trauma of testimony face to face with a defendant, must be viewed as a welcome development.
  The clauses designed to amend the appeals procedure will also free court time. It is entirely unacceptable for the court system to be snarled up by an endless conveyor belt of appeals. Of course, the right of appeal must remain an inalienable right in a modern, enlightened democracy. No one in the House would want the right of appeal to be denied to anyone with a deserving case, but we must be practical. The number of appeals coming before Scottish courts has nearly trebled over the past 10 years. More and
  735
  more frequently, the court case and conviction, far from marking a conclusion to the legal process, merely mark the beginning of a fresh round of procedures, which are placing an intolerable strain on court time and the court system.
  For many defendants, the decision to appeal is a knee-jerk reaction to conviction. Often, little or no consideration is given to the merits of an appeal. Too many appeals seem to be motivated by a triumph of hope over expectation—the clutching at straws over reality. I welcome the proposals to allow a judge to decide on the merits of an appeal before court time is wasted. Provided that safeguards remain to ensure that deserving cases are not dismissed prematurely, surely the proposals will meet with the support of hon. Members.
  There are few aspects of our legal system that inflame public opinion more than that of the so-called bail bandit—the defendant out on bail who goes on to commit further offences. Recent research suggests that 12 per cent. of those out on bail commit further offences. That is entirely unacceptable; bail is a privilege, not a right. It should be an option only when it is believed that further offending is unlikely. A breach of that trust should carry a heavy penalty. The ability to add six months' imprisonment for bail offences, in addition to any sentence imposed, is most welcome.
  The clauses extending the rights of Scottish courts to deprive offenders of the proceeds of their crimes follow the already strenuous efforts by the Government to ensure that law breaking is never rewarded. Both those measures send an unequivocal message to criminals that their behaviour will not be tolerated.
  The recent introduction of fiscal fines to deal with minor drug offences has been widely welcomed as a constructive development to deal with the escalating drug problem. The Bill will extend the range of offences for which fiscal fines can be imposed. Some have misconstrued fiscal fines for minor drug-possession offences as turning a blind eye to wrongdoing—as almost tacitly condoning the practice. A few have even ventured the suggestion that it marks the effective legalisation of drugs. That is certainly not the case. In the same way, the offences for which fiscal fines will become available will not be regarded as lesser offences simply because the matter does not go to court.
  Fiscal fines represent a reasoned and logical response to the clogged court system; they are not a green light for certain crimes and no one should consider them as such. If used sensibly, they will provide an effective tool for streamlining the court system and ensuring that a court spends its time deliberating serious and deserving cases rather than acting as a clearing house for petty offences.
  However, we must never fall into the trap of the blanket use of fiscal fines. Each case must be viewed on its merits, as I believe that there will always be cases where the defendant should answer to a court. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's assurance that the system will allow the prosecutor to elect for a trial rather than impose a fiscal fine if he deems it appropriate.
  The public will warmly welcome the development of sentencing guidelines. I have no wish to highlight specific examples of when a sentence imposed by a sheriff or judge has caused anger and upset to those involved with a case, and a sense of general bewilderment, anger and
  736
  sometimes outrage in the wider community. However, we are all familiar with such cases from the newspapers and from our mail.
  Understandably, the media tend to highlight isolated examples of when justice has not been seen to be done. But of course, in highlighting the bad, the media obscure the many thousands of cases each year where conviction is followed by an appropriate sentence. Yet it is the few sensational examples of, shall we say, eccentric sentencing that undermine confidence in the entire criminal justice system.
  The introduction of sentencing guidelines will serve an extremely useful function in attempting to eliminate the isolated cases where the punishment has clearly not fitted the crime. Of course, we must be mindful of the fact that sentencing guidelines can act only as an aid to sentencing in Scottish courts. I believe that the House never would or should sanction the introduction of sentencing rules. The sheriff or judge must retain a degree of autonomy and some room for manoeuvre in deciding upon an appropriate sentence. Flexibility and discretion are surely one reason why the Scottish legal system is admired throughout the world. Nevertheless, guidelines will be welcomed by those who are responsible for handing down sentences and they will assist in providing uniformity in the nature of sentences between courts.
  I wish to remark briefly on the proposal to allow the prosecution to comment upon a defendant's silence during a trial. As the hon. Member for Hamilton said, the right to silence has long been a source of controversy within legal circles. As the House is aware, sweeping changes to the right to silence were contained within the criminal justice Act relating to England and Wales. The fact that the proposals that are before the House today are radically different from those relating to England and Wales provides a further illustration of the distinctive nature of the criminal justice system in Scotland and the way in which the House deals with it.
  I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to the Scottish Office for carrying out such detailed consultation on options to amend or even to abolish the right to silence. The Conservative party defends stoutly the rights of the individual. We have always emphasised the need to protect and enhance individual freedoms and rights. For that reason, a decision to erode the rights of the individual in the eyes of the law would be taken only after a great deal of careful thought and consideration. I welcome the fact that the Bill proposes to retain the individual's right to silence, but allows the prosecutor, in turn, the right to highlight a defendant's silence. I believe that that strikes a balance between the rights of the individual and the desire to ensure that a correct verdict is reached in the court.
  I am sure that the changes outlined in clause 28 will satisfy the majority of people in Scotland who feel that, if people have nothing to hide, they will lose nothing by responding to questions put to them in court. As jurors are currently able to consider the silence of a defendant in arriving at a verdict, the change merely clarifies the position and may help to persuade defendants to put their side of the story on record during a trial.
  In conclusion, I would like to convey to the House the views of some of my constituents. Since my election to the House in 1992, I have been surprised by the number of letters that I have received from people who are the unfortunate victims of crime. In almost every case, the

  737
  person asks why the system always seems to be on the side of the criminal and why the victim is constantly neglected or subjected to further suffering, often through the need to testify in court.
  There is no doubt that the Bill continues the process of redressing the balance away from the criminal and toward the victim. We welcome the fact that, through the Bill's provisions, many victims will be saved the ordeal of testifying. Similarly, victims will be reassured that the proceeds of crime are likely to be forfeited by the guilty party and that further crimes by an accused who is out on bail simply will not be tolerated.
  In short, the Bill signals the Government's determination to continue to crack down on crime and on criminals. Crime affects every constituency in Scotland as well as those throughout the United Kingdom. A crime-free society is an unattainable ideal. However, by supporting the Bill, hon. Members can play a part in putting in place measures that will further strengthen the courts' ability to deal with crime and with criminals. The people of Scotland expect and they deserve nothing less.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) has left his place temporarily because I wish to tell him that, even though few hon. Members are present for the debate, I am sure that I am not the only one who was impressed by the somewhat Churchillian flourish with which he began his comments on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. It leads one to believe that, on all those self-contained and self-disciplined occasions when the hon. Gentleman stood at the Dispatch Box, he had the capacity, even the desire, to engage in rhetorical flourish.
  That reference to rhetorical flourish brings me inevitably to a subject about which comment has been made already in the debate—the absence of Sir Nicholas Fairbairn from our midst. According to the conventions of the House, I could not call him "my friend", but outside the House he was my friend for a very long time. Like many hon. Members, I mourn the fact that he is no longer with us to ensure, through his curious amalgamation of ridicule and intellectual rigour, that the attention of the House is focused upon the detail of a measure such as the Bill.
  Those of us who sat through the debates on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill in the summer of 1990 will remember that as probably Sir Nicholas's finest hour—to use a Churchillian phrase—as he subjected the Minister, and indeed the whole Committee, to a full-frontal intellectual assault and, on occasion, made the Government's proposals look threadbare and second rate. It is a great pity that he will not be able to do that again on this and on other occasions.
  With Sir Nicholas's passing, I believe that I am the only remaining practising member of the Faculty of Advocates in the House. Therefore, I declare an interest in the debate as the matters with which we are concerned might, on occasion, form part of the consideration of someone who is practising in the Scottish criminal courts.
  Any opportunity to discuss the criminal law of Scotland should be welcomed by hon. Members. I do not exempt members of my own party from what I am about to say: I think that the poverty of attendance in the Chamber is a sad reflection on the seriousness with which people regard an important issue of this kind.
  738
  The Secretary of State began his remarks by drawing the attention of the House to some statistical information which he thought reflected well upon the Government's policies. He would do well to bear in mind the repeated warnings of Dr. Ian Oliver, the chief constable of Grampian—who has a robust reputation in such matters—that crime figures are notoriously unreliable as indicators of the true level of crime in society. The House would also do well to recall that, according to the most recently issued figures, crime in the category which includes vandalism and fireraising has risen by 5 per cent. Crimes of violence have risen by 2 per cent. and crimes in the category which includes drug offences have risen by 7 per cent. I do not think that those figures, which reflect specific areas of criminal behaviour, entitle any of us to enjoy a sense of comfort or achievement.
  The Secretary of State also referred to the Bill's history. It is true that there have been consultation papers. It is a matter of judgment, but I do not believe that there is any evidence to suggest that the Bill which is now before the House has sprung from a systematic overall review of the Scottish criminal system. I particularly regret the fact that, whereas in the early 1970s, we had the benefit of a committee, the distinguished chairman of which was the late Lord Thomson, and two helpful and far-reaching reports, on this occasion we had no such assistance.
  As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, the Bill is a clear example of legislative proposals that should be scrutinised in a domestic Parliament. When people seek to draw distinctions between Scotland and that which may be available to Northern Ireland, it is often left out of account that Scotland's domestic law system is the only one in western Europe that lacks its own legislature. This debate may emphasise that as much as anything that I can say, but it is a compelling argument for a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
  These proceedings would also be better informed if we had taken evidence, as has been done with the Children (Scotland) Bill, from practitioners in Scotland, including the Faculty of Advocates; the Glasgow Bar Association, whose political complexion is neither here nor there; the Law Society of Scotland; the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties; the chief constables and the Police Federation. They are concerned daily with problems that we debate in abstract because, with few exceptions, we have no day-to-day experience of them—so our consideration of the Bill is necessarily flawed.
  The explanatory and financial memorandum states that the Bill will be cost neutral, meaning that no additional resources will be made available. How many cases reported by the police to the procurator fiscal are marked "No pro"—that is, no proceedings—each year? Once proceedings have begun, and how many cases are dropped each year? Those statistics will give some indication of the extent to which anecdotal evidence that claims that the system is overburdened is justified.
  Why are there temporary judges of the High Court of Justiciary? Why do more individuals hold commissions as temporary sheriffs than hold commissions as full-time sheriffs? The strength of the Scottish system is that it has been based on full-time, professional judges—unlike' England and Wales, which use lay magistrates to far greater extent. If the Government are so committed to maintaining the Scottish legal system, why is increasing reliance placed on temporary High Court judges or

  739
  temporary sheriffs? If commissions are justified, that can be only because work exists and judges are required to deal with it.
  If we embark on a system in which intermediate diets play a fuller part and judicial examination may be extended in the way proposed, that will do nothing other than impact on judicial time. It seems self-evident that if the proposals are to work, additional resources will be required.
  There was extended debate in the other place about victims. After 27 years of practising law in Scotland, I have reached the view that we have not in the past dealt properly with the victims of crime. I am wholly committed to the network of victim support agencies that has developed, not least in my constituency. Victim support is a separate and distinct function, and best done through the voluntary network now in place. Victims are assisted by clear information on the nature of procedures, scheduling of cases and their outcome. It is important to remember that all prosecutions in Scotland are brought in the public interest by the Lord Advocate, with the assistance of the procurator fiscal system. Private prosecution is extremely rare in Scotland. Our system does not have any principle of self-help or anything that might be thought to impinge on revenge. Other systems do.
  I am worried that suggestions of consulting victims or even juries about penalties, which had some currency in the other place, move away from our legal system's objective and public interest nature. Sentencing must be the responsibility of judges. It must not be exercised in a vacuum. There must be proper training of judges on sentencing at all levels. They must not be bound by a tariff, as some suggest, but be aware of prevailing levels. The Bill's proposals in that respect are perfectly acceptable. Sentencing must be subject also to the supervision of the High Court—which, in the determination of appeals, may find itself able to give the guidance that is necessary for judges of inferior courts.
  The essential feature is that every case must be determined on its merits. We must remember that reports of court proceedings that we receive from constituents, read in newspapers, see on television or hear on radio do not always reveal the whole circumstances of the case put before the court. Sentences must be judged objectively, not by the reactions of newspapers, Members of Parliament, victims or their families.
  The Bill's complexity is almost overwhelming. Some hon. Members will be familiar with the principle, "Ignorantia iuris neminem excusat"—ignorance of the law excuses no man. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, think that that principle is important, I suggest that you read clause 37 and then ask yourself whether you are sufficiently seized of the Government's proposals to be certain that you understand the law in Scotland on the particular matters that clause concerns. The argument for simplification or codification is overwhelming. If we are to say to people that ignorance of the law is no defence, we have an overwhelming obligation to ensure that the law is readily understood, and not just by lawyers.
  The Bill is welcome for attempting to create a more efficient system of justice. The provisions to obtain agreement on non-contentious evidence are entirely laudable, and the intermediate diet procedure seems a sensible extension of a principle that has been in operation in other parts of the system. The Bill seeks to amend bail
  740
  provisions, and that justifies further discussion in Committee. I may have views about certain details of those proposals. To the extent that the Bill implements proposals of the Scottish Law Commission on confiscation and forfeiture, that, too, is welcome.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton prayed in aid two authorities to support his views on the not proven verdict. The first was Sir Walter Scott. Anyone who read reviews of the most recent biography of Sir Walter, some of which were to be found in the weekend newspapers, may take the view for the moment that Sir Walter is not an authority on which one could place much reliance. In any event, as so much of that which is written about Sir Walter is apocryphal, it is the opinion of many people that he was driven to write the Waverley novels because he could not earn a living at the Scottish Bar. If that be so, his somewhat dismissive reference to the not proven verdict may not help much.
  The hon. Member for Hamilton also referred to the English royal commission, which rejected the verdict of not proven in what one might describe as dismissive terms. We should remember, however, that the English commission was dealing with a system that requires a verdict of 10 to two to convict. That is entirely different from the Scottish system. Any change to the three existing verdicts could not, I believe, be properly effected in isolation, because we should then have to consider whether a system in which a person could be found guilty by eight votes to seven on a jury of 15 provided sufficient protection in the absence of the not proven verdict.
  I accept that, on these occasions, anecdote is much more likely to triumph than objectivity, but it is my personal view and experience that the not proven verdict is a necessary protection in a system in which a person may be convicted by the odd vote in 15. It is also a sophisticated verdict; the jury expresses itself unwilling to give a certificate of credibility to the accused.
  A woman in my constituency made a complaint about a sexual offence. She went to court and was subjected to the kind of harrowing and—sometimes inevitably—unpleasant cross-examination which accompanies cases of this sort. In the end, the verdict was not proven. Afterwards she told me that that verdict had allowed her to leave the court with a certain sense of dignity. Had the verdict been not guilty, it would have meant that she had not been believed.
  We can speculate about the reasons why people will or will not come forward, depending on what they think the outcome of a case may be, but when sexual offences are alleged I believe that the not proven verdict is often an extremely important part of the system. It should not be cast aside lightly.
  We should not change these verdicts out of a sense of sympathy with the outrage that victims or their families may feel. One understands why people feel aggrieved by the result of criminal trials, but my judgment is that people who are offended by a verdict of not proven are hardly likely to be less offended if the verdict is one of not guilty.
  Mr. George Robertson: This appears to be a rerun of debates that have taken place elsewhere, although I appreciate that some hon. Members may not have heard them before.

  741
  In my defence, I should point out that Lord Wheatley and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) are two contemporary figures whose views substantiate the point that I was making about not proven—if Sir Walter Scott is not to be taken as a contemporary source.
  Will the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that the case that I outlined this afternoon was not based on any particular trial in which the family of a victim was left aggrieved—although such cases do exist? My point is that the not proven verdict is just as unfair to the accused, who leaves with a stain on his or her character, as it is to the aggrieved victims, who may feel that justice has not been done.
  Mr. Campbell: I have represented a number of accused people who—because of or despite the defence that I have mounted on their behalf—have had their cases found not proven. Not one of them has ever complained to me about the nature of the verdict. The hon. Gentleman may attach importance to the question of stains on the characters of accused people, but those in receipt of such verdicts do not apparently attach quite so much importance to it. I was not trying to argue ad hominem, except to say that I think that issues of this kind cannot be considered in isolation or in the abstract. If this proposal is to be discussed in Committee, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may have to come up with other amendments then, designed to put his proposals for the not proven verdict into the broader context which they undoubtedly deserve.
  I have been puzzled by the claim that the abolition of the peremptory objection and the abolition of the need to state a juror's occupation on the jury list will enhance the administration of justice. In place of the peremptory objection, we are offered the institution of something that may be described as a joint application for excusal. That may embrace more problems than it seeks to solve. What if, for instance, there is an intransigent agent or advocate for the defence? What about an intransigent prosecutor? In the real world one hopes that neither will be intransigent, but the fact is that people may take a concluded professional view in respect of an excusal, based on an analysis of what seems to them best for the prosecution or for the defence. In such circumstances agreement will not be possible; nor, therefore, will a joint application for excusal be possible.
  I am sorry to note that the hon. Member for Eastwood is no longer here, but I point out that the fact that a person may have a particular occupation may give rise to an apprehension—not necessarily in the minds of the professionals engaged in the defence—on the part of the accused person that the person with that occupation will not be entirely objective. Let us imagine a case in which it is alleged that someone has attacked a postman on his rounds. The accused, who is entitled, as we have often heard, to a presumption of innocence, is likely to think that having a postman on the jury will give rise to an apprehension that objectivity will be difficult to achieve.
  Another illustration—I am afraid that this often happens now—concerns a doctor to whose local surgery a false call has been put through and who is then ambushed by someone lying in wait for him to steal his drugs. Here again there might be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the ambusher that objectivity would he difficult to achieve if a doctor served on the jury.
  742
  The retention of the peremptory objection is thus a legitimate power in the hands of the defence, and it does no damage to the administration of justice.
  Much has been made of the position of the accused at judicial examination and at trial in circumstances when he or she gives no evidence. There has, I think, been an understandable but flawed tendency to run the two issues together. They are quite separate, and they raise separate considerations. If enacted as drafted, clause 10 will turn judicial examination into something that may not quite justify the conclusion that it is an inquisitorial hearing, but it will have rather more of that character than has perhaps been appreciated hitherto.
  An accused person may well be vulnerable at the time, because judicial examination follows hard upon a person being taken into custody. The accused is vulnerable because he or she is confused, apprehensive, upset and even frightened: and because at this stage he or she may have no knowledge of the facts on which the prosecution intends to proceed. That absence of knowledge may be shared by the defence solicitor.
  As matters stand, the solicitor who appears on behalf of an accused person at judicial examination has no right to object to any of the questions—so a protection available at trial will not be available at the time of the judicial examination. The position of a solicitor will be difficult, either because the accused may be forced to answer questions that might ultimately prejudice the defence, or because the accused, on the advice of the solicitor, will say nothing, and that failure to comment may be relied on at a later stage. For a solicitor brought in at short notice, with little knowledge at this stage of the nature of the prosecution's case, it will create an intolerable professional burden.
  There is no need for those provisions. I have yet to be convinced that there is any utility attached to them.
  Clause 28 raises a different issue. At the moment, at least, I am open minded about it. If a prosecutor is given the right to refer to the fact that the accused has not given evidence, the accused should have had by that stage the benefit of legal advice—tactical and sometimes strategic—on whether it would be right to give evidence. The facts will be known because the evidence will have been led. A conscious decision will have been made not to give evidence. At that stage, both in summary proceedings and solemn proceedings—that is to say, before a judge and jury—the defence will have had the opportunity to make a motion that there is no case to answer.
  The provisions of clause 28 raise a different issue from those that are contained in clause 10. There is at least scope for putting the Government to the test of establishing that what they propose in clause 28 is justified. I can say as someone who has prosecuted, but not in recent time, that it was never difficult for the prosecutor to find a form of words that conveyed to the jury precisely the point with which the clause is designed to deal. For example, the prosecutor might say, "Ladies and gentlemen, you might have benefited if you had heard other explanations of what took place, but you have heard only the explanation of the victim." He might make the same comments and then say, "You have heard only from the two police officers who saw what was happening." Such comments are legitimate under the present system. On that footing it may be difficult to maintain as stoutly

  743
  as some have that what is proposed in clause 28 is damaging and dangerous. Clause 10 is of a different category.
  References have been made to miscarriages of justice. Although he is not in his place, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), who conducted a most responsible and informed campaign on behalf of one of his constituents, Mr. Raymond Gilmour. I had the benefit of reading all the public papers that are attached to that case. This is not an occasion for going into its merits, but it is worth reminding ourselves—even those of us who are so impressed by the quality of the Scottish legal system—that cases of that type do arise from time to time, which raises apprehension both inside and outside the legal profession as to whether a just verdict has been achieved.
  As I have already said in an intervention, the Lord Justice-General and the Lord Justice Clerk in Scotland have taken different views about the existing statutory provisions that relate to the availability of evidence on appeal and which might have been thought to be available at the time of a trial such as that of Raymond Gilmour. I refer to the matter in passing because it shows that there is no such thing as judicial infallibility. It may even demonstrate in a quite compelling way that if the two senior judges in Scotland are at odds on such an issue, the need for early legislation relating to alleged miscarriages of justice and the availability of evidence is paramount.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to some solicitors who, he said, persuaded clients to plead not guilty until the last moment. No doubt there are some—I would not suggest that there is none. It is often difficult, however, to persuade an accused person to plead guilty, even if the evidence is overwhelming. In some cases there are difficult questions of law that have to be the subject of careful consideration. In other cases difficult issues arise about the availability of witnesses and whether witnesses will stick with the version of events that they may have given either to the prosecution or to the defence. Late pleas of guilty, damaging though they are to the administration of justice and dissipating of funds and valuable court time, are not necessarily always to be explained by the notion of greedy lawyers seeking to protract proceedings to line their own pockets.
  The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) referred to the powers of licensing boards. I declare an interest because I have a particular professional interest. There is scope for some amendment to the law that allows the boards the opportunity, when they decide to suspend a liquor licence, to act at least on an interim basis. Once an appeal has been marked against such a suspension, it should be possible for the board to go to the sheriff to argue that until the appeal is determined the licence should not be allowed to operate. At present, once an appeal is marked, all the previous proceedings are suspended and someone whose licence may have been suspended under section 31 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 may continue gaily operating his licence until such time as the local sheriff has dealt with the appeal. That is a matter to which further consideration should be given. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley raised the matter because of recent events in Ayr.
  744
  There are some things about the Bill that are to be welcomed but there are others that are not entitled to the same reception. The weakness of the Bill is that there does not appear to be any discernible scheme behind it. It carries more than a hint of doing something or anything to meet a tide of public opinion that is increasingly anxious about the nature of criminal activity in Scotland. The Bill is undoubtedly capable of improvement in Committee. If it reaches that stage, I hope that it will receive such improvement.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I shall be brief because I know that others wish to speak. I listened with great care to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). His contributions to Bills of this sort are important and welcome. As has been said, I am sure that we all miss the wit and wisdom of my late Friend, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. Both he and the hon. and learned Gentleman brought valuable hands-on experience to Scottish legal Bills. I do not have that experience but I welcome the Bill for two reasons.
  First, I welcome the Bill because on the basis of public confidence there are areas of the law that must be considered fairly regularly so that we can keep pace with public concern. There will be opportunities during our consideration of the Bill—I hope to be able to make use of them—to table amendments on sentencing policy. I am a great believer in deterrent sentencing. That is not the only vehicle to be considered but it is an important one when it comes to recognising and meeting concerns.
  It is important to recognise, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East has said, that the judiciary is not infallible. Mistakes will occur. We must expect that and so we must have a system that addresses it. We must recognise also that there can be technical malfunctions in the way in which a court is administered and run. I can think of a recent instance where a jury was confused. That confusion led to sentencing problems. That is another issue that may call for amendments.
  Secondly, I welcome the Bill because it is designed to tighten bail provisions. There is great concern that those who are given bail offend again. I welcome the fact that we are retaining the not proven verdict. It is a valuable provision in Scotland. If a jury is not satisfied that a case has been proven beyond reasonable doubt but it is not satisfied that the accused is not guilty, the parties can leave court at least knowing that the case has not been proven one way or the other. That is important. I also welcome the fact that we shall consider in Committee the important question of how people can or cannot be drawn into answering questions.
  As I said, my speech is very brief because I hope to use the opportunity in Committee—like most Scottish Conservative Members, I expect that I shall have no option but to be in Committee—to table and speak to amendments on important points in the Bill.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Mike Watson: As an hon. Member who represents an inner-city constituency, I know only too well and come into regular contact with many of the activities to which hon. Members of all parties have referred, not least the tragic toll of deaths relating to drug taking. There were 95 such deaths in 1994

  745
  in the Strathclyde region, many, I am sorry to say. in my constituency. My constituency, like many other inner-city constituencies, also witnessed various other violent activities such as attacks on the person, often unprovoked and, apparently, for no reason. There is also a considerable amount of car crime, burglary, sexual attacks—sadly—and of course the increasingly visible effects of domestic violence, which is prevalent throughout society.
  All those crimes in my constituency go hand in hand with many of the effects of an appalling standard of living, to which many of my constituents are condemned. In many cases that standard of living means that my constituents have to put up with appalling housing, which is very badly maintained, frequently damp and badly repaired. Of course increasing numbers of young people are unable even to obtain such housing. There is high unemployment and another sad death toll every winter of old-age pensioners who are unable adequately to heat their accommodation.
  All that adds up to a picture of which no Government can be proud. It would be unfair to blame it entirely on the Government, although it would be equally fatuous to suggest that they had no part to play and that they were not, in some respect, responsible. I concede that many of the conditions will continue to exist under a Labour Government, but the question is: how will we respond? One of the ways in which to respond is to ensure that the police are adequately resourced.
  An astonishing statistic was revealed in Strathclyde last month, when Leslie Sharp, the much respected chief constable, announced that the full complement of staff for his force had reached some 4,200. That was astonishing because that level was set in 1974, during the previous round of local government reorganisation, when Strathclyde region came into being. In the 20 or more years since the region was established, that level had never been met and there had never been a full complement of police officers, despite the fact that I and other hon. Members who represented the Strathclyde region were often lobbied by Leslie Sharp and his predecessor and, that we, in turn, lobbied Scottish Office Ministers for adequate resources to enable the police to do the job demanded of them. It was, however, a false dawn because this month, after that announcement, the figure has again fallen blow complement. Due to national wastage, retirement and non-filling of vacancies, Leslie Sharp's police force is again below its full complement and he does not have sufficient officers for the many difficult and trying jobs which face them.
  It is not simply that Strathclyde regional council has been profligate with its resources. Goodness knows, it is short of resources in so many ways, as the Secretary of State knows well since he has heard myself, other colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) specifically speak on local authority funding in recent weeks.
  Nor is it sufficient for the Secretary of State to say that the local authority has the resources that it needs to carry out its functions and to give police adequate staff to carry out their job. Patently, they do not have sufficient resources. Of course I welcome and commend falling crime figures, which to a large extent result from increased police activity, but every time that I meet police officers—representing a city-centre constituency, I cover
  746
  a number of divisions in the city of Glasgow and meet regularly with the police—they consistently return to the question of resources.
  One of the questions that we should be asking in this debate is: why does crime continue to flourish? I am aware of the figures which have been quoted, but, none the less, a considerable number of people do very well out of criminal activities, often at the hands of those people who can least afford it. Parents regularly come to my surgeries or write to me in despair asking what can be done; why cannot the police put a stop to crime and why are the local peddlers of drugs on the street corner well known to everyone in the community, yet—apparently—the police are unable to act and arrest them?
  I know that the sellers on the street corner are not the major problem; they are the visible aspect only of the problem. None the less, it is difficult to explain to my constituents that the resources to deal with crime in the community are available when, in many cases, petty criminals are well known and appear to flourish and act impudently in their own area.
  A major factor to consider in fighting crime is its root causes. I am aware that that argument does not carry much weight with Conservative Members, but the causes of crime are frequently economic or socio-economic. The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) highlighted the difficulty that he has encountered in his constituency, which is replicated in—I suspect—hundreds of constituencies, including those of Conservative Members. It is not simply enough to say that people get themselves into such difficulty. Not many trainee chartered accountants or law students or young self-employed people are involved in crime. Nor, indeed, are many apprentice bricklayers or hairdressers indulging in crime, drugs and such activities. Nor is it simply a working-class or middle-class phenomenon. By and large, people indulge in crime because they have little else to do. I am aware that that is a generalisation, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree.
  Any democratic and caring society ought to be able to provide the chance to get a decent education, training which will lead to a job, a decent house and the ability to establish a permanent relationship and—one hopes—raise a family in the belief that our children will have a reasonable opportunity to build a life for themselves. Today's society is unable to provide those chances and those opportunities are plainly absent from the lives of too many young people. It is a mere pipe dream for them. As a result, many seek escape through the crime to which I have referred, especially—sadly—relating to drugs. The attendant crime necessary to finance such activity has all sorts of spin-off effects.
  I am not offering that dearth of opportunity as an excuse for the lawlessness which is increasingly evident among young people; I am simply suggesting that it is part of the explanation and must be taken into account. We cannot tackle crime without tackling the causes of it. A strong and sustainable economy, which provides training, jobs and hope is much more likely to turn young people away from crime than any amount of police resources or any amount of community activities even though they have, of course, a part to play.
  The Bill is about changing the law and not simply about dealing with crime and how to respond to it, important though that is. I hope that the Bill is also about improving the law; moving it forward and making it more relevant

  747
  to the 1990s and beyond the millennium. Like all hon. Members, I recognise the expertise and vast experience of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). He outlined a number of ways in which the Bill could have improved the law of Scotland, but has missed the opportunity to do so.
  I shall highlight a specific area in which the law could be improved, which relates to a debate on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill a year and a week ago this evening.
  The debate that stirred up the greatest amount of public interest in respect of that legislation concerned new clause 3 which dealt with the age of consent in relation to homosexual acts in private. That debate produced a change in the law. The age of consent was reduced from 21 to 18 although moves to reduce it to 16 were defeated by a majority of 27 votes. An overwhelming majority of 265 were in favour of decreasing the age to 18 and that is now the law.
  The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill offers an opportunity to carry that law forward and, in a sense, to take the next step towards the logical conclusion of the progress in last year's debate. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to rehearse the arguments for an equal age of consent for all, but I believe that it is totally illogical to have an age of consent of 16 for heterosexuals and 18 for male homosexuals.
  I want to concentrate on the Scottish aspect of that debate because Scottish Members made their views very clear in the debate last year. Fifty-three of the 72 Scottish Members, the hon. Members who have a particular interest in the Bill that we are discussing today, voted in favour of the age of 16, and 17 voted against that age. There have been changes since last year's debate and new Members for constituencies elsewhere in the United Kingdom would affect attitudes towards an age of consent of 16 if the matter were voted upon again. I hope that this Bill will allow us an opportunity to do that.
  In 1991, the Crown Office in Scotland instituted a review of the prosecution policy on consenting homosexual acts. At that time, the Crown Office issued a circular to procurators fiscal—circular No. 2025/1—instructing them that in a reported case of sex between men
  "where both of the participants are over 16 but one or both are under 18 and the act appears to have been consensual and in private"
  procurators fiscal should report the case to the Crown Office for consideration by Crown counsel. Only two cases have been reported in the four years since then. The instruction was reconfirmed in June 1994, but the Crown Office has stated that the review of policy is continuing.
  After the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Outright Scotland—the lesbian, gay and bisexual rights organisation—approached Lothian and Borders police specifically about their policy on pursuing private consenting sexual acts between men over 16. Lothian and Borders police have confirmed publicly that
  "such investigations appear nowhere on our list of priorities."
  However, they said that if a complaint were received from a member of the public, they would be bound to investigate.
  Although the law is not being upheld actively by the police or the Crown Office, young gay men remain at risk of police investigation brought on by a complaint to the
  748
  police by anyone, be that a neighbour or an unfriendly acquaintance. The current law brands young gay men as second-class citizens from the age of 16 and it acts to discourage many young gay people from seeking the advice and help that they need from their parents, doctors, teachers or the police.
  The question of whether there should be an equal age of consent is not simply a matter of equality: it is a matter of human rights and of civil rights. It is wrong, and ultimately unsustainable, that young gay men should be criminalised and stigmatised for doing what their heterosexual friends do perfectly legally—that is, making love with a partner of their choice.
  Many of our European Union partners are considerably ahead of us in terms of legislation with regard to the age of consent. Many of us have a great deal of good will towards Ireland, but with the best will in the world we would not categorise Ireland as a liberal country. However, Ireland has an equal age of consent at 17 which is ahead of the United Kingdom.
  It is somewhat ironic that the playwright Oscar Wilde was sentenced to two years in Reading gaol almost exactly 100 years ago in May 1895, but discrimination against gay men is still effectively legalised. Stonewall carried out a survey of 2,000 lesbians, gay men and bisexuals which found that 8 per cent. had been sacked from their employment, 48 per cent. had been harassed and 68 per cent. were not fully confident enough to talk about their sexuality at work for fear of the consequences. It is appalling that, in 1995, people should be afraid to be open about their sexuality because they fear for their jobs.
  As I have said, an age of consent of 18 still criminalises young men when the law claims that it is actually there to protect them. The stark fact is that the law as it stands does not act as a deterrent. As has been demonstrated, there exists among the police neither the will nor the ability to enforce that law effectively.
  It should be self-evident that the criminal law should have no role in matters of private morality where consenting adults are concerned. Scots law has often been ahead of its English and Welsh counterparts, as other hon. Members have said. I suggest that it should take the lead again. When this Bill enters Committee, I hope that an amendment will be tabled which will allow the House to vote on the age of consent.
  I do not see it as a matter of Scotland having a different age of consent from the rest of the United Kingdom. I see Scotland as simply moving one step ahead because it is clear, on the basis of the vote a year ago, that when the matter comes before the House as it affects England and Wales, as well as Scotland, the vote in favour of 16 will be carried. This Bill offers an opportunity for Scots law to move ahead and to give a lead. I very much hope that such a lead will be taken in Committee.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I would like to give a last salute to Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. This debate would have been a perfect medium for his expertise, experience and wit which could skewer as well as edify at times. We are all the poorer for the loss of his very individual contributions to this particular subject and to other debates in the House.

  749
  The Bill is basically a general review of the mechanism through which crime is dealt at judicial level and measures for robbing criminals of the proceeds of their crimes. While I have specific reservations about the Bill, I welcome attempts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Scottish criminal justice system.
  It is essential that justice is enhanced through the elimination of waste and inefficiency where that is practicable. Hence the aspects of non-contentious evidence and pre-trial procedure can be improvements, but they are predicated on adequate resources being available. As ever, with this Government, that would leave a question mark over the proposals.
  With regard to resources, I noticed that the Law Society of Scotland points out that
  "a quantitative estimate of the general resource implications of many of these proposals is to be found in Chapter 14 of the Consultation Paper 'The Review of Criminal Evidence and Criminal Procedure'".
  Will the Government make available the information on which that estimate is based? Without the requisite resources, the hopes of the reforms will not be delivered. Will the Minister make clear the financial calculations on which the proposals are predicated?
  My reservations are based on my wish to ensure justice and to protect the rights of any accused person to a fair trial. I am concerned about clause 10 and I ask the Government to think again about it. It would allow the fiscal to question an accused at the examination before the sheriff in such a way as to extract a confession of guilt. That transforms the judicial examination into a form of investigative hearing more akin to an inquisitional procedure. That strikes at the very heart of the existing Scottish system and would swing the balance very much against the accused. That is a fundamental sea change in the approach of Scots law.
  Admissions at judicial examination would give more power to the prosecution to try to achieve an early conviction. That is part of the cost-cutting exercise implicit in the Bill. The measure would put unjust and undue pressure on the accused at a time when that person has had little or no time to consult the defence agent. That challenges the Scottish legal position of emphasis on the need for the prosecution to prove its case as opposed to the accused having to establish his or her innocence.
  Although the pre-trial right to silence is not challenged in the Bill as yet, clause 10 opens the door for future movement in that direction. I am concerned that although the need for comprehensive legislation to tackle the criminal justice system has long been recognised, we have been presented with a piecemeal Bill. The consultation period ended a fortnight before publication of the Bill, leaving little time for the consideration and incorporation of changes influenced by the consultation process—and it shows.
  Although some proposals, particularly those put forward by the Scottish Law Commission, make good practical sense, other measures such as clause 10 appear to be a trade-off of civilised justice provisions for cheap political ends, with the danger that no practical benefits will accrue either to the Treasury or to the public.
  The Government's proposals will create some practical problems for the system. The already enormous pressures on procurators fiscal can only be exacerbated by the introduction of compulsory intermediate diets in all summary cases and the reintroduction of the failed
  750
  expedient of first diet in all solemn cases in the sheriff court. When those are added to the other proposed duties, which will also affect the defence, it will be obvious that less and less time will be available for the preparation of cases, which will lead to greater inefficiency and to potential injustice. I should like to hear the Minister address those practical problems.
  The Scottish National party certainly welcomes the tightening up of the law regarding the granting of bail in serious cases, but it fears that the bail provisions generally are merely examples of tinkering with the system. If the Government go ahead with clause 10, I shall seek Law Society of Scotland safeguards, for example on the line of questioning which allows the right of the defence solicitor to object and the opportunity for the judge to interrupt, and for further detailed disclosure of the statement of facts and the line of inquiry being used by the prosecution at the judicial examination. I hope to hear the Minister talk about what safeguards will be available to the accused in such cases.
  The Government must address the serious problem of the lack of time available for the defence at the time of a judicial inquiry. That matter cannot be glossed over, because it is a practical matter and it is essential to protect the right of the accused.
  Clause 28, which relates to the right to silence, is an attack on civil liberties and again challenges the accusatorial nature of the Scottish criminal justice system. Various arms of the legal profession have stated that there is no need to change the right to silence provision, but the Government have ignored them in order to comply with the English law and order agenda.
  Sentence discounting is plain injustice. I should like to hear the Minister try to justify it. The sentence should reflect the nature of the crime and the situation of the criminal, and it should not be conditioned by the time that the plea is made. There is an obvious attempt to save money by encouraging early pleading, but it challenges and undermines the basis of sentencing procedure. Why should the admission of guilt entitle a criminal to a lesser sentence than that for someone who exercises the right to go to trial? That suggests the Government's willingness to apply softer sentences to save money with early pleading.
  The Government state that the legislation will be costneutral, but I question that. If the provisions, particularly those in respect of intermediate diets, are to work, there will need to be measures to alleviate overworked and understaffed procurator fiscal offices. In addition, the legal aid fund will be required to meet the increase in defence expenses which will result. How does the Minister plan to bolster the procurator fiscal staff and the legal aid fund?
  I am concerned also that there is no mention of the rights of victims, although the consultation papers specifically refer to the need to provide for victims' needs. I ask the Minister to address that problem urgently.
  There is no provision to address miscarriages of justice, even though, again, the need to address the appeal system in Scotland has long been recognised.
  There is merit in many of the proposals to speed up the criminal justice system and make it more efficient. I welcome the proposals to reduce needless attendance at court by police and other witnesses—a much needed reform. I also welcome the fact that criminals will be

  751
  deprived of the proceeds of their crimes. Nevertheless, I register my extreme concern about major specific provisions, and I hope that the Minister will address them.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: From the day in 1974 when Nicky Fairbairn arrived in the House as the new hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross, and he told us that he was here entirely as a matter of the personal vote that he had got—he scraped in by the thinnest of majorities—he was a friend of mine. We never had a cross word between us. It has stretched our imaginations that it was entirely a matter of the personal vote that had got him here. We thought that it was less than likely that, in their thousands, Conservatives of Perthshire would have preferred to vote for Nicholas Fairbairn than for Sir Alec Douglas-Home.
  Be that as it may, even though our imaginations were stretched to capacity, Nicky Fairbairn did many of us great personal kindnesses. I prefer to remember him not for the funny, the bizarre or the outrageous that have been the subject of many obituaries, but for his willingness to give legal advice in difficult personal cases. Many of my colleagues and contemporaries had to go to him for legal advice. His legal advice was often very sound and with great insight. At least three of my West Lothian constituents have considerable cause to be grateful not to me as their Member of Parliament but to Nicholas Fairbairn for the unstinting, free legal advice that he gave people regardless of party. For that and many other reasons, he will be unforgettable.
  I ask the Minister to address the question that was posed by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). Why, on this occasion, is it not thought right to have evidence from, say, the Law Society, the Police Federation, the Glasgow Bar Association and many other bodies? The hon. and learned Gentleman is now the only Scottish lawyer among us—that used not to be the case—and many of us need instruction in such matters. Why have the Minister and the Secretary of State not used the opportunity to put into operation the new procedure by which the Committee—this is not a highly partisan measure—can be better informed on obviously difficult issues? I, for one, if I am selected to sit on the Committee, have no intention of stringing out matters, but there is an argument for some serious questioning, particularly of the police and the Law Society. I ask for a reply.
  I ask the House to forgive me for raising a matter which might be considered to be a bit local, but, in Linlithgow and in Ayr, it really is extremely unsatisfactory that defence and prosecution witnesses are mixed up together in unsatisfactory buildings. Incidentally, I say as a local that there may be fire risks in the Linlithgow building. I do not say that lightly, because that is the opinion of lawyers as well as myself. In that case—it can be generalised—I ask that new facilities be provided outside my constituency. Hon. Members normally ask that a certain facility should go to the area that they represent. On this occasion, I am absolutely in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that it would be much more sensible to concentrate the whole court procedure, lock stock and barrel, near the police in Livingston.
  752
  I know that Ministers will immediately say, "You are asking for more money; where are the resources to come from? You know very well how difficult the whole public expenditure issue is." But they themselves know that I met Jim Keegan, who represents solicitors in the entire Livingston-West Lothian area. Mr. Keegan suggested—expressing, I gather, the unanimous view of the colleagues on whose behalf he spoke—that there was a case for a new court building in Livingston.
  A proposition for the financing of such a building by developers has been advanced. I do not wish to detain the House by giving the details, but the proposition should at least be considered. I understand that it is neutral in public expenditure terms, and would not call on Government finances. In fact, it would save a great deal of money: the developers speak of a distinguished building which, heaven knows, the new town could do with, and which could lessen a problem that bothers everyone, as the debate has shown—the squandering of police time. That could represent a considerable saving. At present, policemen are having to travel from Livingston to Linlithgow—incidentally, 90 per cent. of the difficulties occur in the south of the area, not in Linlithgow—and all that travelling time upsets police schedules.
  The Lothian and Borders police F division has a civilised habit of inviting local Members of Parliament to lunch each January to talk over problems. I have discussed with them, in detail, the difficulties of police schedules and time off, and how difficult it is to deal with the fact that policemen may suddenly find that—regardless of their rotas—they must attend court. Hon. Members may not consider such practical problems to be the most momentous issue in the world, but they are extremely costly in practice. If the Minister cannot respond in his winding-up speech, I ask the Government at least to write to me about the specific issue of Livingston, possibly in the general context of the Bill's implications.
  The Scottish Trades Union Congress has expressed its views on clause 12. Although its suggested amendment will be raised in Committee, I think it important enough to warrant mention now, so I shall set down a marker. The STUC wishes to insert the following words in the clause:
  "In all cases, it shall be the duty of the prosecutor to make available to the accused all material relating to the charge or charges against the accused in the possession of the prosecutor; and such material shall include all statements, reports and productions in the possession of the prosecutor whether he intends to found upon them in the prosecution of the accused or not."
  In Scotland, the Crown can conceal evidence that could help to clear an accused person. In a Scottish appeal case heard in May 1990, Lord Cowie said:
  "there is no obligation on the Crown to disclose any information in their possession which would tend to exculpate the accused".
  The Lord Advocate subsequently confirmed that the Crown was under no legal obligation to disclose information to the defence. He stated, however, that
  "the overriding principle is that the Crown must always act in the interests of justice…The overall aim should be to ensure that the true facts of any case are laid before a judge or jury".
  In such an important matter, it is essential for there to be clear and binding rules. We cannot depend on that principle.
  I did not raise that issue just because the STUC has raised it; it is at the forefront of my mind. A question that I have tabled, which will receive a written answer on Monday 6 March—question 13N—asks the Secretary of State for Scotland

  753
  "what consideration the Crown Office has given to its duty in law to consider and investigate any evidence which tends to exculpate the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie crime; and if the Crown Office is complying with this legal obligation."
  This is not the occasion on which to go into the details of Lockerbie, but I have tabled a number of questions about it.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock Port Glasogw): I have listened to my hon. Friend's views on that issue for many months. I feel that, given that the Minister for Health is to appear before the Scottish Grand Committee in the near future, he should be followed by the Lord Advocate. That would enable my hon. Friend and, indeed, others to ask such questions of him.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is extremely desirable for others to ask such questions. We are talking not of a trivial matter, but of the biggest crime against civilians anywhere in the western world since 1945. Its consequences rumble on, affecting major matters of foreign policy in relation to north Africa—let alone the strong views of relatives of the Lockerbie victims. I must tell the Government that those relatives simply will not go away.
  When I intervened on the Secretary of State to raise the final issue that I wish to raise in my speech, he told me that if I wanted to ask about the fatal accident inquiry set-up I could do so in Committee. I ask the Government now, however, to consider how such inquiries are viewed by those involved. I think that I have been very naive about the matter for a long time: although there have been constituency complaints, I have always taken the view that the fatal accident inquiry was designed to try to establish the truth. It has come home to me in recent weeks, however, that—in relation to that biggest crime since 1945—whatever else the inquiry was designed to do, it was hardly designed to elicit the truth. In fact, the best that could be said of the lawyers is that they thought it was their job, by hook or by crook, to obtain as much as they could in damages for their clients.
  The Government's answers to questions suggest that they think that the fatal accident inquiry was a substitute for the public inquiry promised by Cecil Parkinson, then Secretary of State for Transport, to the British Lockerbie victims—in good faith, in my opinion, but on condition that his colleagues agreed. As we now know, one colleague did not agree. On 15 December, I asked the Prime Minister a question. The whole House laughed when I received no answer; it was a pretty sour, wry laugh, not a ha-ha laugh. I asked, "Why did she do it? Why did Mrs. Thatcher veto her own Transport Secretary?" After all, only one member of that Government was going to tell Cecil Parkinson what to do in relation to his own portfolio.
  A question arises in regard to fatal accident inquiries. When a Minister, and only a Minister—a Transport Secretary, or the Prime Minister—is in a position to give certain information, is it right for there to be Speaker's exemption certificates? Only recently has the House become aware of public interest immunity certificates. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has vast experience in these matters, whether he had ever heard of a Speaker's exemption certificate. In this context, he had not. Nor had I.
  It is a matter of considerable public importance to ask what information was given to the then Speaker, now Lord Weatherill, and to the then Clerk of the House of
  754
  Commons on which to basehhe decision whether to give a Speaker's exemption certificate. We are getting into very delicate water in relation to fatal accident inquiries.
  The dramatically important fatal accident inquiry into Lockerbie raises the deepest questions of ethics on behalf of the counsel, who in this case were paid by the Government. I want to know why Brian Gill reached a stage at which he told Rev. John Mosey, the father of Helga Mosey who perished at Lockerbie, that he would no longer act for him if Mr. Mosey went on asking—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The actions of counsel in an inquiry of the nature to which the hon. Gentleman refers go a little beyond the scope of the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and return to the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is difficult to ask questions about the actions of counsel, but some of us are profoundly dissatisfied because the matter goes so far as a counsel threatening his client that he will sue him. Dr. Jim Swire is a medical doctor—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill in discussing the actions of counsel. If his comments relate to the general principles of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman's comments are acceptable, but to go into the actions of counsel is straying from the Bill.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am always obedient to the Chair, but the matter raises deep questions of the ethics of fatal accident inquiries. I do not want to transgress and go out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I put it to you that the Secretary of State has invited me in the debate on the Bill to raise the issue of fatal accident inquiries. I do not know where else in Commons procedure one does it. The matter is certainly relevant to criminal justice. If people think that fatal accident inquiries are a fiasco geared simply to money rather than to the truth, our criminal justice set-up is in the deepest water.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see that you are becoming just a little concerned that I am going too far. I give notice that if I am selected to serve on the Committee which considers the Bill, I will raise the whole question of fatal accident inquiries and what happened, as an example, at the major inquiry on Lockerbie. No fatal accident inquiry in Scottish law was more important than the Lockerbie inquiry. All aspects of it, including the extraordinary behaviour of counsel to clients, are a matter of legitimate parliamentary concern.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: I, too, commence by making my own tribute to Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. As a new Member of Parliament, it was quite an experience for me to see Sir Nicholas in action in this Chamber and in Committees. One never knew precisely what he was about to say, but one always recognised that he had deep knowledge; that knowledge could have been put to so much better use for people over the years. I am particularly sad at what I consider to be his early demise. As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested, he was a kind individual in his own way. He was certainly kind to new Members. Perhaps I knew Sir Nicholas better in the past as someone within my party organisation who came to speak at constituency functions.

  755
  He was always a very popular speaker. His presentation of any case was tremendous; that was proved in the courts as well as in this place.
  I apologise for missing the opening speeches in the debate. As the House may know, I am involved with the armed services parliamentary scheme. A project on that was scheduled for today. I regretted that I was not able to change the schedule when the Bill was placed on the Order Paper. I had not expected that debate on the Bill would come up so quickly, given that we are currently debating the Children (Scotland) Bill in Committee. Nevertheless, I welcome this Bill because it shows the Government's commitment to law and order issues and to doing something about a situation that has been unacceptable in recent times.
  I ask the hon. Member for Linlithgow to clarify one point. He seemed to suggest that we should have an investigatory sitting at the beginning of the Committee stage similar to the exercise that we have undertaken on the Children (Scotland) Bill. I believe that that does not require a change in the rules. That facility has always existed. I would be surprised if now every new Scottish Bill had to go through that process. It seems to me that organisations such as the Law Society of Scotland will not be slow in coming forward to give advice to all Members of Parliament as we enter the Committee stage. I am sure that all Members of Parliament will welcome any input from it.
  Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman will surely acknowledge that the Special Standing Committee which considered the Children (Scotland) Bill gained a great deal of useful information from those who gave oral evidence at its sittings in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman is right about Special Standing Committees. For example, that quinquennial legislative event, the Armed Forces Bill, by custom and practice is always considered by a Special Standing Committee.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He is much more experienced than me. I accept his statement that the establishment of a Special Standing Committee is not an unusual practice. I was suggesting that it should not be the practice for every Bill that comes before the House. I query the need for a Special Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, but I leave that to others. I should have no objection if that line were ultimately adopted.
  Mr. Dalyell: May I respond to the direct question which the hon. Gentleman put to me? I offer a carrot to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). We were both members of the Committee that considered the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Bill—that absurd and ridiculous measure, which is becoming more ridiculous, expensive and absurd every day. Had evidence been taken from local government officials and other people, the Under-Secretary would have found that the long hours that others and I spent legitimately and properly reading out briefs from them—because we had to—could have been shortened. If the Government's objective is to spend fewer
  756
  rather than more hours in Committee, it might be wise to have the hearings at the beginning of the Committee stage. That is an attractive carrot, is it not?
  Mr. Gallie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that considerable intervention. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State needs any carrots when he deals with the Bill. I am sure that he will have plenty of information stacked up in his head and in the briefings that he has already brought together on the Bill.
  I turn my attention to the position of the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall). Recently, I have welcomed some of his hard words on law and order. It seemed to me that, at long last, someone in the Labour party was coming to terms with the requirement to put law and order at the top of the agenda and, on that basis, I compliment him.
  Having said that, however, I am totally disappointed with the Opposition's reasoned amendment, which bears the name of the hon. Member for Dumbarton, among others. I should have thought that he would welcome the Bill with open arms. He might not agree with every item in it, but that is why we have Standing Committees. I am sure that he has always found that the Government have had a responsive ear when he and I have pressed them on certain issues. If the Bill is given a Second Reading and gets to Committee, we will have provided a great opportunity to help people in Scotland, but what have we got from the hon. Gentleman? A negative and inaccurate amendment.
  The amendment is inaccurate because, as I understand it, there has been an improvement in the crime figures in Scotland during the past year or two. I welcome that improvement and I should have thought that the hon. Member for Dumbarton would do so, too. For example, during the past year recorded crime fell by 8 per cent.— a fall for the second year running—and the clear-up rate increased by 2 per cent. to 34 per cent. Those figures show that the amendment is inaccurate.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: From reading the newspapers at the weekend, I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a particular interest in drug-related crime. Perhaps he will comment on the fact that the figures for the category that includes such crimes went up by 7 per cent., the figures for the category that includes vandalism and fire raising were up by 5 per cent. and those for crimes of violence were up by 2 per cent. in the last year for which statistics are available.
  Mr. Gallie: I acknowledge that drug-related offences have increased considerably, which I very much regret, but that problem is not unique to Scotland. It is a part of the scene world wide, it is spreading and we must deal with it urgently in the short term. That does not mean that there has not been an improvement in crime overall and in aspects of crime that concerned us greatly about three years ago, such as house breaking, and in serious violent crime. The Opposition amendment does us great discredit by not acknowledging those improvements. Once again, I must record my disappointment that the hon. Member for Dumbarton has not decided to put his money where his mouth has been by giving the Bill full backing on Second Reading, albeit while accepting that there might be much debate and argument thereafter.
  Although there has been an improvement, I do not believe that all is right with the criminal justice system. I ask the hon. Member for Dumbarton to cast his mind back

  757
  to a conference that the Law Society of Scotland set up in Edinburgh just over a year ago. The conference seemed to be self-congratulatory. It included Government spokesmen as well as spokesmen from the bench—there were judges, lawyers, Queen's counsel and advocates, who seemed to believe that all was well with our criminal justice system in Scotland. When one speaks to people in the street, one realises that that is not the case, which brings me back to the reason why we must get the Bill into Committee and get the debate under way urgently.
  I applaud a recent survey that suggests that people are more satisfied with solicitors. The other day, a straw poll suggested an 85 per cent. satisfaction level, which is a massive step forward. I congratulate solicitors on achieving such a performance, even though the manner in which the poll was presented and the accuracy of the data beg some scrutiny. The poll shows, however, that the Scottish legal service is getting to grips with some of the issues.
  Some of the disillusionment might be due to the fact that people feel that the procurator service does not give full value for money. Perhaps that is an unfair judgment. I feel that the service should explain why certain cases are not taken forward. Having had discussions with the Lord Advocate and the legal fraternity, I recognise some of the reasons why the procurator cannot always explain the thinking behind the decision, but I recognise that when that decision has passed into the public domain it leaves questions that may never be answered in the public's mind and give rise to disquiet.
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware of the disquiet that always exists about prosecutions. In my constituency recently, there was a case in which burglars were caught red-handed in the act, but were not prosecuted. Naturally, that caused great concern, especially to the people who had apprehended the burglars, at some risk to themselves.
  Mr. Gallie: Such a situation brings the law into disrepute. I am sure that my hon. Friend cannot justify to his constituents why that should have happened. He and I know that we cannot obtain that sort of information for our constituents, and I thank him for mentioning that case as it helps me to expand my argument. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give that matter some thought, although I recognise all the difficulties.
  Another difficulty is the perceived inconsistency in sentencing. Some clauses seem to deal with that problem. If we can provide some consistency, through guidance to judges and sheriffs, it will do much to improve the attitude of the public to the criminal law and the criminal justice system in Scotland. It is vital that we keep the public on side. Recently, there was a terrible case in Edinburgh when a man lost his life. It appears that it was taken by other residents in his block of flats. He was a child molester. There had been signs of discontent and it seems that the residents took the law into their own hands. That is what I read in the newspapers, in the Edinburgh Evening News, and that is my judgment from reading the newspaper articles. That is the sort of situation that we must guard against. People need to feel comfortable with the law and feel that it stands for justice. We must ensure that inconsistencies and illogicalities in sentencing do not occur.
  758
  I am especially pleased with the aspects of the Bill that deal with bail. At long last, it seems that the court system will display some sense as far as bail is concerned. I have described instances of people committing four or five offences and being given bail time and time again—in the case to which I refer, held only on remand after the fourth or fifth offence—which brings the law into disrepute and greatly concerns the people at large.
  I must register some disquiet about the wording of clause 3, however, which suggests that bail should not be considered if someone has committed an offence while on bail. To commit an offence while on bail suggests that an individual has been proved guilty of that offence. It would be better to change the wording to suggest that, if an individual has been charged with a further offence, rather than has "committed" a further offence, for a second time, he has then offended against bail and, at that point, bail should no longer be allowed.
  The Government have introduced many measures to improve matters. Strathclyde police's Operation Blade and the Government support for the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 have helped in recent times. The Government took a great step forward in improving law and order—I take some pride in it—when they gave the prosecutor the right to appeal against perceived lenient sentences. The measure was first promised in our 1992 manifesto and it was commendable that the Government delivered it in 1993.
  I am not sure, however, that I agree totally with the legislation on criminal procedure and punishment. I remind my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we introduced a measure that allowed anyone sentenced to up to four years in prison to have his or her sentence automatically reduced by 50 per cent.; thus, a four-year sentence became a two-year sentence and a three-year sentence became an 18-month sentence. I do not think that the public signed on to that one. I recall mentioning that problem in Committee, but no one else on the Committee backed me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It was a shame. I expected better from Opposition Members, but their support was not forthcoming. At that time, I suggested to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I could have accepted the measure, had the remission been earned. If an individual in prison has behaved well, it may be right to release him or her half way through the sentence, but I did not like the automatic aspect. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary bear that in mind for the future, even if the matter cannot be dealt with in the Bill'?
  I am also concerned about juvenile crime, which is creating great havoc, particularly on housing estates where vandalism and under-age drinking are rife. Perhaps those matters could be dealt with in the Children (Scotland) Bill; they certainly do not seem to have been addressed in this Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary may contradict me and say that there is scope to do so in clause 62; if so, I would welcome that.
  Another serious omission from the Bill is a measure to combat child alcohol abuse. It is an offence for someone under the age of 18 to buy alcohol, but it is not an offence. for a child to obtain alcohol and to drink it at home or in the street. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary discuss that matter with me later to see whether we can table an amendment to cover that problem? The issue is important to many of my constituents and, I am sure, those of my hon.

  759
  Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson). I am sure that the problem exists also in Dundee, Midlothian and Paisley.
  Mr. McMaster: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the problem of young people drinking in public places. The problem goes back a long way. When I was a councillor, I encouraged an application for a byelaw against that, but each time I ask the Government whether they will do something about it, I am told that local authorities can apply to introduce byelaws. I would prefer the Government to take the action that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Gallie: I cannot distance myself from anything that the hon. Gentleman says.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Can you not?
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman's comments were fair and he gave an honest reading of the current position. The Government have looked to local authorities to use their powers, but many local authorities have failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate to the Government the need to take the matter further and amend the law. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is listening to me tonight and saying, "By jove, that is a jolly good idea. I shall have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr later and see what we can do about that."
  Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend may be aware that I took up that matter during the passage of an earlier Bill and the Government assured me that any efforts made, for instance, by Perth and Kinross or Angus district councils to introduce byelaws would be looked on favourably.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was not aware of any arrangements that he had made with the Government. Perhaps he and I can have a chat after the debate and see whether we can find a way to take that matter forward.
  Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman makes a positive point about drinking and young people. He may be aware that, on Friday, I launched an under-age drinking scheme—the proof of age card scheme—in Dumbarton and, if the hon. Gentleman proposes an amendment on that matter, the Opposition would be delighted to support it. The fact that young people can buy alcohol in supermarkets is a problem, and respectable supermarkets sell drinks like TNT. Cannot we sit down in a positive and constructive way and table amendments to the Bill? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's influence with the Government could hear fruit in this case.
  Mr. Gallie: I am not sure whether I have that much influence. None the less, I shall press my hon. Friends to introduce an identity card, which would solve the problem of under-age drinking as well as a range of other problems. Will the Opposition join me in putting pressure
  760
  on my hon. Friends to introduce a compulsory rather than voluntary identity card? If the hon. Gentleman would care to rise and back me on that, I would welcome it.
  Mr. McFall indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gallie: I am very disappointed in the hon. Gentleman's response. This is an opportunity to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants, but he stays in his seat and shakes his head. I am disappointed but not surprised.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) discussed the age of consent. I cannot understand how he concluded that there is an overall feeling in the House that we should again reduce the age of consent for consenting males. We voted on that issue not long ago and the motion was negatived. I should have thought that the matter was now over and done with and I do not see why the matter should be injected into the Bill. I acknowledge that it is almost impossible to enforce the law with regard to young boys who carry out such acts behind closed doors. At the same time, it is equally hard through recourse to the law to prevent girls of 14 or 15 from having intercourse. That law is, however, a deterrent and a standard. I do not want standards on the issue to be dropped any further. I should like to think that no one will waste the Committee's time by tabling such an amendment.
  I understand that the Bill is also designed to introduce further changes to aggravated trespass. I would like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to clarify current Scottish law relating to that offence. When we passed the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, I understood that the clause relating to aggravated trespass would also affect Scottish law. I would be disappointed to hear that that was not the case. I am currently trying to persuade the chief constable of Strathclyde region to use that law to deal with events arising from the M77 extension. That legal route has been cleared by the Government and by Strathclyde regional council through democratic means. That work is now being held up and people are unable to do their daily jobs and are prevented from carrying out their honest efforts by others who have no right to occupy the site. The law of aggravated trespass could be used against those people. I had thought that it had already been incorporated into our law and I should like some reassurance on that from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  I am sure that all hon. Members would like to welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, but I believe that the proposed changes to the intermediate diet procedure are the key ones. The amount of police time wasted in our courts is criminal. We are always shouting for more resources and more police on the streets. The extended use of the intermediate diet procedure will put policemen back on to the streets and it will save time. Those changes will benefit not only police officers but, more important, people with other jobs, who may otherwise be called to court on occasion up to four times, only to learn that the case has not been brought up. That delay means that those people have lost time at work, their employers have lost the use of their resources and everyone has been inconvenienced. That is not good enough. The extended use of the intermediate diet will certainly help to overcome that problem.
  The list of welcome items in the Bill is endless. I notice that it is intended to give the courts the power to forfeit assets gained as a result of criminal activity. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell)

  761
  spoke about the drug scene—I believe that forfeiture represents a major means of tackling it. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs spent considerable time considering the use of that power, for example, in America and the benefits that resulted from it. We called for the legislation governing forfeiture to be strengthened. Our call appears to have been answered by the Bill and I compliment my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on that.
  I should like to draw attention to a recent decision by the European Court of Justice challenging the existing legislation on forfeiture, which is applied in the English courts. I understand that the court made that challenge on a technicality, because the English court had acted retrospectively. I appreciate that the European Court of Justice may have acted logically in that case, but I should hate to think that, at some future date, it will have any right to step in and criticise provisions relating to the forfeiture of assets contained in the Bill, once enacted.
  I spoke earlier about sentencing inconsistencies. I understand that provision will be made in the Bill to develop sentencing guidelines, which would be most welcome. Other welcome clauses are also designed to attempt, once again, to stem computer pornography. That would be popular with those in Scotland who are extremely concerned for young people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will also consider legislating against those who make and sell obscene videos. That problem deserves proper scrutiny. Any steps that the Government took to tighten the law on obscenity would be warmly welcomed by the Scottish public.
  I am greatly encouraged by the powers offered to the police to stop and search vehicles, which will help in the fight against terrorism. I hope that the need for that fight has diminished greatly, given recent developments in Northern Ireland, but one never knows what will happen. It is therefore worth while for those police powers to be included in the Bill.
  The Opposition may cry out about law and order, but I have looked through the reports in Hansard and it is clear that every time there has been a proposal to increase the police's powers to stop and search, the Opposition have voted against it.
  Mr. McMaster: The Opposition have always defended civil rights. The hon. Gentleman should recall that when he introduced the Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Bill, we offered support to ensure that, without any loss of civil liberties by the majority, those carrying knives were arrested.
  Mr. Gallie: I welcomed the support that the Opposition gave my Bill.
  When we talk about civil liberties, we get down to the heart of criminal justice. My idea of civil liberties is that people should be able to live in their homes, free of concern and children should be able to go about the streets without their mothers panicking when they have been out of their sight for more than half an hour. Those are the kind of civil liberties that we must defend.
  People should enjoy quality lives by being assured that those people who are prepared to break the law and create misery for others are properly dealt with. I believe that the Bill will certainly do that, which is why I commend it. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, once again, on introducing it so expeditiously.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Eric Clarke: I should like to take this opportunity to add my comments to those of my colleagues about the late Nicky Fairbairn. This is the first opportunity that I have had in the House to say that I considered him a friend.
  In the short time that I have been in the House, Nicky Fairbairn helped me and a constituent, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), with extremely useful legal advice. He went out of his way to help us and that is the side of him that I should like to remember. I should also like to remember the entertaining and witty exchanges that we had on some visits together.
  I was complimented by Nicky Fairbairn on two occasions. First, he wrote to me and said that I had made a visit to Brussels "tolerable". I do not know what he meant by that. On another occasion, he told me that he was writing a book and that he had written a chapter all about me. I said that if he said anything nice, I would sue him. He appreciated that very much. I shall certainly miss him very dearly, and I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of many hon. Members here. He was a good, very interesting, intelligent and extremely witty person, and above all a very kind person.
  I wish to give my, I hope, constructive support to the law and order measure before us. I say to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), that Opposition Members have a responsibility to be constructive in the debate. I should like improvements to be made in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that we are not voting against the Bill; on the contrary, we are voting for our amendment.
  I have with me, and shall quote from, the Scottish Trades Union Congress document that was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I agree with what it says, and it is constructive, in my opinion:
  "The contents of the Bill will not improve the delivery of justice in Scotland. Certain important matters have been ignored such as the underfunding of the Procurators Fiscal Service in Scotland, the need to balance the scales of justice so that the defence as well as the prosecution can properly prepare its case and that victims should have enforceable rights.
  Additionally, the cumulative effect of the Bill is '… expected lo be broadly cost neutral with the possibility of some overall net savings in the longer term.' The watchers of and the practitioners in the criminal justice system agree that more money is required to prosecute cases. Any reform which ignores this fundamental problem cannot be successful.
  Some clauses place an additional burden on the over-stretched Procurators Fiscal Service. Clause 10 which further limits the right to silence, imposes a duty on the prosecutor to investigate 'to such extent as is reasonably practicable, of any ostensible defence disclosed in the course of the examination'. On the surface this may seem to compensate for the attack on the right to silence but as the Procurators Fiscal Office is so over-stretched, any investigation of an 'ostensible defence' may be minimal."
  When we talk to our friends in the police force, we find that one of the most damning things about the behaviour of the procurator fiscal—I hope that the Minister is listening to me—is the dropping of cases. The police go to the lengths of devoting hours, days sometimes, even weeks, to sorting out a case, assembling the evidence and finding witnesses, and hand in the papers to the procurator fiscal's office, only to discover that the case has been dropped, with no reason given, logical or otherwise.

  763
  Sometimes there are many months of delay between the time when the papers are given to the procurator fiscal and the time when the case is dropped. Witnesses and even victims are sometimes not even informed that the case has been dropped. Justice is ignored in those circumstances. Police time is wasted, and the opinion of the police is obviously ignored, from senior level down to the constable or the person who made the arrest. That problem is part and parcel of the problem of the procurator fiscal service being overloaded and undermanned.
  Justice falls victim to another practice—plea bargaining. Plea bargaining obviously means that the person concerned can pick and choose the charges that he agrees he has committed. That is done for the sake of an easy way out and for simplicity, to ensure some movement and to get rid of a problem in the procurator fiscal service, in the opinion of others. Is that justice? Is that the way to deal with it?
  What is the result? Morale is low among the police and others involved. Witnesses are amazed. They cannot and do not know what has happened, and the result is cynicism. The question even occurs to them: why try? The reason for that problem boils down to undermanning and underfunding.
  I cannot understand why, when decisions are taken in the Crown Office, it need explain to no one, not even to a Member of Parliament—and I have tried. I have written to ask why the Crown Office reached a certain conclusion and why it dropped a case or made a comment, and I have received no explanation. The Crown Office merely quotes the legislation, which provides that it does not need to reply.
  I know that the referees in the Scottish Football Association have a great deal of explaining to do because, especially when my team is playing, I do not know what they are doing half the time, and I do not know that they know what they are doing half the time, but I know that they are certainly biased against me.
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Not so. Never!
  Mr. Clarke: Yes, every time. The referees are all oriented towards Glasgow teams. I know that. Everyone knows that in Scotland.
  Seriously, I am talking about a different matter. I am talking about people making decisions or deciding not to follow through a case, and saying confidently, "We need explain to no one." I thought, innocently or ignorantly, in my official position as a Member of Parliament, that I could get answers to my questions from the Crown Office, but I asked to no avail.
  Mr. McMaster: Does my hon. Friend believe that at least part of the reason for that might be that the Lord Advocate is a Member of the other place and the Solicitor-General is a Member of neither House? In the Scottish Grand Committee, we have been told that although we can question the Minister of State, we cannot question the Law Officers. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) points at
  764
  the Minister. There is a very important difference between a Minister and a Law Officer. That is why we should be able to question the Law Officers.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree partly with what my hon. Friend says.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Clarke: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall let him in in a minute.
  I agree broadly with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). I hope that the Minister, because I hope that he has faith in the Scottish Opposition's work, will try to negotiate innovations in the Grand Committee so that we may have the opportunity of bringing those officers before us, and in a friendly manner grill them in the usual way.
  Mr. Graham: My hon. Friend should be aware that several Members of Parliament in Scotland have written to the Lord Advocate about serious matters that constituents have drawn to their attention, especially in relation to some cases that have gone ahead and others that have not gone ahead. The replies that we have received are so cryptic as to be meaningless. They are basically telling us, "Keep out of our business; that is the end of it; no more." I find it appalling that Members of Parliament do not receive a full explanation.
  Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister takes notice of that, because there is a genuine, sincere feeling among many people who are law officers that no reasonable or even logical explanation is given of why those cases are dropped.
  Mr. Gallie: I think that the difficulty goes deeper than the argument that was made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster).
  Every Member of the House can make representations to the Lord Advocate, and I would suggest that each Member who has those anxieties should do so and have a conversation with the Lord Advocate about the matter. If one were to release details of every case that was not brought to law, it would bring into question the actions of both the perhaps guilty and the not guilty—the innocent victims. It would set a precedent that could well rebound against many other people.
  I have the same unease as the hon. Gentleman; I made those arguments in my speech, but there is a balance to be found somewhere and it is not as simple as the hon. Member for Paisley, South suggested.
  Mr. Clarke: I accept that it is not a simple position. I have carried out the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and written to the highest officer in the courts in Scotland, but to no avail. I received an explanation, but it was not satisfactory. I am sure that I am voicing the opinion of the majority of hon. Members present. I am not saying that there should be open house and that, on each occasion, we should be told. But it is not right for Law Officers to say merely that it is the law, that is as far as they are prepared to go and they are not accountable to anyone. I do not know whether they are accountable to Ministers—I suppose that they are in a roundabout way, and give them a nod and a wink.

  765
  The hon. Member for Ayr mentioned juvenile crime. I am amazed that someone should come to the conclusion that unemployment and poverty equals crime. I have known that all my life. I think that, even without an inquiry, all Opposition Members know that such circumstances obviously bring an increase in crime. If those circumstances are combined with drug addiction—the hon. Gentleman is aware that we investigated that problem in Scotland through the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—it creates a hopeless situation. In addition, there are the problems of homelessness, inadequate jobs and an inadequate future. In such circumstances, people drown their sorrows in drugs and drink.
  Scotland is no different from anywhere else. I liked the comment of the hon. Member for Ayr that it was a worldwide affair. Of course, it is, but we are not in the United Nations, but in the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster. We are looking after the interests of the people in Scotland and debating that subject. We cannot hide behind the crime statistics of other parts of the world. The problem is on our doorstep and we do not need to go to the United States, although it was useful to study the problems there and in Holland.
  When we talk about crime and justice, we must also talk about the environment of those whom we represent, particularly in Scotland. Without adequate housing or jobs or an improved environment, we cannot expect anything other than an increase in crime.
  I want a police force that is adequately manned, and given the right equipment and opportunities. But there is an alternative to gaol. There has been no mention of a halfway-house system and greater supervision of petty offenders. Many people who are in gaol should not be there and could be in a halfway house where they could be supervised. Many prisoners are mentally ill and should not be in gaol. The people who run such institutions tell us that. We have an inadequate social service in our communities.
  Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the mentally ill. Is it not the case that the Bill contains a clause to address that issue? That is another reason why the hon. Gentleman should join us in the Lobby tonight and stand wholeheartedly behind the Bill.
  Mr. Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I think that he misunderstands what I am saying. The Bill contains clauses about people who are declared criminally insane. I am talking about people who, due to inadequacies in the system, commit petty crimes and wander the streets, due to the so-called policy of bringing people into the community, without supervision and back-up. The hon. Gentleman should not shake his head—he should go to the prisons and ask how many prisoners are mentally ill. He will be told that, on average, up to one third of prisoners are mentally ill. I am talking not about those who are criminally violent. but about those who are utterly confused, and who should not be in such an institution, but in another one. We would help the authorities by looking after those people properly. That is just one aspect of our criminal justice system.
  We cannot ignore the social consequences of our criminal justice system and say that we must have a good criminal justice Bill. I should like harder sentences for some offenders. We must analyse the background and the position. It is easy to judge people from afar. The worst
  766
  judges are those who are not even present in court, but who comment on specific items. A case may take three or four days, but a decision on whether a person is guilty or not guilty may take five minutes.
  The Bill partly achieves what we want, but we also want amendments and improvements which, I hope, will be constructive. I hope that we can achieve something of which we can be proud. The Bill contains many anomalies, which have been stated not only by me, but by those involved in the justice system on a daily basis.
  We cannot expect the procurator fiscal service to deal with people equally or fairly if it has inadequate funding and is inadequately manned. We only waste police time by presenting the procurator fiscal service with cases that it has to push to one side because it does not have the time to deal with them. The morale of the police, of others handling the cases and of those who are prepared to act as witnesses leaves much to be desired. I hope that, even if the Minister takes none of my other points on board, he will address that one.
  8.26 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I offer my apologies to right hon. and hon. Members for not being present earlier in the debate. My wife was taken ill, and she and I had to spend four hours at Bart's hospital this afternoon. I believe that the message was given to the Minister earlier and to my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Although I paid tribute to Nicky Fairbairn in Friday's European debate, it would be remiss of me not to mention him in my first Scottish debate since his tragically early death. I echo the fine tributes paid to him and add that he always treated me in an extremely civilised and friendly way, even when diametrically opposing my views.
  The aim of the legislation is to put more criminals behind bars. I have no objection to that objective provided that such people are convicted in fair and open court proceedings. I disagree with the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)—the Bill should be consigned to a Special Standing Committee. Not all our Bills should go to such a Special Standing Committee, but it seems likely that, at most, only two members of the Standing Committee considering the Bill will be lawyers: the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell). I shall not be on the Committee, but I think that those without legal training could benefit enormously from being able to cross-examine witnesses at the four sittings of a Special Standing Committee.
  Mr. Gallie: I am thinking back on my limited time as a Member of Parliament and to my knowledge that the Committee considering the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Bill contained no accountants—
  Mr. McMaster: Or bankrupts.
  Mr. Gallie: There were neither bankrupts nor accountants nor insolvency practitioners, but we still managed to debate the Bill for many hours and to obtain advice from elsewhere. It was the same with criminal proceedings and punishment—although perhaps we could

  767
  have done with some help in that area. I do not think that we should open the floodgates and automatically consign every Bill to a Special Standing Committee.
  Dr. Godman: Despite the brilliant intervention by the hon. Member for Ayr, I still disagree. We do not have a Scottish Law Officer—the last one was Mr. Peter Fraser from south Angus, who departed this place in 1987. That is to be regretted in the context of all kinds of legislation that must be scrutinised. I hope that the Minister will agree with my suggestion that the Scottish Grand Committee be given the opportunity to cross-examine the Lord Advocate on a wide range of measures relating to Scottish courts and our legal system. Lord Fraser is to appear before the Committee, so why should not the premier Law Officer from the other place do likewise?
  Those who are convicted in the sheriff court or the High Court of violent crimes against the individual should receive condign punishment. I have said that often in this place and during the meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee. Many years ago I served as a military policeman and I saw at first hand the shocking injuries that were inflicted on defenceless women, youngsters and others innocently going about their business.
  More recently, as a member of a local prison committee I often interviewed prisoners who were being assessed for release under licence and I felt that some of them had received light sentences in the sheriff court or the High Court. At Saughton in Edinburgh I was regarded by other committee members as something of a hard man because I frequently recommended that the people whom I interviewed should remain in prison for a considerably longer time.
  I remember interviewing, over a period of three months, two men who were members of a much bigger gang which ran explosives to Northern Ireland for an extremist group. Thanks to very fine police work, they were caught but I believe that they did not receive sufficient punishment for the dreadful crimes that they were aiding and abetting by running explosives and weaponry to Northern Ireland.
  I have no doubt that many of my constituents will welcome the Bill's measures because they are deeply concerned about the violent crimes that have been committed locally. I recently spoke with a fellow ex-shipwright who is now in his seventies. He was known locally as a hard man in his younger days, but he told me that he did not like to go out at night because of the violent characters who roamed around and with whom he could no longer contend. Many elderly people turn up early to my surgeries, which start at 4 pm on Friday, so that they can be safe and secure at home before dark. That is a disgraceful state of affairs.
  I refer the Minister to a case which was reported last week in the Greenock Telegraph under the headline "Sex fiend sent to Carstairs". Last August a young man abducted two women in the car park of the Tesco supermarket in Greenock and forced them to drive him to a wooded area near Kilmacolm where he subjected them to an unspeakable ordeal. My young violent constituent was sent to Carstairs. Last Thursday, Lord Ross, the Lord Justice-General, said that he was satisfied that
  "grounds had been made for a hospital order without time limit".
  768
  In the context of the Bill and extant legislation, I ask the Minister: when such a person is consigned to Carstairs, can he be released within a relatively short time if the appropriate medical practitioners deem that he is sane enough to take his place in the community? What does the phrase "without time limit" mean? The act of violence that I have described frightened many of my female constituents of all ages. Is Lord Ross accurate when he says that the sentence is "without time limit" or, following detailed examinations of the young man in three or four years, could three consultant psychiatrists recommend to the Secretary of State that he be released? I believe that a person convicted of crimes of that nature must receive condign punishment. I sometimes despair of our sheriffs and judges who allow people off lightly and I wonder whether the legislation will tighten up the system.
  I have not forgotten the case of the young marine in Arbroath who killed his wife and child—the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) will know the details of that case better than I do. Following a trial in the High Court, that young man was released and, when he tried to emigrate to Canada, the Canadian authorities, quite rightly, denied him entry.
  Important measures must be taken to deal with bail, but I believe that clauses 1 to 5 should be scrutinised rigorously in Committee. Too many people commit further crimes while on bail and we must tighten up the provisions in that area. If I were a member of the Standing Committee examining the Bill—I hope to escape such service—I would look at that aspect very closely.
  The Bill deals sensibly with juries, but I have some reservations—I must be careful about what I say as I recently escaped jury duty on the ground that I am a Member of Parliament. I believe that juries should comprise 15 good men and women.
  Clause 15, which refers to the delay in trial proceedings, makes sense. I wonder whether there is a chance to extend that provision to the Republic of Ireland, although I suppose that that would require some international agreement. It constitutes a bolthole for some people and I imagine that it did not feature in the negotiations surrounding the framework document.
  I thought initially that some radical measures would be introduced on the protection of complainers in rape cases. However, the legislation refers to "clandestine injuries". Clause 24 states:
  "Clause 24 adds clandestine injury and offences under 2B, 2C and 7 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 to the sexual offences which attract special restrictions on questioning as to the sexual history or character of a witness".
  That phrase is a little high flown—or, as I would say, a little fly blown. As the Minister knows, I have worked to improve the protection given to complainers in rape cases. There is still a good deal of trawling through a woman's sexual history, but perhaps the Minister will repudiate that statement when he speaks. I am deeply disappointed that the Government obdurately refuse to give complainers in rape cases more protection.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that clause 28 is the most important part of the Bill? Whoever drafted the Bill cleverly sought two approaches, because clauses 10 and 28 go together. It is probably hoped that clause 10 will be accepted while clause 28 is rejected, but they are really the same. Lawyers are used because their clients feel themselves to

  769
  be inarticulate and would be better represented by a legal mind. That is one reason why both clauses 10 and 28 should remain.
  Dr. Godman: If my hon. Friend is fortunate to serve as a member of the Committee, he may find it worth while to read the excellent speech of Lord McCluskey in the other place who made interesting observations about those clauses.
  I have long argued that complainers in rape cases should he treated as vulnerable witnesses. I say that despite the publicity that attached to a rape case in England that ended last week. Women are subjected to offensive questioning in the witness box. The threat of criminal proceedings deters many women from making a complaint. We do not know how many rapes are committed each year in Scotland or elsewhere.
  I readily concede that advances have been made by the courts and police. Strathclyde and other forces have family units, where rape victims are treated a damned sight more sympathetically than in the days when they were left in the clutches of some insensitive police surgeons. Nevertheless, much more could be done.
  Some years ago, I tabled in Committee a new clause to a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. Had it been accepted, it would have put a stop to all trawling through a complainer's sexual history. A curious combination of Nicky Fairbairn and the then Solicitor-General, Mr. Peter Fraser, demolished my case, to the satisfaction of Conservative Members.
  The concept of a vulnerable witness should extend further than children. I know that the Minister, who paid me a compliment not so long ago, played a part in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which give enhanced protection to child witnesses in sexual and child abuse cases. Section 34 concerns the use of screens to conceal the witness—which, to be honest, is not very effective in most courts. Section 33(1) introduced a commissioner to take the evidence of the child. I offer my respects and compliments to the Minister for that radical measure.
  I would like such protection to extend beyond youngsters caught up in terrible circumstances. Why do the Government continue to refuse similar protection to people with learning disabilities? I regularly visit a centre in my constituency, but some of the young fellows there cannot face meeting strangers and will hide when someone enters the room—especially if he has a deep voice like mine. Such cases are rare, but a witness with learning difficulties should be given the same protection as a youngster who has been sexually or physically abused or criminally neglected.
  Mr. McFall: Under clause 10, an individual would have to undergo judicial examination 24 to 48 hours after an offence. He or she may ask a lawyer for advice, but the lawyer cannot make representations. Would not that mitigate against a fair trial for individuals with special needs?
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intelligent intervention. I sound like my hon. Friend—a deputy head teacher. Clause 10 should be amended in that respect. I would like a new clause, or clause 24 extended to broaden the concept of a vulnerable witness to women
  770
  complainers in rape cases and to men and women with learning disabilities. They too should be spared the ordeal of giving evidence in open court.
  In the next hour or so, by a process of osmosis, the Minister will tell me that few such cases go to court. I do not care if the number is only two or three youngsters over three or four years—they should be protected.
  I want the Minister to give an assurance that while this Government remain in office, which I pray will not be long, the status quo on the anonymity of the complainer and the identification of the accused will remain in rape and other sexual assault cases. I just paid the Minister a tribute—de mortuis nihil nisi bonum. I recall Nicky Fairbairn making outrageous statements on the question of anonymity.
  The Bill concentrates—some say rightly and properly—on prosecuting criminals, but seems to ignore the interests and needs of victims and witnesses. I have a question for the Minister on clause 50. I apologise if the Secretary of State touched on this matter in my absence. From where are members of the rules council to be drawn? Are they all to be members of the legal establishment, or will there be lay persons on the council?
  I have a final word to say about the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses. About 10 days ago the Minister announced, in a written answer, the installation of closed circuit television systems in a court in each of the sheriffdoms. Will he confirm that the CCTV being installed in the—recently renovated but still leaking—sheriff court in Greenock is a permanent fixture? Local opinion has it that it will be removed as soon as the Paisley sheriff court has been renovated. There may be some disagreement about this with my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), but I am doing a bit of special plea bargaining with the Minister. My hon. Friends can always put in similar facilities at Paisley—
  Mr. McMaster: That is a deal.
  Dr. Godman: Yes, but I am looking for a deal with the Minister—with respect to my old and hon. Friend.
  It would seem a shame to pull out this sort of facility once it has been installed. Even if CCTV were installed in a court in each sheriffdom, there would still be far fewer such systems in our courts than south of the border. I believe that nearly 60 English Crown courts now have such facilities: we have very few. There could easily be one in Greenock and one in Paisley—but I am just trying to stay friends with my two hon. Friends.
  All these issues are close to my heart. I hope that my old and hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) is listening when I say that I do not anticipate serving on the Standing Committee. Still, I think that the Bill needs detailed, rigorous scrutiny. It certainly needs to be amended—for instance, along the lines I have suggested for the victims of crime.
  I have looked at the television system in sheriff court No. 5 in Glasgow, and I think that it works exceedingly well for everyone in the room—although I hope never to be in the dock. It certainly works well for the jury, the sheriff and the judge. Certain witnesses, however, who have to relive the ordeal, say, of a vicious rape, such as my two constituents suffered last August on the Old Kilmacolm road, and who are denied such protection—all

  771
  except child witnesses—should be given anonymity and a great deal more protection. The Bill needs to be changed to reflect the interests of such people.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Like all who have spoken in the debate I want to put on record a tribute to the late Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, who was a person no one in the House could miss. All the obituaries that I have read refer to his great range of skills and talents. He was prominent in legal circles in Scotland before he came here. Once here, he was known for his political abilities, which were always seen at their best when he turned on his own side. He was also well known as an artist, and I know from conversations with him that he always described himself, too, as a landscape gardener. Before coming here I was a senior lecturer in horticulture, and I can vouch for the fact that Sir Nicholas was a knowledgeable gardener. This place will be less colourful without him.
  I have waited with great enthusiasm to take part in this debate, and I must thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), our Scottish Whip, for giving me so much encouragement to say a few words. I shall therefore say all that I need to say tonight, and leave service on the Committee to others who have not yet had a chance to speak. I apologise in advance for not being able to stay for the wind-ups, owing to other duties not too dissimilar from this one.
  All hon. Members who have spoken so far have referred to plea bargaining and the need to organise it better. We all know that there will always be an element of plea bargaining in the courts. The problem at the moment is that all those participating in a case are told to turn up at 9.45 am, then to wait a few hours and go for lunch, and then they are told that the case will not be heard that day because of plea bargaining. Some of the witnesses may be police officers, and as the police tend not to take deployed officers away from their usual duties, police witnesses are often paid for court appearances out of overtime budgets. That means that money that could be spent on all sorts of valuable police work is lost because of time wasted in court.
  In Paisley, Divisional Commander Michael Currie and the local procurator fiscal some time ago developed an informal system of informing the police as early as possible if it was likely that an officer would not be required. Of course, officers have to be on standby, but at least they can be doing other work. The latest estimates show that as much as a third of the police overtime budget is spent in this way. It is also a waste of time for witnesses who have taken time off from other duties to appear in court.
  This is not a new interest on my part. As long ago as May 1992 I wrote to the Secretary of State about it—and to the Comptroller and Auditor General. As a matter of courtesy I sent a copy to the Scottish Office. I received a reply from Lord Fraser, dated 7 July 1992. In it, he told me that much of my analysis was "facile and unenlightening", and went on to give me all the reasons why legislation of the type that now appears in this Bill could not be put through the House of Commons. I am therefore glad to see that the noble Lord Fraser has since reconsidered—perhaps because the Comptroller and
  772
  Auditor General commented on the resources wasted in this way. I hope that some sensible arrangements can now be put in place.
  The poor layout of courts and a lack of facilities can lead to witnesses on both sides of a case being in the same room at the same time. That can lead to intimidation. The problem is not confined to serious trials; there can be problems in what the courts would regard as routine trials. For example, anti-social behaviour involving neighbours may find itself in court. Those involved will leave the courtroom and then have to live close to one another. The problem will be exacerbated within the community for some time if there is any prospect of intimidation.
  I hope that something can be done to ensure that more information and advice is given to victims, and especially the families of victims. A case in my constituency became prominent and many people will remember it well. A young man called Holmes was murdered outside a disco in Paisley. The culmination of events played a part in the introduction and enactment of legislation on knives.
  The case went to court, where it was decided that the accused could not be found guilty of the charge. The Holmes family says that it has lost a son and that no one has been punished for the crime. I accept that the issue must be left to the courts. I would not wish to become involved in the detail of the case. The problems surrounding the case became exacerbated, however, because before, during and after the trial the family was provided with little information. When it was provided with information, including meetings with the procurator fiscal, it was inadequate. On one or two occasions, it was inaccurate. That causes great concern. I know that there is a group in Strathclyde that is involved with the families of murder victims and is pushing the case for more information.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made some important points about miscarriages of justice. The Secretary of State referred to these miscarriages in his opening remarks. He told us that he has set up a committee, which has not yet reported. He explained that he wishes to wait for the committee's conclusions before he makes any legislative suggestions. We understand the reasons for that.
  The Secretary of State has recognised that there are miscarriages of justice by accepting an application on behalf of one of my constituents, Raymond Gilmour, for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. There is evidence in the case—arguably and technically it is not new evidence—that was not available to the defence when the trial took place. Accordingly, it was not led in court. I do not want to prejudge the Secretary of State's involvement in the matter. I merely say that my constituents are grateful that the application was accepted. Obviously the family is anxious that there should be a decision as quickly as possible, but not at the price of an investigation that is not thorough. We must stand back and leave the Secretary of State to exercise his judgment. He must decide how thoroughly the issues must be investigated before he can come to a conclusion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian talked about the offices of procurators fiscal. He made a strong case that these offices are sometimes overworked. I go along with that to some extent. We must be careful, however, to ensure that overwork is not used as an excuse for a macho approach or, in some instances,

  773
  incompetence. Those approaches can obviously be found in busy offices but they are to be found also in relatively quiet offices.
  I took up the case of procurators fiscal offices in 1992. In a series of cases at Paisley, blunders resulted in alleged drug dealers walking out of court on technicalities. There were instances of writs being served too late or wrongly dated. On occasions they were wrongly dated to be served on a Saturday or Sunday, when the offices of the procurators fiscal were not open. Such errors do not engender great confidence. When they occur and accused persons walk out of court, there is resentment. Those who are dealt with more severely feel that they have been treated unfairly and differently from those whom they perceive to be guilty but who walk free. We are reminded of the hackneyed phrase that not only should justice be done, but be seen to be done. We should ensure that everybody in the courts is dealt with in the same fashion.
  I have asked a series of questions on this issue—I asked some as recently as Friday—because I am concerned about when the procurator fiscal decides to refer a case to the Crown for decision. I asked in what circumstances such a referral would occur and, quite honestly, the answers that I have received so far have been unsatisfactory. We need more openness in the Crown office and the procurator fiscal service.
  The Bill must be seen in the context of the causes of crime because crime is related to hopelessness. That is not to say that all crimes are related to hopelessness, but hopelessness certainly creates more chance of crime. Every unemployed person is not necessarily a criminal—of course that is not so—but there is a direct link between crime and people, especially young people, who feel that there is no hope for the future.
  In that context, the Government are putting forward the Bill as a means of dealing with crime while, at the same time, they are implementing massive and savage cuts in Strathclyde regional council and elsewhere. Cuts in the community education budget and in all sorts of community facilities will inevitably lead to young people having nowhere to go and nothing to do, which is precisely what leads them into crime. I appeal to the Minister to see the matter in context.
  Dr. Godman: With regard to the relationship between unemployment and crime, does my hon. Friend agree that many minor offences are committed by unemployed youngsters and that, if they were in work, with all the disciplines that work would impose, they would not commit such minor offences?
  Mr. McMaster: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The general demise of the apprenticeship scheme, which put young people in a work situation and taught them discipline, is also disadvantageous.
  Mr. Gallie: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many of the crimes to which he has referred, such as vandalism, house-breaking and other crimes are, in fact, committed by 14 and 15-year-olds and that those youngsters have an excellent education system to utilise? Why should they be of the same brand as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. McMaster: Young people of 14 and 15 want to be educated for something. They see 17 and 18-year-olds coming out of education to poverty, hopelessness and
  774
  unemployment, and it does not motivate them. Young people should be given hope for the future. That would do a great deal of good.
  We have heard a lot about various types of drugs. In my constituency, the drugs that concern me most are jellies: temazepam. They are meant to be prescribed, yet, not only are young people swallowing them, but they are heating them up and injecting them. Some have had their limbs amputated as a result. Action could be taken swiftly if the Government were to repeat what they did a couple of years ago, which certainly helped for a short time. The Secretary of State should give guidance to every health board and tell every general practitioner in Scotland that temazepam should not be prescribed when there is any other reasonable alternative.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. John McFall: We have had a worthwhile debate in which we have heard many good speeches from hon. Members of all parties. I shall begin by paying my tribute to the late Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. I took the post of shadow home affairs spokesperson without being a lawyer or having expertise, but from the first day Sir Nicholas Fairbairn was very kind and helpful in his remarks. Not once, in a professional way, did he try to take us down. That is clear from the record in Hansard. He did take people down on occasion and they felt the sharp edge of his tongue. However, when he realised that there were serious aspects and that people were trying to apply themselves and to learn, he was one of the most sensitive individuals in that regard—
  Mr. Foulkes: That was before all the postcards started to arrive.
  Mr. McFall: I was about to say "bundle", which is quite appropriate.
  The Bill is a bundle of procedural reforms. If it were not for the Law Commission's report being implemented, it would be very thin indeed. The Bill lacks a strategic overview and coherence. It emerges from five consultation papers which the Government entitled "Improving the Delivery of Justice in Scotland". The topics covered were evidence and procedure, criminal legal aid, juries and verdicts and sentencing and appeals. Those four topics were preceded by the White Paper, "Firm and Fair".
  Do those topics add up to a Runciman commission, which was a critical analysis of the Royal Commission on justice in respect of England and Wales? I do not believe that they do. Scotland has been short-changed in that respect.
  Since the Government came to power, there have been 14 Acts of Parliament for Scotland. They started with the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and they carry through to this Bill. However, those Acts did not follow a logical and progressive path. As a result, they do not point the way forward in terms of an approach that is coherent, efficient and effective for the criminal justice system in Scotland.
  For example, there is no presage of the criminal courts rules council in the Bill. That provision simply appeared on Report in the House of Lords. If that is such an important element, why was it not in the Bill from the beginning? It seems that the Government are still developing their ideas and that they do not have a coherent whole yet.

  775
  The Bill refers to many measures such as enhancing the intermediate trial diet. However, that is already operational. If my memory serves me correctly, it was recommended by the Lord Justice-General as long ago as 1982, but it was not working properly. I believe that about 12 courts are operating intermediate trial diets today. Will the Minister tell us precisely how many courts are operating that system and how effective they are? Have the Government undertaken a review of the effectiveness of the intermediate trial diet?
  The Secretary of State said that a consolidation Act will follow the Bill. That is welcome, but it must be comprehensive. Will we find ourselves some way down the line with yet another criminal justice Bill, as a result of the piecemeal approach, and yet another consolidation Bill? I remember that the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 had to be revised. Some of the revision took place in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
  Hon. Members have already referred to judicial examination, the diminishing of the right to silence and the prosecutor's right to comment. Clause 10 relates to judicial examination whereby an accused person is taken before the court at a very early stage in the proceedings, before he even knows the case against him. He will have a copy of the complaint, indictment or petition, but he is then in many ways forced to explain his case. Within 24 hours of being arrested, an individual may be brought before a sheriff to be questioned by a prosecutor. He has a right to consult a solicitor before answering detailed questions about where he was, what he did, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) referred to individuals with special learning needs. Such individuals might find themselves being pressured by professional people. That further undermines the right to silence. The official Opposition will press the Government on that matter in Committee.
  Under such judicial examination, there cannot be many people who are capable of rational thought 24 or 48 hours after a trauma. The general public will view clause 10 as an attempt to make the accused confess. I shall press the Minister on that matter in Committee.
  I am concerned also about clause 28, which relates to a prosecutor's right to comment. How far will a prosecutor be allowed to go? What control will be exercised? A prosecutor's forensic abilities may be put into play, and without any restrictions or guidelines being set, he or she can not only intimidate a witness but, in the process, make sure that the prosecution case is won by default. It is a two-way process. I ask the Minister to consider it and to give us some written guidelines. If, in going over the top, he destroys the prosecution case, that is not good for justice, either.
  Clause 29 is worth consideration in Committee. It has a certain plea-bargaining element to it, but perhaps it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It states:
  "In determining what sentence to pass on …an offender who has pled guilty to an offence, a court may take into account—
  (a) the stage in the proceedings …at which the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty".
  776
  Is not there a chance that an offender will say, "If I plead guilty early, perhaps I will get away with it and get the problem settled very quickly"? There will turn out to be a plea-bargaining element. That matter is worth further consideration in Committee.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned miscarriages of justice. We welcome the establishment of the Sutherland committee, but we deplore the fact that it will not report until July 1996. We must compare that with the Runciman report in England and Wales. As I mentioned when I intervened on the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary has already announced a miscarriages review authority Bill. Citizens of Scotland will be subject to a different regime from that in England and Wales. Citizens of Scotland will have their right to silence diminished, as a result of the changes, when they appear at court and at judicial examination. Citizens of England and Wales will also have the right to silence removed, but they will have recourse to a miscarriage of justice review body, and Scotland will not. The mismatch of remedies available to citizens of the United Kingdom does nothing for the provision of justice in Scotland.
  I ask the Minister to guarantee that, in the event of the Sutherland committee recommending legislation, the Government will give sufficient time to the matter in the lifetime of this Parliament. We need an unequivocal answer from the Minister. This matter is not just an aspect of the legal system. We are talking about a higher level; innocent people's lives are threatened. It is important to turn our attention to that matter.
  One of the most ingenious comments in the Bill is that it will be financially neutral. It is hard to guess what the final financial element will be. Civil servants have already studied it. They have tabled plus and minus merits and demerits of aspects of the changes, so there must be a quantitative element. If the Government are not forthcoming with that information, we must ask whether they consider that change is worth while only if the cost is neutral. The calculations on which such expressions are based should be shown. Lord McCluskey in the other place referred to cloud cuckoo land. How can we introduce extra bail duties, which we are happy to endorse, for fiscals and advocate deputes? How can extra preparation be introduced for questioning at judicial examination? How can extra preparatory work for fiscals be introduced, and how can matters be dealt with in the earlier clauses of the Bill? How can extra work be introduced for hearings in relation to insanity cases, and extra responsibilities be conferred in relation to confiscation under part II? It just cannot be done without an increase in the resources available to the fiscal service.
  There is a glaring lack of reference to the fiscal service. All practitioners in courts elsewhere say that the underfunding of the procurator fiscal system is the problem. Any defence lawyer who has a case wrapped up will say, in private, that the system is under such pressure that, to an extent, an advantage is given to the defence.
  Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Why are only four Scottish Labour Members sitting behind him?
  Mr. McFall: There is a full turnout of Tory Members, but nevertheless only a handful are present. The hon. Gentleman was present at the beginning of the debate, but subsequently decided to leave; when he left, other hon.

  777
  Members came in. If he had stayed throughout the debate, he might have based his information on fact rather than fancy.
  Mr. Stewart: Where are they, then?
  Mr. McFall: My hon. Friends have been in the Chamber at certain stages.
  Mr. Stewart: Answer.
  Mr. McFall: I think that the Eastwood bruiser is warming up to take over from Sir Nicholas.
  The Bill is predicated on the White Paper entitled "Firm and Fair", in which the Secretary of State calls for "our fight against crime". The White Paper stated that the highest priority was to protect the public from crime and criminals. The question is, how efficient have the Government been in that regard since they took power? In 1979, 673,000 crimes and offences were committed; according to the latest estimate, the figure is now over 1 million. Even in the last year, when according to the Government the crime figures have fallen, the number of drug offences and violent crimes has increased. The fact is that the Government have little to present in terms of law and order. They have not been efficient in that regard, which is why Labour's slogan "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" has resonance up and down the land.
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman is bandying around some interesting slogans. Is he suggesting that Labour's proposals will increase the pay of a policeman over and above the real terms increase of 30 per cent. that has already been achieved by the Government? The number of policemen has also risen. How will the hon. Gentleman deal with that, and what will be the cost?
  Mr. McFall: It is very simple. Nearly all local authorities in Scotland are Labour controlled and work with the communities and the police. It is the actions on the ground that count, as against the Government's lack of intention. Opposition Members are proud of the way in which good Labour local authorities work with communities and the police; it is a shame that Conservative Members are not.
  Let us look at the Conservatives' record on law and order and the courts. The position of the courts has already been mentioned. According to the figures, it is estimated that 250,000 citations are served annually on a total uniformed police strength of 14,000. Each day, 700 police officers attend court to give evidence in criminal cases going to trial, but only one in five gives that evidence. Police evidence accounts for only 2 per cent. of police court duty. The rest is travel and waiting time. So I put it to the Government that if they want to do something about fighting crime and putting police on the streets, they should do something about the scandalous waste of police resources in courts. It has a severe impact on operational duties.
  Mr. Gallie: Surely that is precisely what the Bill does. On that basis, why on earth has the hon. Gentleman tabled this stupid amendment?
  Mr. McFall: The Bill does nothing of the sort. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we pressed Lord Fraser of Carmyllie to examine the wasting of police time in court. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) wrote to him. In his reply, the noble Lord said that he found much of my hon. Friend's analysis facile
  778
  and unenlightening. He said that he was surprised that my hon. Friend did not understand why police officers spent time waiting to give evidence. Let me remind the House that the Public Accounts Commission took the same view as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South. It found that there was a scandalous waste of police time. It has asked the Government to do something about it. As yet, the waste still takes place in courts.
  Only last year, the chief constable of Central region mentioned in his annual report that police in his area wasted 98 per cent. of the time that they spent at court. What do the Government intend to do about the problem? It has gone on for years and years. It requires the Opposition to cry day in and day out for the Government to do something. We congratulate ourselves on the fact that a measure is now in the Bill.
  The social context in which the Bill has been introduced is a phenomenal increase in drug-related offences. Between 1989 and 1993 total recorded crime in Scotland rose by 10.1 per cent. Yet drug-related offences leapt by an incredible 1,000 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) asked earlier, what is the Government's policy on drug enforcement? Drug abuse is one of the greatest social problems facing Scotland today. It is one of the principal causes of crime. The Opposition recognise that the problem of drugs must be tackled if any headway is to be made in the battle against crime, but the Government have stubbornly refused to do that, despite evidence from the Medical Research Council, the World Health Organisation and Greater Glasgow health board. A survey by the board showed that 80 per cent. of those surveyed engaged in crime to service their drugs habit.
  The Government can no longer continue pretending that there is no link between drug abuse and deprivation. I should like to see in the Bill measures to assist drugs education so that we can change the agenda, control the supply of drugs and experiment with strategies at the social and community level with voluntary groups and the parents who are involved in the problem to help the people who are regular users not to get into trouble.
  Crimes of violence are of particular concern to many people. The latest figures show that crimes of violence have increased. What have the Government done in the light of that? Last year they removed the entitlement to legal aid from a quarter of a million people. They then implemented sheriff court fees. That means that people who take action in sheriff courts are expected to meet the full cost of the sheriff's salary.
  Mr. Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are debating the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, not civil law in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is dealing with civil law matters.
  Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who is replying to the debate will come back to the substance of the debate.
  Mr. McFall: This is an integral part of the issue. The Law Society of Scotland has contacted us on the matter. The Government intend to introduce measures on criminal legal aid similar to those which they introduced on civil legal aid and on criminal injuries compensation.
  We all sympathise with the case of Judy, but what have the Government done? They have dismantled the legislation that a Labour Government established in the

  779
  mid-1960s and, as a result, if a police officer aged 30 with two children is killed in the course of duty, his widow will receive £10,000 no matter how financially or psychologically difficult her position, whereas before it was £150,000.
  In case the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) thinks that we are straying again, I wonder whether he would support us in the following case. If a police officer is killed, does he agree that his widow should not merely be given the pitiful sum of £10,000, as would be the case with the criminal injuries compensation scheme? If we table a positive amendment, we can ensure that the tariff scheme is kept for the less severe cases, but we could use the scheme that we had previously for the more severe cases and those that impinge on the families who are left behind. Police officers' widows would then get the sum of money that they rightfully deserve.
  Mr. Bill Walker: I want to understand what the hon. Gentleman is offering. Is he saying that he will table a detailed amendment so that the widow of a police constable killed on duty will receive substantial benefit? Will it be a narrow amendment, dealing purely with police constables?
  Mr. McFall: Yes, and if we get Conservative support it will be fine. I am saying that the tariff scheme should be abolished at one end of the scale to give us some flexibility. Let us have a tariff scheme at the bottom, but not at the top. The hon. Gentleman has been helpful to his Front Bench as always and I will be delighted if we can follow that path.
  The Secretary of State said that the Government were at the forefront on crime, but if they are, they must be standing there watching—they are certainly not doing anything about it, because it is increasing year on year. They talk about the success of crime prevention and say that they are backing the police. Let us ask the police what they think after the Sheehy inquiry. Ask the prison officers what they thought when the Government took away industrial dispute legislation.
  Labour is looking for positive measures to encourage the community to work with the police in close co-operation and to support home security schemes, which result in safer neighbourhoods. We want measures to encourage local victim support projects, neighbourhood watch and other community projects. We want measures to implement social strategies and tackle some of the causes of crime, because there is undoubtedly a link between increasing crime and social deprivation. That is the distinguishing mark of the official Opposition compared with the Government on this issue.
  We are telling the Government to tackle the causes of crime—poverty, poor housing, poor education, high levels of unemployment and drug abuse. Yes, deal firmly with the perpetrators, but target young offenders to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals and an obligation on the state, then we will have a positive framework on which to work so that the Bill gets its Second Reading.
  9.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Tonight, Members of Parliament from both sides of the House have
  780
  paid tribute to Sir Nicholas Fairbairn. They have mentioned his great personal kindnesses in offering legal advice, in particular. Many of us will miss him as a friend—not just the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who had been his junior counsel, as indeed have I. I believe that the late John Smith also served in that capacity. We will all miss his puckish sense of humour. Although he did not always agree with the Government, I am certain that he agreed with the bulk of the Bill, and we miss his presence tonight.
  The Bill contains many reforms that are critical. I must start by telling the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) that one of the most significant reforms is the introduction of intermediate diets, and the pilot scheme has been remarkably successful. It was carried out in Airdrie and Dundee sheriff courts and the analysis showed that intermediate diets cut unnecessary court attendance in half. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right—the police presence in courts should be cut and the measure will help to do that.
  Courts in Edinburgh, Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and Dumbarton have introduced the diets, with similar results. The provisions in the Bill are needed to ensure that courts throughout the length and breadth of Scotland can also secure those benefits.
  The hon. Member for Dumbarton also asked whether guidelines on prosecutors' comments on the accused's failure to give evidence would be issued. I confirm that the Lord Advocate gave an undertaking in the other House that he would issue guidelines to Crown counsel and procurators fiscal.
  The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the issue of closed circuit television. He is right to say that those television facilities will be extended to every sheriffdom in Scotland. The equipment currently in use in the sheriff court in his constituency will be reviewed and a final decision will be taken in the light of demand.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about those who are sent to Carstairs and how easy it is for someone imprisoned there without a time limit to get out. I would say that it is extremely hard. When I practised in the High Court, we often took the view that if someone was charged with murder and ended up in Carstairs, he was likely to be there much longer than if he went anywhere else. The two major issues are the individual's mental state, which is a matter of clinical judgment, and public safety, which is entirely the responsibility of the Secretary of State, who must be satisfied about that before deciding to release the prisoner. Any such committal is appealable to the sheriff court.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the criminal court rules council. I confirm that it will be drawn largely from professionals who use the court, but the legislation prescribes that one member should have an awareness of the interests of victims of crime and witnesses in criminal proceedings. That person, at least, need not be a legal professional.
  Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: May I answer some other points first?
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East raised the issue of financial consequences of the Bill. We have every reason to be confident in our assessment that

  781
  the Bill will cover its cost at worst, because it is full of proposals that will relieve financial burdens on the police, prosecutors and courts. For example, the police will waste less time attending court needlessly and citing witnesses in person. Fiscal fines will be reduced and prosecutors in the courts will be relieved of some of the burdens that they now sustain. There will be savings in compensation paid to witnesses and jurors for attending court, and the cost of sending fine defaulters to prison will be reduced as supervised attendance orders will be used instead. Those and other proposals will probably more than offset the additional burdens but, of course, we shall closely monitor the position in the light of experience.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about cases marked "No proceedings". Like him, I have prosecuted—I was an interim procurator fiscal. It would have been unthinkable for me to have marked any case "No proceedings" on the ground of work load pressure and I am glad to say that I never came across a fiscal who took that action. I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman some figures. The main categories in which no proceedings were taken were insufficient admissible evidence and triviality. In 1993–94, 23 per cent. of cases were marked "No proceedings" because of evidential difficulties, and 29 per cent. because the offence was viewed as trivial. In the period between October 1993 and September 1994, not a single case was marked "No proceedings" for the reason of staff shortage. But I shall make further inquiries into the point which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about facilities in Linlithgow. I am glad to confirm that those are currently being reviewed in the Linlithgow and Livingston areas. I shall be pleased to ask my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State to write to the hon. Gentleman to bring him up to date on progress. The hon. Gentleman also asked about fatal accident inquiries when those are held to establish when and where death occurred, the cause of death, any reasonable precautions whereby death might have been avoided, and any defect in any system that contributed to the death. We are conscious of the need to pay even greater attention to victims and the Bill contains a number of practical measures, for example, to decrease the number of times that witnesses may have to attend court, to reduce the number of occasions when a trial must be cancelled or adjourned without warning and to remove one restriction on the prosecution's freedom to lead evidence of the accused's previous misconduct in cases where the defence has attacked the victim's character. All those measures are evidence of the Government's commitment to treat victims with courtesy, dignity and compassion and to reduce the trauma of their necessary involvement in the criminal justice system.
  Mr. Dalyell: In the Government's view, is it the purpose of a fatal accident inquiry to get the truth or is it designed, as in the case of Lockerbie, to get maximum damages for certain parties and evade the truth? Does the hon. Gentleman think that Ministers and the intelligence services should, where necessary, be called to fatal accident inquiries?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman's questions go somewhat beyond the terms of the Bill, because fatal accident inquiries do not feature in it. Without question, the purpose of those inquiries is to
  782
  get at the truth, which is what happened at the FAIs at which I was present. No doubt the hon. Gentleman's ingenuity will be such that he will follow up his lines of inquiry elsewhere.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and many other hon. Members wanted to know whether the provisions on bail go far enough. It is the purpose of the Bill to toughen the existing provisions, for example, by enabling the courts to impose double the current custodial penalty on those who offend on bail. Any attempt to reduce offending on bail also depends on minimising the time those awaiting trial spend on bail. The longer the delay in bringing offenders to justice, the greater the risk of their continuing to offend. The measures in the Bill will also therefore assist the courts in dealing with delays and backlogs in the hearing of cases. That will also make an important contribution.
  There have been a number of cases of bail abuse and it is absolutely right that we should tighten the law in that connection. The proposal to restrict access to bail in clause 3 is not unique. Section 26 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 states that bail cannot be granted for the crimes of murder or treason. Those restrictions have existed in statute since 1888. We are extending that restriction further, which we believe to be necessary.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) spoke about the "Crossey Posse". The problems posed by large numbers of pending cases can best be resolved by better use of courts' resources. Too much time is wasted with late pleas, non-appearance by accused persons and late adjournments. If we can reduce that waste of resources, the courts and the prosecutors will be able to process pending cases much more speedily.
  The position of young offenders is uppermost in our mind. We have commissioned a major research study into the children's hearing system, which is being carried out by Stirling and Edinburgh universities. It will focus on decision making within the hearing system and the outcome for the young people who come before it. We have also announced a major development project, which is being undertaken by Barnado's and Central region, to address the problems caused by persistent young offenders, in which we are investing £1 million over five years. We are engaged in a number of other projects, because it is important to tackle the circumstances that give rise to crime.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr and the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke about raves. The report by Sheriff Gow was also touched upon. The Scottish Drugs Forum has been commissioned to prepare guidance for local authorities and licensing boards to assist them in advising the organisers of raves on the practical measures they can take to minimise the health and welfare problems which sometimes arise at such events. In consultation with the local authorities and the police interest, consideration is being given to the practicalities of introducing model licensing conditions into licences for raves, possibly dealing with such aspects as stewarding, permitted numbers and searches.
  Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend agree that, with respect to Sheriff Gow's findings, the operators basically complied with the guidelines that he refers to already?

  783
  Does he agree that the real problem is that young people continue to take drugs such as Ecstasy, and that that is the issue that we must tackle?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument. Drug misuse is a serious problem in Scotland. We are spending no less than £40 million a year on the various agencies to combat it. We are determined to have a considerable drive, especially with regard to young people, aimed at its prevention, and the drugs task force will have a major part to play in that. There are now new schools drug prevention packages for under-10s and over-14s.
  Substitute prescribing also has a role to play in tackling drug misuse. We shall work extremely hard at that subject for a comprehensive response.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) mentioned the homosexual age of consent. The House reduced it for homosexual acts from 21 to 18 and the House expressed a clear preference for a reduction to 18 rather than 16.
  Since last November, when the law changed, instructions have been sent to procurators fiscal, saying that they should continue to report to the Crown Office, for consideration by Crown counsel, any case where both participants are over 16 and the act appears to have been consensual and in private but is an offence by reason of the fact that one or both are under 18. Since the issue of that instruction, no cases have been so reported for consideration by Crown counsel. Each case that is reported will be considered on its merits, and a decision will be made whether it is in the public interest that proceedings be taken.
  Mr. Watson rose—
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have nothing more to say about that. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to pursue the matter in Standing Committee, and I look forward to his volunteering for that role.
  With regard to clause 8, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about a joint application to have a juror excused. In those circumstances, both parties will continue to have the right to seek a juror's excusal by showing cause to the court.
  The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East, if I remember correctly, asked why we were not following a similar procedure to the Thomson committee. What was required, in our opinion, was a detailed examination of certain specific areas of concern. One solution that we propose is a continuation or development of Lord Thomson's recommendation—mandatory intermediate diets. Other proposals for a clause dealing with examinations of the facts are Thomson recommendations that were not implemented in 1980. The consultation that preceded the Bill was extremely comprehensive.
  I come to the issue of intermediate diets, which I believe will help enormously to speed up the process of justice. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East asked about temporary sheriffs. There are about 120 temporary sheriffs, who are used to maintain the work of the sheriff courts. That helps when the sheriffs are on holiday or on sick leave or the resident sheriff is absent, for whatever reason.
  784
  The judicial strength of the supreme courts and the sheriff courts is kept under constant review, in consultation with the judicial heads of those courts. In recent years, as the work loads of those courts have increased, so have the numbers of judges and sheriffs, and temporary judges and temporary sheriffs make a useful contribution to dealing with the work loads of the courts and to reducing inconvenience to court users.
  Scotland now has more judges and more sheriffs than at any previous time in its history.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister confirm that there are now more temporary sheriffs than there are those holding permanent commissions? If there is a need for more temporary sheriffs than permanent ones, is that not a clear sign that the work load is sufficient to justify more full-time sheriffs? The Scottish system is based on full-time professional judges. Why are the Government not implementing that?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There are now more judges and more permanent sheriffs than ever before. Judicial strengths are kept under constant review. It is notable that, for many types of court business and in many courts, waiting periods are now at or below the target figures.
  On the subject of additional evidence, the difference of view between the Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice Clerk has been mentioned, but that does not necessarily mean that the cases involved are at odds. All it means is that the subject will need to be considered by five judges. I should not say anything more as cases referred to the full Bench are sub judice.
  It is remarkable that Labour Members have said that the right to silence is being threatened. Distinguished members of the Labour party or members who have been Labour Law Officers—
  Mr. Foulkes: Name them.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will. Lord McCluskey said of the right to silence:
  "It is deeply patronising to say that that cannot be commented upon. If the judge can comment upon it, as he can—though he should do so with restraint; and those restraints are fairly well known—I do not see any reason in the world why the prosecutor should not say, 'Well, ladies and gentlemen, you have heard the evidence. His fingerprints were found all over the safe. His footprints were found on the carpet and his DNA sample matched that found on the broken window'".—[0fficial Report, House of Lords, 29 November 1994; Vol. 559, c. 569.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister is quoting from a Member of the upper House who is not a Minister. I think that he knows that he can quote from the upper House only from those who are Ministers.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall paraphrase what I was saying. It was considered not unreasonable to mention the facts of incriminating evidence and the fact that the accused who, in the circumstances, was the only person who might know exactly what had happened, refused to do so.
  The clause does not remove the right to silence; it allows the prosecutor the right to comment on the fact that a person has sat tight in the witness box. When I was an advocate, if I saw an accused person in a serious criminal case of rape,

  785
  murder or assault to severe injury, sitting tight in the accused box, it was usually a sign that he or she was as guilty as sin.
  Mr. McFall: I thought that we were talking about justice, until the Minister mentioned his own form of justice. Does he accept that some cases will involve over-zealous prosecutors, and such cases require more guidelines? Does he also accept that an over-zealous prosecutor can do as much harm to the prosecution case as to the accused? There is a vital need for guidelines—will they be forthcoming from the Minister?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I made clear earlier the circumstances in which the Lord Advocate would issue guidelines. It is absolutely clear that it is the prosecutor's job to put the facts before the courts, elicit the facts and leave it to the jury to make up its mind. If he has prepared his case thoroughly and there is a lot of evidence, that will weigh with the jury.
  Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I want to move to my next subject: confiscation and forfeiture.
  The Government have been in the forefront in introducing measures to deprive offenders of the profits of crime and property used in crime. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 introduced confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking in Scotland and has been extremely succesful. We believe that those new powers will make a huge difference in ensuring that ill-gotten profits from crime are taken away from those who would otherwise benefit from them. They will deprive criminals of assets where crimes such as serious fraud, theft and pornography have given rise to economic benefit. That is an important provision in the Bill.
  I turn now to the subject of the not proven verdict. Much has been made of the fact that Sir Walter Scott expressed doubts about the not proven verdict. With the greatest respect to him, Sir Walter did not practise very much, for whatever reason. There is a great difference between the circumstances in Scotland and those in England. The royal commission's remit—to which the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) referred—was confined to England and Wales. It was considering whether not proven should be introduced in a system of juries of 12, with unanimous or 10 to two majority verdicts. The Government have consulted in Scotland on whether not proven should be retained in a system which has juries of 15 and simple majority verdicts and in which the not proven verdict has played its part for 250 years. The overwhelming response was that the not proven verdict should be retained and that is why the Government will not support its abolition. We have consulted about the issue and the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of its retention. Therefore, we will oppose any moves to abolish it.
  Mr. George Robertson: I said in my speech that, in view of Scottish legal history, if there was to be any change in the Scottish legal system, it should be decided by a free vote. Will the Minister give a guarantee that Government Back Benchers will be free to vote according to their views and their consciences?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: There is no need for a free vote on that issue. The evidence is conclusive that it is in Scotland's interests to retain it.
  786
  With regard to the not proven verdict, hon. Members will recall the case of Madeleine Smith who asked her boyfriend to return her love letters and, when he refused to deliver them, she gave him a drink laced with arsenic. The jury could not bear the thought of sentencing that young girl to he hanged so it brought in a verdict of not proven. I suggest that having the option of that extra verdict is very much in Scotland's interests.
  To continue the story, Madeleine Smith remarried some years later. However, she quarrelled with her husband, who thought that he saw a glint in her eye, so he took off. It would be much more humanitarian to have a not proven verdict in circumstances where a jury is not 100 per cent. certain—beyond reasonable doubt—of the person's guilt, but where the jury is reasonably certain that the person committed the crime. In 1993, 18 per cent. of those who were acquitted of crimes were found not proven on at least one charge. In the past five years, the not proven verdict has been used in between 18 per cent. and 23 per cent. of acquittal verdicts.
  Reference was made to the Sutherland committee. We had to wait until the royal commission released its report and, thereafter, there was no undue delay. We issued a consultation paper in January 1994, the consultation period ended in mid-April and our White Paper appeared in June. Committee members were chosen over the summer and the membership was announced in November 1994. That represents a focused and energetic response to the royal commission's report. I believe that alleged miscarriages of justice will be treated very seriously and the Secretary of State already has substantial powers in that area. Since 1928, six out of the 14 individuals whose cases have been referred back to the Court of Appeal have had their convictions quashed.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Opposition Members will agree that he has made an excellent case for supporting the Bill. In the last three minutes of his speech, will he make an impassioned appeal to Opposition Members to withdraw their ridiculous and stupid amendment?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I will. Apart from anything else, the amendment refers to rising crime and, as my hon Friend the Member for Ayr knows, crime in Scotland is decreasing in large measure because of the legislation that he introduced to control the carrying of knives. In 1992, there was a small reduction in crime, and there was an 8 per cent. reduction in 1993 and a further 3 per cent. reduction in 1994. There has been a substantial and continuing fall in crimes of dishonesty.
  It is important to note that the number of crimes involving firearms have also decreased. The number of victims of homicide has decreased by 15 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr performed a great service for Scotland and the House by introducing the tough Carrying of Knives etc. (Scotland) Act 1993 which has helped to decrease the number of knife-related crimes in Strathclyde. Trends in recorded crime are affected by several factors, particularly the willingness of the public to report crimes. Far more are being reported than ever before. The war on crime must be fought relentlessly. The Bill greatly strengthens the system of justice, and will make Scotland a safer place in which to live.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 282.

  Division No. 86]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Flynn, Paul

  Ainger, Nick

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Allen, Graham

  Foulkes, George

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Galloway, George

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  George, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Gerrard, Neil

  Austin-Walker, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Barron, Kevin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Battle, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Beggs, Roy

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Graham, Thomas

  Betts, Clive

  Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

  Blunkett, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Boateng, Paul

  Grocott, Bruce

  Boyes, Roland

  Hain, Peter

  Bradley, Keith

  Hall, Mike

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hanson, David

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Heppell, John

  Burden, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Byers, Stephen

  Hinchliffe, David

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoey, Kate

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hoyle, Doug

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Chidgey, David

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Church, Judith

  Hutton, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jowell, Tessa

  Corston, Jean

  Keen, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Cox, Tom

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davidson, Ian

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  McFall, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McKelvey, William

  Dowd, Jim

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McWilliam, John

  Eastham, Ken

  Mahon, Alice

  Enright, Derek

  Mandelson, Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  Marek, Dr John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  788

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Rowlands, Ted

  Maxton, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  Meale, Alan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Short, Clare

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

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

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Paul

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dennis

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Tyler, Paul

  Wallace, James

  Pearson, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pike, Peter L

  Watson, Mike

  Pope, Greg

  Welsh, Andrew

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wise, Audrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Worthington, Tony

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wray, Jimmy

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mr. John Cummings and Mr. Joe Benton.

  Rooney, Terry

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Butcher, John

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Butler, Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Atkins, Robert

  Clappison, James

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Colvin, Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Congdon, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Conway, Derek

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

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

  Booth, Hartley

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dover, Den

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Duncan, Alan

  Brazier, Julian

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Dunn, Bob

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Durant Sir Anthony

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Elletson, Harold

  Burns, Simon

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Burt, Alistair

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  789

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lidington, David

  Evennett David

  Lightbown, David

  Faber, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lord, Michael

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Luff, Peter

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forman, Nigel

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forsyth, R1 Hon Michael (Stirling)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, David

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Madel, Sir David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  French, Douglas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Malone, Gerald

  Gale, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Gallie, Phil

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Garnier, Edward

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gill, Christopher

  Mates, Michael

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Merchant Piers

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Norris, Steve

  Harris, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Page, Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Paice, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hendry, Charles

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunter, Andrew

  Riddick, Graham

  Jack, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Sackville, Tom

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shersby, Michael

  Lamont, Ftt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  790

  Soames, Nicholas

  Trend, Michael

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Walden, George

  Spring, Richard

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Sproat, Iain

  Waller, Gary

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Ward, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexfill)

  Steen, Anthony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Stephen, Michael

  Watts, John

  Stem, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Stewart, Allan

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Streeter, Gary

  Whitney, Ray

  Sumberg, David

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Sweeney, Walter

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sykes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Thomason, Roy

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Michael Bates.

  Tracey, Richard

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any amount payable—

  (i) as compensation under Part II of the Act; or

  (ii) under paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the Act in respect of remuneration or expenses of administrators;

  (b) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate under the Act; and

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act; and

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums falling to be paid into the Consolidated Fund under section 203 or 412 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.—[Mr. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.

  European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993
  10.14 pm
  The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, as updated, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
  This is the second section 5 debate that has been held. As last year, the House is invited to approve the economic and budgetary information to be sent to the European Commission in accordance with the provisions of the treaty. That information is contained in chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", which is usually called the Red Book. At the end of chapter 1 of the Red Book, it is mentioned that those chapters will be used for this purpose and will form the basis of the appropriate submissions.
  The House will also know that, following the decision to leave the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power at 8 per cent., my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced further measures on 8 December 1994 to keep public borrowing on a downward path. The increased rates of duty on alcohol, tobacco and road fuels, together with some reductions in public expenditure, were approved by the House and were incorporated in revised tables. A set of revised Red Book tables was published in due course.
  The Red Book, therefore, in its original form and with the revised tables, provides the report to Parliament for section 5 purposes. This evening the House is being asked to approve that that report and those tables be sent to the Commission to discharge our obligations under articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht treaty. The House is not being asked to approve November's Budget. That has already been done. That was and remains a matter of legitimate controversy, which was and still is being debated as part of other business.
  Nevertheless, reading last year's debates, I notice that the Labour party contrived a vote against the motion, although it was never really made clear on that occasion on what grounds it objected to the required information being sent. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) is—I think—opening the debate for the Labour party—
  Mr. Andrew Smith indicated dissent.
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is indicating that he will not open the debate this year, but he certainly did so last year. Indeed, I cannot resist drawing the House's attention to one of the hon. Gentleman's predictions last year, when he said that the balance of payments deficit was
  "set to get worse."
  That was corrected immediately by my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), the then Financial Secretary, who pointed out that it was getting better. The hon. Member for Oxford, East nevertheless persisted and said that the balance of payments
  "was set to get worse."
  He added:
  "Time will be the test of who is right on that."—[Official Report, 9 February 1994; Vol. 237, c. 400–2.]
  792
  Time has been the test. Exports are up by 15 per cent. on a year ago and the current account was in surplus for the last recorded quarter. I hope that whoever opens the debate for the Opposition will show a little more modesty in his or her predictions and also, this year at least, vote to allow the Government's information to be transmitted to the Commission, regardless of whether the Opposition agree with the underlying policy.
  In summary, therefore, I invite the House to approve the medium-term economic and budgetary position set out in the Red Book being sent to the European Commission as required under the treaty.
  Mr. David Shaw: Have my hon. Friend and others in the Treasury been able to consider the fact that the Red Book is produced to the very highest standards of accounting policies and principles in Government accounting, that other countries throughout Europe do not produce their accounts on a similar basis and that many other countries have unfunded pension liabilities of an extraordinarily large nature? Is the Commission able to take our Red Book and use those accounts meaningfully in Europe or, in fact, will it not know what to do with our Red Book in relation to the accounts of other countries?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right to say that the way in which we present our accounts and Budget projections is a model that we could well commend to other member states. It reflects credit on us that the projections provide an easily understood and comprehensive guide to our tax and spending priorities. I do not know whether the Commission receives similar information of such a high standard from other member states. However, all other member states are required to send similar information to the Commission and, on the basis of that information, the Commission produces a report and draws up an assessment of how the economies of Europe are converging or diverging.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  10.19 pm
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: I apologise to the House as I am losing my voice. I am sure that hon. Members will be pleased about that because it means inevitably that I shall have to make a shorter speech than I would otherwise have made.
  It was interesting that the Minister was prepared to make such a short speech in which he did not say very much. He has moved a motion that is before the House simply because of the magnificent way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and his colleagues managed, in the debates on the approval of the Maastricht treaty, to put down what was referred to at the time as a ticking time-bomb. As a result of that, the Government were forced to concede a section of the Maastricht Bill, along with others, in respect of which the House has an opportunity to debate information that we subsequently forward to the European Community.
  Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Armstrong: I have hardly started. I do not know what on earth the hon. Gentleman can query at this stage, but I shall certainly give way to him.
  Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Can she explain why we are having this debate?

  793
  Why was the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) so keen for us to have this debate when all the information is set out in the Red Book and it is sent off to the Commission? What is the point of having this debate?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman obviously trusts the Government, and exactly what they say, absolutely. As the evening passes, perhaps I can persuade him that that is not the view of the British people. Very few of us, and even the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) who, at one stage, was vice-chairman of the Tory party, know precisely what Government policy is in respect of this and other areas. We do not know the Government's views on convergence. We have to wait until Wednesday to see whether the Prime Minister has any new information for us.
  The Prime Minister told us on Friday that he was going to give us the definitive position at long last. Some of us wonder how long that position will last, because we have been told that on numerous occasions before. I wonder whether the position will last until the end of the debate. I wonder even more whether it will last until the end of the Government and whether the Government will last much longer than the debate.
  According to the motion, the House will commend the Government's assessment to the Commission "with approval". I have very little sense of approving the Government's policy set out in the Red Book. It is our duty and responsibility as an Opposition to ensure that, on every occasion, the House has an opportunity to examine these issues with much more care than the Minister was minded to show this evening.
  These questions are pertinent to our debate tonight, even though we cannot be fully assured of the Government's positions because they change so frequently. Indeed, they change not just because of debates in this House, but because of what is said by Conservative Members here, there and everywhere—wherever they may be.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Armstrong: We heard from the Chief Secretary on one occasion—I think that it was on television one morning—that he would proceed with monetary union virtually over his dead body. One very live body who has been concerned by such debates is trying to intervene.
  Mr. Butterfill: Which of the convergence criteria is not satisfied by the information that is set out in the Red Book?
  Ms Armstrong: We do not yet know what convergence criteria the Government seek to satisfy and to have laid down. The Prime Minister suggested that he will seek to renegotiate some convergence criteria. It is appropriate to look at not only the convergence criteria that the Prime Minister originally negotiated but precisely the convergence criteria that the Opposition have been urging on the Government for some time, particularly those concerning the nature of the real economy. Nobody else wants me to give way.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.] Does she not find it very revealing that, when there is enormous sensitivity in the country about convergence criteria, there should be a
  794
  feeling in the Government that the House of Commons does not need to debate the detail and the implications of this highly sensitive and important subject?
  Ms Armstrong: I thank my hon. Friend. As usual, she is right and also very supportive in the way that I have come to expect from her over the years.
  Here we are, 18 or so months since the passage of the Bill that introduced the Maastricht treaty, yet we are still in the dark about the Government's policy with regard to their future role in Europe. Having upset one group of supporters, will the Prime Minister now side with those whom, just a short time ago, he kicked out of the parliamentary party?
  We know that, come what may, we shall not have a serious debate on how we should address the real problems in the economy of Britain, to enable people who have suffered most from the Government's economic policies to prosper. We shall debate the issue in order to ensure that the Government can again secure a majority, having lost the backing of other supporters in the House. The Prime Minister's motives, as ever, are about how he can stitch something together for the benefit of his own party, rather than about how he can tackle the real problems in the economy.
  On Wednesday, will the Government support some developments in the real economy for which the Labour party has been arguing, including working towards full employment? Unfortunately, this debate is taking place without our knowing the answer. We are debating Government policy as reflected in the Red Book. From it, we know that there are serious problems in the real economy.
  The Budget that we are asked to approve and to send to Europe confirms the Government's determination to press forward with tax increases, which will mean that a typical family will pay £800 a year more in taxes since the Government were elected in 1992. I seem to remember more than one clear statement from the Prime Minister, promising that there would be no tax increases after the election. The British people have learnt just how little they can trust the Prime Minister's word on taxes. Their pressure led to the Government being defeated on the most unfair of their tax increases, the increase in VAT on fuel.
  It is interesting to note that the goals in article 2 of the Maastricht treaty include
  "sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment."
  The Government had to throw out what they claimed was their "green tax"—not that any of us ever agreed that that was what it was. They had to throw out the measure to impose VAT on fuel, and the Minister has not said tonight how he will satisfy the need to respect the environment.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Lady has been most generous in giving way.
  What does the hon. Lady think is the purpose of the proposed landfill tax, if it is not to respect the environment? The same applies to the increase in duties on fuel. Surely those are important environmental measures.
  Ms Armstrong: We still have a long way to go before we find out precisely what the Government's intentions are in regard to the landfill tax, and when it will be introduced. As for the fuel tax, I believe that it will partly

  795
  deter people from using their cars, but it does not begin to deal with the need to control emissions from cars and the use of fuel.
  I admit that I am making a rather snide point, in that the Government were defeated on the fuel tax issue; but we must deal with realities, and the reality is that the Government were defeated. It was they who claimed that the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel was a great move towards meeting their commitments. I always doubted that, and the Government's failure to address the issue after their defeat confirms that it was never anything of the sort.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: A noteworthy feature of the interventions so far is that Conservative Members are apparently still very enthusiastic about imposing a 17.5 per cent. VAT rate on fuel. Presumably that tax promise will figure prominently in the Conservative manifesto preceding the next general election.
  Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right, but he applies logic to the way in which the Government will proceed; I am not sure that they ever proceed in an honest and logical way when it comes to admitting their taxation intentions to the electorate.
  The Budget failed to include measures that would lead to medium and long-term growth. What is trumpeted as success by Conservative Members is soon shown to be extremely fragile. Total investment is still below its level in 1990, before the recession.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Armstrong: Will the hon. Gentleman hold on for a bit? My voice is all right for the moment.
  Manufacturing investment in plant and machinery is nearly 30 per cent. below its quarterly level at the start of 1990. British firms must now seek to compete with 30 per cent. less investment per worker than in Germany or France, and 65 per cent. less than in Japan. The Chancellor could and should have done more in his Budget to stimulate investment in industry, and that is the message that we should have given to the European Community.
  The Bank of England pointed out in its February report that
  "capacity constraints are becoming more widespread in industry …This will increase inflationary risks unless productive capacity increases."
  Some people may be wondering why we quote the Bank of England today, but its predictions are normally very reliable.
  The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee has also raised the problem.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and giving me the opportunity to give her another little rest. I am a little confused about the position that she is expanding. First, she voted for the Maastricht treaty Bill. That suggested that she approved of the convergence criteria. Now the hon. Lady says that she wants full employment to be an economic policy, although that is not one of the convergence criteria. Then she criticises the Government's tax-raising policies even though they are
  796
  necessary to meet the convergence criteria. If we did not raise taxes in the way that the Red Book sets out, we would fail in our obligations to meet the convergence criteria. Is the hon. Lady in favour of the convergence criteria or does she think that they are too deflationary?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has always shown confusion. He abstained in the votes on the Maastricht treaty. I did not. He continues to claim to support the Government while opposing them on their central policies. The Labour party has always said that it wants much of the real economy to be tackled in a way that the Government are not doing and that unless that happens, the convergence criteria will not be sustainable. We have made that argument consistently and we shall continue to make it.
  The Government simply fail to tackle the real problems in our economy. Those problems will increase precisely because of what the Bank of England talked about—lack of capacity. It is true that in Britain there is a lack of capacity in industry after the recession. Investment is below even what it was before the recession. It is lower now than in 1979.
  Mr. Andrew Britton, one of the specialist advisers to the Chancellor, told the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee:
  "a lot of the capacity which one might imagine would be there because of the recession has actually been lost".
  That was in the Committee's report on the 1994 Budget. In other words, too many firms closed and the capacity for growth is not there. Consequently, Mr. Britton thought that the economy could
  "only grow above trend for a couple of years."
  Lack of capacity for growth is also reflected in the rising problem of skill shortages. One would have thought that, having initially negotiated the terms of the Maastricht treaty, the Government would at least tackle skill shortages during the recession. But no. The figures on training are frightening. The Red Book reflects real cuts in the training budget. The training statistics bulletin demonstrates graphically that neglect. The numbers of people involved in training in and out of work declined. Most worryingly, the worst figures were among those without any qualifications and among 16 to 24-year-olds. Out of 23 countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United Kingdom has the second lowest proportion of 18-year-olds in full-time education. The country with the lowest proportion is Turkey.
  In its November inflation report, the Bank of England said:
  "At present, skill shortages are not so acute as to pose a major threat of wage inflation …there is some evidence of skill shortages and settlements may be edging upwards."
  Again, the Bank of England recognises that there are real problems in our economy, which will affect the Government's projections for growth and which already cause real problems in parts of the country. That is another reason why the feelgood factor that people talk about simply is not happening. Living standards are simply not improving to match people's expectations. Having weathered the recession, people believed that they would begin to experience the benefits of having paid so dearly for Government economic policies in the past few years. Far from it: if we include housing costs in the

  797
  projections for this year, the average family will lose about £10 per week, so the Budget will cause real problems for real people.
  Public sector investment has been cut, as well as private sector investment. The Red Book tells us that it will be cut by 9 per cent., but that will be compensated for—so we are told—by a promise of a £5 billion investment in the private finance initiative. In the past two years, only £0.5 billion has been invested in that initiative and only 12 of the 96 projects announced have got started.
  Out of all the Group of Seven countries, only the United States had a lower level of Government investment as a proportion of gross domestic product between 1980 and 1990 than the United Kingdom. The fact that the Government are spending not on investment, but on paying for the costs of unemployment, is what makes the Labour party so angry. When we realise that the percentage of public spending spent on benefit has risen from 22 per cent. to 31 per cent. and many more people are dependent on benefit now than in 1979, we know just how far Government policies have failed.
  This debate gives us another opportunity to make the Government face their responsibility for the economy. They have failed the country on the economy and they have failed to ensure that people are able to get off benefit and into work—the Budget gave so little opportunity to push that aspect and to make it work. The jobs that the Government estimate will be created by their return-to-work measures will be more than compensated for by the number lost because of the changes and cuts in public expenditure that they announced.
  When the Government get round to investing and using investment as a tool to encourage real growth, we shall be able to have much more confidence in the future of the economy. We do not have that confidence. We do not believe that we can take
  "note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in … the Financial Statement and Budget Report"
  and we will, therefore, divide the House at the end of the debate.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I thought that my hon. Friend the Paymaster General was unnecessarily laconic in his opening remarks. He was, of course, following the precedent of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who spoke for only four minutes in the debate last year. I think that my hon. Friend spoke for about the same time, which was an unusually modest contribution, as we are asked to approve a motion that suggests
  "That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in chapters 4, 5 and 6"
  of the Red Book.
  Normally, when the Government are pleased with their achievements they do not demonstrate such false modesty. If they are being modest tonight, it is perhaps because they have something to hide. If they have something to hide, it is not the technicalities of the motion, which are clear, as much as the inference in them, which is plain because it is set out in statute form in the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
  It is not Labour Members who should take pride in the fact that we are having this debate tonight but the minority on the Conservative Benches, who turned the arithmetic
  798
  round to ensure that, at least for one and a half hours every year, we debate the progress of Her Majesty's Government in meeting the convergence criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister alluded to those criteria, it is worth reminding ourselves what they are. He referred to article 103, the first paragraph of which says:
  "Member States shall regard their economic policies as a matter of common concern and shall co-ordinate them within the Council".
  This is yet further proof of something which we knew all too well—that there has been a steady erosion of sovereignty and a transfer of authority over our economic management, not least in budget deficits and the ratio of Government debt to gross domestic product.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): On this day of all days, when the failure of a relatively small British bank has sent ripples through the entire global economy, is my hon. Friend suggesting that it is easy to isolate our economy from all the other economies?
  Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a jump in rationality that defies belief. I was sticking to the motion on the Order Paper and the exact reference criteria set down in the treaty: the 3 per cent. PSBR to GDP ratio and the 60 per cent. Government debt to GDP ratio, which are clearly established in the relevant protocol. I did not refer to the global economy or discuss the inter-relationship between one financial centre and another but was dealing with the motion on the Order Paper. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that, in this short debate, that is quite enough.
  Mr. Butterfill: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wilkinson: No I will not give way. The debate is short and other hon. Members want to contribute.
  Mr. Butterfill: Frit.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is not necessary. The other day I deliberately pointed out that good manners seem to be leaving the House. There is no need whatever for insults in these debates. On reflection, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Butterfill: I accept that I may have been a little unkind to my hon. Friend, but I had hoped that he would allow an intervention on that specific point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the remark?
  Mr. Butterfill: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Paragraph 3 says:
  "In order to ensure closer co-ordination of the economic performances of the Member States, the Council shall on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission monitor economic developments in each of the Member States".
  This bears out exactly what I was saying. Inasmuch as the Commission has powers, if those relevant criteria are not met, to impose sanctions on countries that do not fulfil those obligations, I should have thought that it was, at the very least, a democratic requirement that this House should have an opportunity to debate the Government's performance in fulfilling those criteria.

  799
  The Red Book makes it perfectly plain that, in the coming financial year, the United Kingdom will meet exactly the criteria of PSBR to Government debt and, compared with Italy, Spain, Greece and even Belgium, has a far tougher fiscal stance and maintains a far lower ratio of Government borrowing to GDP. The fact that we do so much better, as the Red Book makes clear, shows the difficulty of achieving convergence and the quantity of funds that will have to be disbursed from well-performing economies, such as our own and those of France and Germany, to redress these imbalances of economic performance. Those transfers of resources will he a cost to our people, as we saw during the passage of the European Communities (Finance) Bill in November.
  The Government should come clean about the objectives behind the convergence process. They can rightly take pride in reasserting fiscal and budgetary discipline and I share with them wholehearted approval for what they have achieved in that regard to date. The qualities of fiscal and budgetary discipline are meritorious in their own right but not in relation to a process of supervision and, potentially, ultimate control to be exercised by the Commission and then the Council of the European Union. I do not think it appropriate either that the European Parliament should be a reference body to whom the defaulting nation's performance will be reported, as is provided for under the terms of the Maastricht treaty.
  That said, I will not disapprove or vote against the motion. The Government, by passing those parts of the treaty, have accepted the objectives of convergence as they relate to economic and monetary union. Although we have a technical derogation by virtue of our opt-out, nevertheless we have accepted the disciplines that are germane to economic and monetary union, regardless of whether they fulfil the circumstances of our economy at any one time. At the moment, they do and I am delighted that we have made such progress. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer those points when he replies and that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will do so at greater length on Wednesday afternoon.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In a sense, that was an extraordinary speech. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) aspires to some form of splendid isolation, but he concluded his speech by congratulating the Government on being on course for convergence and said, "Please God, let it never happen." That reflects some inconsistency in his argument.
  The debate is likely to be an annual event, which probably should be a little depressing to the House. The wording of the motion could have been a little more felicitous, because all that is required is that the Government seek the House's approval to submit progress reports on our economic convergence criteria. Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, however, also asks for a report on the social and environmental goals set. Although I appreciate that it is not the Treasury's job to set those goals, the motion contains no reference to the Government having any intention to do so.
  800
  I remind the House that section 5 stemmed from an amendment tabled by the Labour party, of which the Liberal Democrats did not approve, but which the Government, rather astonishingly, accepted. Having done so, the Government should fulfil the section's terms. They have done two things to make that somewhat difficult. They have shown no regard for the full text of the Act. I am not sure what the implications of their defiance of an Act, which they accepted, amounts to. I suppose it requires someone to take them to court for a judicial review. Where is the social and environmental report, which was required by the Act? Will the Government provide it? Secondly, why are we being asked to note the Government's assessment "with approval", which requires everyone to endorse the Government's economic policy?
  Many of us wish the Government to strive to fulfil the spirit of the Maastricht treaty, unlike the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, but that does not necessarily mean that the Government's policies by definition will eventually lead in that direction. Tearing a few pages out of the Red Book, throwing them down on the Floor of the House and in effect saying, "This is our economic strategy; please support it," does not show willingness to accept the letter or the spirit of the Act.
  Interestingly, the Government talk about the opt-out that they have secured and the current success of their convergence criteria but do not appear to come to grips with the fact that our ability to opt in may be seriously questioned, not merely whether we can meet the convergence criteria, which we have not done yet and may still have difficulty in doing. If we met those criteria, the capability of the British economy to cope with the strains that a single currency would provide may bring our ability to opt in into question.
  I say that personally and as a representative of a party that wants monetary union but believes that the Government have not really set their mind to the implications with anything like the rigour that is necessary. In those circumstances, we would have welcomed a fuller explanation, not simply of where we were, but of where we were going and the way in which we were going to get there.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman has those doubts about the economy's capability to fit into monetary union, why, two or three years ago, was the Liberal party chanting, "Move to the narrower bands of the exchange rate mechanism now"?
  Mr. Bruce: Had the Government moved to the position that we took at the time that we said, they would not have finished up in a mess. [Interruption.] What happened—which also reinforces the case for a politically independent central bank—was that Lord Lawson did the most damaging thing that any Government could do: he joined the exchange rate mechanism at the worst possible moment, at the worst possible exchange rate and for the worst possible reason, which was to obtain a standing ovation at the Conservative party conference the next day. That is no way to run the economy and, sadly, the Government have failed to recognise that a commitment to a single currency—even in principle, never mind with or without an opt-out—requires an extremely rigorous economic policy, which the Government have shown no real application to deliver.

  801
  To finish that specific argument, which is only parenthetical but which I wish to make absolutely clear, I should say that it remains the opinion of the Liberal Democrats, and my personal opinion, that Britain should be taking a positive role in the development of closer political and economic union in the European Union and the development of a single currency. There is no doubt that the expertise that we have in the country should be used, but before we have even begun to opt in we have weakened our bargaining position and undermined our ability to shape the rules and regulations under which a single currency will be developed.
  As a consequence, there is a real danger that the Government, having left the position open, may find that the British economy is not strong enough to sustain membership of monetary union because they have not applied themselves now. I earnestly hoped that the Minister would explain in much more rigorous terms how we shall ensure that the British economy invests strongly enough, organises strongly enough and accepts the cultural changes necessary to ensure that the choice of opting in and opting out was a real choice, based on a real understanding of the needs of the British economy.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman complains that the Government are not pursuing policies that create strong growth in the economy and are not ensuring rigorous application of fiscal standards. Will he explain why the Liberal party consistently votes for increased public expenditure in almost every Division, yet failed to vote for, and indeed voted against, increases in taxation?
  Mr. Bruce: That simply is not true. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Liberal Democrats, and myself in person, who voted against the cost of electricity privatisation and the £7 billion of debt write-off that would have passed through the House on the nod until I spoke against the money resolution. I am not prepared to take lectures from Conservative Members who are selective about when they oppose public expenditure. If the Barings rescue had required public money, Conservative Members might have agreed to it because of their need to support their friends in the City. Their opposition of public expenditure is selective, and I do not accept the justification behind the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: No, I will not. I have given way enough—this is a short debate and I intend to bring my remarks to a close.
  The Government, having accepted the amendment to the European Communities (Amendment) Act—an amendment that my party and I did not support, but which the Government accepted from the Opposition—should have recognised that it required more than just a few pages from the Red Book and a vote of confidence in their economic policy. The terms of the Act require a social and environmental report, about which we have heard nothing. We have had no clear sign of whether the Government intend to introduce it.
  I want to make it clear to the Minister so that there is no doubt that we do not wish the Government to be placed in a situation where they cannot fulfil their obligations under the Maastricht treaty, which we support. There is a
  802
  duty on them to make a report to meet their treaty obligations, not simply to invite a motion of confidence in terms that do not address the whole issue.
  On a constructive note, if this is be an annual event, it would be extremely helpful if the motion were in terms that required endorsement not of Government policy but of their submission of a report on the progress achieved by the British economy. Had that been so tonight, my party and I would have had no hesitation in supporting the Minister. If the Government take that view in future, the Minister will have my support and that of the Liberal Democrats. It is unfortunate that the motion was tabled with a lack of thought. I hope the Minister will understand that the Act contains terms that have not been addressed but which the Government should take seriously.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: At the start of her speech I asked the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong) why we were having this debate and she failed to provide an adequate explanation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) has explained that the object of the exercise is to see to what extent we are complying with the convergence conditions of the Maastricht treaty. I could not understand the motion when I looked at it because it seemed that we were being asked to approve three chapters in the Red Book, which is effectively part of the Budget—the House debated the Budget for four or five days and approved it some months ago. We are now being asked to approve the very same information that is contained in chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Red Book.
  As my hon. Friend said, and as I now understand, the real object of the exercise is to see to what extent we are complying with the convergence criteria, only two of which are relevant. The first is the level of public sector borrowing and the second is total Government debt as a proportion of gross domestic product. I agree with my hon. Friend that the targets of reducing those two levels were justified on their merits. He was not so happy about the idea that we should try to bring about convergence in the European Union.
  Quite apart from the debate about a single currency, the very concept of trying to achieve convergence is justified on its merits. If we manage to get Government borrowing below 3 per cent. in all member states, we will have a considerably greater degree of exchange rate, inflation and interest rates stability than at present. Those things are all worth while per se; they would be guaranteed if we had a single currency, but the very fact that we are moving towards one will bring about much more stable trading conditions in the EU.
  I support the concept of convergence criteria. I am not quite as sanguine as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood is about the progress that we are making. The news release which was published by the Central Statistical Office on 21 February sets out the figures that are to be sent to the Commission; they are not the figures in the Red Book because they have to be adjusted to comply with the European system of integrated accounts. That results in a considerable addition to Government borrowing in terms of the public sector borrowing requirement and shows the following figures, admittedly now historical. The figure for 1992, as. a percentage of GDP, is 6.1 per cent. and for the calendar

  803
  year 1993, it is 7.9 per cent. I think that when we get the figures for 1994 we shall see some reduction, but those figures are hardly cause for complacency.
  There is not much cause for complacency in the figures for total Government debt as a proportion of GDP. In 1992 Government debt as a proportion of GDP was 41.9 per cent., and it rose to 48.5 per cent. in 1993. That is not far short of a 60 per cent. ceiling. I fully support the Government's determination to reduce the high level of public sector borrowing and to reduce total Government debt as a proportion of GDP over a period of time. The figures in the Red Book show that those objectives will be achieved in four or five years.
  I am glad that this information will be sent to the European Commission because there is a very interesting table at the back of the Red Book which shows the history of public spending over the past 30 years. It gives the lie to most people's perceptions of public spending. According to the table, in the past 30 years Governments have reduced the level of public spending in real terms in only four years. In three of those years—1968–69,1976–77 and 1977–78—a Labour Government were in power.
  The last Labour Government were responsible for the largest cumulative reduction in public spending. In 1974–75—their first year in office—they cut public spending from £220 billion, in current values, to £205 billion three years later. This Government have increased public spending in every year except 1988–89. We should ensure not only that we cut public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product—
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: And lose the next general election too.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he thinks that elections are won by increasing the level of public spending; I do not believe that they are. I believe that a healthy economy is one which spends well below 40 per cent. as a proportion of GDP in the public sector so that more wealth is retained in the private sector to enable the real economy—about which the hon. Member for Durham, North-West claims to be concerned—to grow and to provide real jobs.
  The Government aim to reduce public spending to 40 per cent. and below. In the mid-1960s public spending as a percentage of GDP was 36 and 37 per cent. That is the kind of target that we should aim at now.
  Mr. Butterfill: When my hon. Friend refers to the cuts in public spending perpetrated by the Labour party, is he thinking particularly of the cuts which the International Monetary Fund ordered it to make to spending on hospitals and the health service generally?
  Mr. Smith: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you probably remember when the last Labour Government achieved huge cuts in public spending through massive reductions in capital expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) is right: the funding programme for hospitals was cut by 20 per cent. in one year as a result of the intervention of the International Monetary Fund and Mr. Johannes Witteveen, who took over the running of the British economy at that time.
  Today we are back on track to reduce public spending and public borrowing, which is the key point as far as the Maastricht criteria are concerned. I believe that that
  804
  reduction is justified on its merits, but I am also glad that we are making progress in complying with our treaty obligations.
  11.8 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) does not realise that an economy's ability to bear any level of public spending depends on the health and vigour of that economy. A fast-growing, vigorous economy can bear a much higher proportion of public spending—and would be advised to do so in order to improve the quality of life of most people. It is not the level of public spending as a proportion of GDP—40 per cent., 60 per cent. or whatever it may be—but the underlying strength of the economy that is crucial.
  The problem with the convergence criteria that we are discussing tonight is that they are, in effect, deflationary criteria—they are daft and damaging criteria. The nearer the Government come to achieving those criteria, the more they will damage the underlying economic recovery in which the Government take so much pride. The Government were not responsible for that recovery; Mr. George Soros was. Having achieved that, it seems disastrous to clobber the recovery in the way that the Government are, by imposing high interest at double historic rates to fulfil damaging convergence criteria. I am sorry that that was not explained by the Minister, who took pride in the recovery. If he takes pride also in moving nearer to or achieving the convergence criteria, the recovery will be destroyed.
  All the criteria are deflationary. It is interesting to hear the Chancellor and members of my Front Bench wishing that there were other convergence criteria, such as real growth, productivity and the underlying strength of the economy. That is fantasy. The convergence criteria in the treaty that must be fulfilled are all deflationary. They all amount to achieving price stability. The more we co-ordinate those criteria in Europe, the more we will co-ordinate deflationary measures that damage our economy.
  In the long term, the only way to reduce the public sector deficit is to achieve a rate of growth that generates jobs and brings a return to full employment. That way, more people will be in work to pay more taxes, so more revenue will be generated while less is paid in unemployment and social security benefits. That is the only way to reduce borrowing.
  We need this first real burst of sustained growth in the life of this Government. They did not want it but it was forced on them. We need that growth to be boosted. Industry will not invest or expand in the way that the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England are always lecturing about unless industry has a prospect of growth. That means the prospect of sustained competitiveness and lower interest rates.
  Every time that the Governor increases interest rates, he damages the economy's prospects and makes investment less likely. He also guarantees that the opportunity for growth that has been thrust on the Government will not be seized.
  I am sorry that the Governor's weekend was spoiled by matters that have no bearing on the debate. I wish that he had spoiled more weekends deliberating on the fate of manufacturing companies that have been shedding jobs

  805
  and closing. When the Governor is in a working weekend mode, he should contemplate the effect that he has on the recovery by increasing interest rates to today's high level.
  Why is the Chancellor increasing taxes and the Governor increasing interest rates and clobbering demand? Perhaps they want to keep the pound at a higher level than it should be for the purposes of competitiveness, to regain some of the ground that the Chancellor and the Governor thought Britain lost by leaving the exchange rate mechanism. Shadowing the deutschmark is to revert to Lawson policies. That is one explanation for the folly. The other is that the only way to attain the convergence criteria is to deflate demand.
  Both processes are damaging, and the Government owe the House an explanation for their actions. Why are they strangling their own recovery? Is it to shadow the deutschmark and to show ourselves to be communautaire, or is to attain the insane convergence criteria
  11.13 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To answer the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I do not think it possible to make a judgment about the effect of interest rate movements until one or two years later. Only then will we know whether the correct interpretation of the economic data available at the time was made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman takes the view that there is less risk in an increase in inflation than the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor believe there to be. But only history will show whether we have made the right judgments.
  I believe that the Government are right to err on the side of caution. All the evidence suggests that economies that perform the best are those whose authorities take the most rigorous line against inflation. To risk overheating the economy so soon after coming out of a recession would be a sad failure indeed.
  The Paymaster General rather disappointed the House this evening. We expect more of him in these debates. It was evident that he did not submit this convergence plan, which is to he sent off to the European Commission, with a great deal of relish. He did not say, "Hurrah! We're on track to get into the single currency." I detected a note of discomfort in his presentation.
  The purpose of these debates on the Government's convergence plan is to highlight the fact that we are locked into a progressional timetable. We are fixed into a machine that makes us submit plans towards an objective over which we have little control. I have heard that this timetable is regarded by the Government as artificial. The more we hear of the development of the Government view of the prospect of a single currency, the more distance we detect between that end and the Government's embrace of it.
  Whatever the Government's attitude may be, and however determined, towards the end of the convergence period, the Government may be not to participate in a single currency, the fact is that they are stuck on the tracks. They are being driven down the track towards meeting certain objectives—
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does this not have a great feeling of déjà vu about it? The timetable is certainly one of the key problems. It may force countries to attempt to converge when their natural instincts, based
  806
  on the performance of their economies, dictate otherwise. I am reminded of the Schlieffen plan—the great first world war German plan to knock out France. It was based wholly on railway timetables. Many historians now believe that that became the cause of the first world war, because, once started, there was no way to stop the plan being put into effect—and it ended in disaster.
  Mr. Jenkin: I have great sympathy with that analogy. To a certain extent, it was the intention of the Maastricht treaty. It was not designed to create an opportunity for economic and monetary union across Europe. That opportunity existed anyway, whatever the treaty arrangements. Businesses can opt to use a single currency. Member states can opt to fix their exchange rates with each other. They can even share a currency—and all without this timetable.
  The timetable is, of course, political. It is not an economic weapon; it is a political weapon. The whole of Europe has been put in the straitjacket of an artificial timetable because France and Germany are determined to achieve political union. It is a tool to achieve a political end. We are playing a highly dangerous game if we put the European economies into a straitjacket for political purposes, regardless of the political consequences.
  Another benefit has emerged from this debate: I detect a mood of consensus across the Chamber. Not only has the Prime Minister, speaking to the Conservative Way Forward, introduced the possibility of new criteria to qualify Britain's possible participation in a single currency; we have also heard the same idea from the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong). The hon. Lady thinks that levels of employment are important. She shares that opinion with the Governor of the Bank of England.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) told us that he wanted to introduce some extra criteria. He described the economy in Britain as possibly not strong enough to sustain monetary union. Those criteria are not in the Maastricht treaty. The hon. Gentleman is introducing new criteria for monetary union. I detect in the Chamber a consensus that the timetable for economic and monetary union is unrealistic and unreasonable. Perhaps the House should point that out to our European partners, who are more politically obsessed by the objective, and perhaps unreasonably so. They may be in danger of damaging their economies. We see France holding on manically to the franc fort policy, to the detriment of the stability of property and asset prices in France, of employment rates and of growth. We were discussing banking at length, and I am reminded of the nickname of one of France's largest institutions, "Debit" Lyonnais.
  What were the risks to which the Governor referred? He was referring to the danger of seeking to impose a uniform monetary policy on several countries in the European Community. We had experience of the risk quite recently. When we were in the exchange rate mechanism we sought to impose the same monetary discipline on several countries in the European Community. What was the result? What might have been an appropriate monetary policy for Germany post-reunification, with all the inflationary effects of funding development in eastern Germany, became a completely inappropriate monetary discipline for the United Kingdom, France and Italy. That

  807
  demonstrates more graphically than anything else can the risks of applying a single monetary policy before absolute, complete and permanent convergence has been achieved.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: My hon. Friend has alluded to a great consensus across the Chamber. Perhaps he will briefly think about monetary union within the United Kingdom. As he knows, since 1707 there has been a monetary union of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Yet the financial and economic conditions in Scotland and the north of England now are different from those in the south of England. The policy that is followed in London may not be appropriate to all parts of the UK. Why is the position not the same on a greater scale throughout Europe?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for asking me that question. We have had a single currency in the UK for a long time. It followed political union. The two things go very much hand in hand. There are points at which the monetary policy that is pursued throughout the UK for the benefit of the entire UK is more appropriate for some parts of the country than for others.
  During the 1980s, for example, we had strong asset growth in the south and strong development of services, whereas in the north and in Scotland we saw the decline of old-fashioned manufacturing industries, the decline of property prices and wide differentials forming. We coped with economic disparities across the single currency area of the United Kingdom because we have huge fiscal transfers. The Government control about 45 per cent. of the national wealth. Public expenditure in Scotland, for example, is about 18 per cent. higher in the current year than it is in England. In Northern Ireland it is about 40 per cent. higher. At the moment, we are planning a European Community, and a single currency across the European Community, in which the European Union will control resources amounting only to 2.26 per cent. of the Europe-wide gross domestic product. Even in the single currency area of the United States, the Federal Government control some 17 per cent. of American GDP. The only way in which a single currency can be sustained across an area of wide disparities is to have huge, compensating fiscal measures.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Jenkin: If I may continue, the Treasury did some work on the subject for the European Community during the 1970s. A Mr. MacDougall prepared a report and he reckoned that the very minimum that the European Community would have to levy in taxation to sustain a single currency across Europe would be 7 per cent. of Community GDP. That would increase the European Community budget to some £333 billion at today's prices, which is considerably larger than it is today and would increase our contribution to some £70 billion.
  Mr. Devlin rose
  Mr. Jenkin: If my hon. Friend is prepared to explain that to his constituents, I wish him good luck. Nevertheless, benefits in the current arrangements are considerably cheaper and easier to finance and do not carry the same risks, as demonstrated by the Governor of the Bank of England.
  808
  The last question that I want to ask is: who wants this single currency? We are told that business men want it, but I do not think that that is the case. Following a survey, the CBI claimed that a large majority favoured a single currency, yet it remarked in its own survey that only 12 per cent. were enthusiastic about a more federal approach. That would seem to rule out a single currency for a start. More interestingly, only 28 per cent. of the sample said that a single currency was a necessary condition for a single market. Why does the CBI go round telling everybody that business wants a single currency?
  Even more interestingly, the authors of an excellent letter in The Times on 9 February said:
  "even if the natural core of European federalist countries were tied into ecu, by far the larger part of Britain's trade and investment would continue to be conducted outside those countries in a wide variety of national currencies.
  Plainly, a single currency is not indispensable to expanding exports".
  That letter was signed by luminaries such as Michael Edwardes, Owen Green, Lord Hanson, Stanley Kalms, Christopher Wates, Garry Weston and many, many more.
  The fact is that British business is not enthusiastic about a single currency and that only a tiny proportion of our trade relates to the possible hard-core area of a single currency—less than 30 per cent. of our external trade or 8.7 per cent. of our gross domestic product. Why inflict an absurd, foreign-controlled monetary policy on the British economy for the sake of 8.7 per cent. of our gross domestic product.
  11.27 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: I have to agree, on one point at least, with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin): I do not think that there is the remotest chance of anything but a handful of nations meeting the convergence criteria in the Community by 1999, let alone by 1997.
  Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to explain why, from a sedentary position, I used the word frit during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), for which you admonished me. I did not know that it was an unparliamentary expression; it has been used fairly frequently by hon. Members of all parties. I used the word because my hon. Friend was suggesting that under article 103 we were compelled to go down the convergence criteria. That of course is not so. Compulsion would take place only if we were to move to stage 3 of monetary union, which could not take place until after 1997, and probably not until 1999, which would be under article 104 of the treaty. We would have had to have agreed to proceed for there to be any compulsion.
  Guidelines have now come from the Council of Ministers and it is informative to consider those guidelines to discover whether hon. Members on both sides of the House can agree that they are entirely desirable. According to the guidelines, the economic objective is sustainable, non-inflationary and employment-creating growth. No one would disagree with that. The guidelines include reduction in unemployment. Does anyone suggest that that is undesirable?
  According to the guidelines, there should be a strengthening of economic convergence. If we are in a trading area, it must be desirable to bring some of our

  809
  partners up to the level of the more prosperous nations. It is also appropriate to consider the extent to which what is in the Red Book, which we are presenting to the Community, achieves some of those objectives.
  With regard to sustainable, non-inflationary and employment-creating growth, we are now seeing non-inflationary growth. We have not had such a long period of low inflation for 25 years. Growth has been continuing for some time now. Indeed, we have a little problem in that growth is perhaps running too far ahead and we have had to correct it to ensure that it is sustainable.
  As for reductions in unemployment, if we look at the rest of the Community, unemployment is increasing. Almost uniquely in the United Kingdom, unemployment is decreasing. The only area in which we are perhaps not succeeding is that of the strengthening of economic convergence. As convergence in other states is unlikely to take place, I believe that the timetable for monetary union, as envisaged by the treaty, is way out and extremely unlikely to be achieved.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Butterfill: No, I will not give way to my hon. Friend because he refused to give way to me. Despite being asked several times, my hon. Friend refused to give way to me.
  To meet those objectives, the guidelines advocate price and exchange rate stability. Price stability has certainly been achieved. Apart from unfortunate recent events, exchange rates have been unusually stable for some considerable time. With regard to sound public finances, we need only read the Red Book to discover what has happened with regard to reduction of the public sector borrowing requirement. The Labour party said that that was completely unattainable. Labour Members said that the PSBR was likely to continue to grow. They did not believe that we could meet the objectives set out in the Budget two years ago or in last year's Budget. However, not only have those objectives been met, but they have been exceeded.
  The guidelines suggest measures such as reducing the indirect costs of labour. Conservative Members would certainly agree with that objective. The guidelines include the completion of the internal market. The internal market was proposed by the Government and a single market is now one of the Government's proud achievements which have benefited our industry. Conservative Members would also agree with more flexible labour markets, although I am not sure whether the Labour party would agree to that. The Commission guidelines also refer to pay moderation. I have not seen much sign of encouragement of pay moderation from the Opposition Benches.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), but I was no clearer at the end of her remarks as to why she was inviting Labour Members to vote against the motion. Of course, she and her party have differences with the Government over economic policy. She gave some rather disjointed examples of what they were, but they were not the subject of today's debate. What we are deciding this evening is not whether we approve the Government's Budget policies; that was settled in last
  810
  year's Budget. Rather, we are discussing whether we approve the sending of appropriate information in the Red Book to the European Commission, as required by treaty. The hon. Lady did not even touch on whether the Labour party thought that we should do that.
  In the few remaining minutes, I shall try to pick up some of the other points that have been raised, in particular the status of the convergence criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) set out the four main headings of low inflation, low long-term interest rates, no excessive deficits and a degree of exchange rate stability. The point has been made several times, most notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), that those are good and valid policy aims, regardless of whether they may one day pave the way for monetary union.
  It is true also that the United Kingdom is doing particularly well as regards the criteria. Our Budget deficit is coming down fast, and it is expected to be below 3 per cent. of gross domestic product by 1996. Our inflation rate, our interest rates and our general Government debt are also all comfortably within the reference limits set out in the treaty and the associated protocols.
  Of course those are tough criteria. In answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), may I say that low inflation and sustainable growth are not easily achieved. The growth rate of 4 per cent., which we achieved last year, combined with low inflation, is something that very few Governments since the second world war have ever glimpsed.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way; I am answering some points that he raised, and I have only a few more minutes.
  Of course such matters require difficult decisions on taxation. From time to time, it may be necessary to raise interest rates to keep inflation down, but the prize is worth it. I emphasise that those are good policy aims, regardless of whether they are required or recommended as part of the treaty of Rome.
  The other point which I wish to emphasise is that the debate is taking place under stage 2 of monetary union, which began more than a year ago. Economic policy and monetary policy throughout that time have remained firmly in national hands. Indeed, that is why it is the Red Book, flowing from our own national Budget, which forms the basis of the information that we are supplying to the Commission.
  I tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who talked about sanctions and suggested penalties, that they have no part to play in stage 2 of EMU. The only sanction, if one may call it that, that is open to the Commission or to the Council of Ministers is to make recommendations. Indeed, it has been recommended that we should continue to bring down our Budget deficit, which we have every intention of doing.
  Another point of which I must remind the House is the copper-bottomed nature of the United Kingdom's protocol to the treaty, which states that the UK is not
  "obliged or committed to move to the third stage of Economic and Monetary Union without a separate decision to do so by its government and Parliament".

  811
  In addition to that, under the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—the so-called Maastricht Act—notification to the Council of a United Kingdom intention to join stage 3 also requires a prior Act of Parliament.
  We have had some railway metaphors. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) introduced into the debate the Schlieffen plan. At the risk of correcting him, may I say that it was the mobilisation of the Russian army at the start of the first world war which required railways and which was so complicated that it could not be stopped. It was A. J. P. Taylor—I know that I am right on this point—who said that the first world war was the culmination of the railway age. Whether in this or in previous debates, we have always been regaled with colourful motoring or railway metaphors about whether we are in danger of missing the train leaving the station or whether we are on the wrong branch line. The truth is, however, that in terms of EMU we can watch the train assembling on the continent and decide at the right moment whether it is in the national interest for us to join it. We are in no sense committed to joining the third stage of monetary union. Doubtless my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will say more about that on Wednesday.
  The convergence criteria, on which we touched earlier, do not simply stop at the four headings already described. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also raised the need to address the deep-seated structural differences in the European economies, and the Governor of the Bank of England has drawn attention to the implications of differences in productivity growth and the need for flexible labour markets. The question whether we can safely relinquish the mechanism of adjustment of nominal exchange rates or whether we should continue to insist on that possibility remains open. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) not to assume that the entire argument is over, bar the shouting.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked about the social and economic goals in article 2 of the treaty. The Red Book sets out the tax and expenditure policies across the board, including a large sum to be spent on social security and the environment. The Budget included not just a new landfill tax but fuel taxes designed in part for us to meet our carbon dioxide reduction commitment. The social and environmental goals are in the Red Book, and will form part of the report that we shall make to the Commission in due course.
  The motion is to approve the sending of information to the European Commission, as required by articles 103 and 104c of the treaty. In 1993 the Government gave an assurance that the terms of section 5 of the Maastricht Act would be strictly observed, and that the House's approval was therefore necessary before the sending of the required information; yet this year the Labour party has again contrived a case for voting against the motion, which would entail a breach of the treaty obligations.
  We are used to the Labour party's turning somersaults on Europe, but this must constitute a new low. Labour Members show craven subservience to the European Community in regard to big issues when British interests are at stake, but invite the House to break a treaty
  812
  obligation: they would block the sending of a report that is required. I invite the House to show a good deal more sense than that, and to approve the motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 183.

  Division No. 87]

  [11.43 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dunn, Bob

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Alexander, Richard

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Elletson, Harold

  Amess, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arbuthnot, James

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Ashby, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Atkins, Robert

  Evennett, David

  Atkinson, David

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baldly, Tony

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Booth, Hartley

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gallie, Phil

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Bowis, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Harris, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hayes, Jerry

  Colvin, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Congdon, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hendry, Charles

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cran, James

  Horam, John

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

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

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

  Day, Stephen

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jenkin, Bernard

  813

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

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

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knox, Sir David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shersby, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Leigh, Edward

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lightbown, David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lord, Michael

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sproat, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Maclean, David

  Steen, Anthony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stephen, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Stem, Michael

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stewart, Allan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Malone, Gerald

  Sumberg, David

  Mans, Keith

  Sweeney, Walter

  Marland, Paul

  Sykes, John

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trend, Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  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

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Ward, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Page, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Watts, John

  Patrick, Sir Irvine

  Wells, Bowen

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Pawsey, James

  Whitney, Ray

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wilkinson, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Willetts, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wilshire, David

  Rathbone, Tim

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wolfson, Mark

  Richards, Rod

  Wood, Timothy

  Riddick, Graham

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  814

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Gordon, Mildred

  Ainger, Nick

  Graham, Thomas

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Allen, Graham

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Hain, Peter

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Hall, Mike

  Ashton, Joe

  Hanson, David

  Austin-Walker, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Harvey, Nick

  Battle, John

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Heppell, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hodge, Margaret

  Benton, Joe

  Hoey, Kate

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Betts, Clive

  Home Robertson, John

  Blunkett, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Boateng, Paul

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Boyes, Roland

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Bradley, Keith

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

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

  Hutton, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Illsley, Eric

  Burden, Richard

  Ingram, Adam

  Byers, Stephen

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Jamieson, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cam, Jamie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Jowell, Tessa

  Church, Judith

  Keen, Alan

  Clapham, Michael

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Clelland, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAllion, John

  Cohen, Harry

  McFall, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McKelvey, William

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Corston, Jean

  McMaster, Gordon

  Cousins, Jim

  McWilliam, John

  Cox, Tom

  Mahon, Alice

  Cummings, John

  Marek, Dr. John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Davidson, Ian

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Martlew, Eric

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

  Maxton, John

  Dixon, Don

  Meale, Alan

  Dobson, Frank

  Michael, Alun

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dowd, Jim

  Milburn, Alan

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Miller, Andrew

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Eastham, Ken

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Enright, Derek

  Morley, Elliot

  Etherington, Bill

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Flynn, Paul

  Murphy, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Foulkes, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Fyfe, Maria

  Olner, Bill

  Galloway, George

  Pearson, Ian

  George, Bruce

  Pickthall, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Pike, Peter L

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pope, Greg

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  815

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rendel, David

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Turner, Dennis

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watson, Mike

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wray, Jimmy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mrs. Babara Roche and Mr. Peter Mandleson.

  Stevenson, George

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, as updated, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.

  Airport Safety
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: May I make it clear from the outset that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) will participate in the debate because the airport under discussion is in his constituency?
  I take this opportunity to thank Madam Speaker for granting me this debate on the safety of airports outside the capital. It is not necessarily about regional airports but the category that one might call "feeder airports", into which Coventry airport falls.
  I appreciate the fact that the Minister for Transport in London has come along to reply to the debate and I hope that he will answer some of the points that I shall raise. I have corresponded with his Department from time to time. Will he confirm that the Government have made proposals regarding small airports and that it is purely a matter of parliamentary time before those are implemented?
  This matter has been a consistent theme over the past 18 months, during which time I have tabled a number of questions regarding problems associated with Coventry airport. I even tabled, and hon. Members signed, an early-day motion in that endeavour. It could be said that it was a bipartisan approach because the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth signed it to demonstrate that I was not trying to hype up a political situation but rather deal with a problem that affects his and my constituencies.
  Many residents in those areas have no choice whether they live beside an airport. After the war, council houses were built in Willenhall and the airport was used mainly for pleasure flights, with just one or two heavier aircraft using it a couple of times a month. Over the years, the airport's status has changed, so it must be considered in regulatory terms.
  It would be remiss of me not to mention the air crash that happened a few days before Christmas in my constituency, killing three crew members and two handlers. It had a dramatic effect on residents not only in Willenhall but in Baginton and Coventry as a whole. Anyone who visited the scene that day would have been awestruck by the response of the emergency services. Neither the residents of the area nor I could criticise their response, but, as the day developed, the traumatised residents felt frustrated about the fact that, over the years, they had predicted what could happen at that airport. It is not for me to apportion blame. That will be done at another inquiry, the report of which we will probably receive in about six months. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
  The residents of Willenhall and Baginton, as well as those in other parts of Coventry, have complained for a long time about the frequency of flights, particularly at night; the height of aircraft on their approach to landing; whether aircraft stick to the flight path; the occasional dumping of fuel; and the general problem of aircraft noise.
  The problems at the airport have been exacerbated by the export of live animals. As a result of a recent accident, a young lady who lived in my constituency was killed. No doubt we will hear in coming months about what

  817
  happened. I was not there and I am not aware of all the facts, so it is not for me to apportion blame, but no doubt all those facts will be established. The export of live animals, particularly at weekends, has aggravated the problems experienced by the residents. A public meeting about them is scheduled for Friday night. The export of those animals has introduced another significant factor—the larger aircraft used for that transport.
  Although the controversy surrounding the export of live animals remains unresolved, the cost of policing that trade is expected to run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Given the precarious state of Warwickshire county council's budget and all its other problems, it could well do without that cost. I will not dwell on that now, but I should be interested to know whether the Government intend to help the county to meet that considerable cost.
  Some weeks ago, a public meeting was held which was attended by 500 residents not just from Coventry, but beyond, and organisations representing other residents who were unable to attend. They expressed their concern about the issues I have raised tonight. I accept that the Government have prepared their own proposals about the use of smaller airports, but questions about the size of the aircraft using those airports, the age of the aircraft and the frequency of safety checks—the Government say that they are conducted every three years, as well as being conducted periodically—were unresolved. I do not agree with the Government's approach, because I believe that the number of hours flown should be the key consideration.
  It is also important to consider the possible relocation of Coventry airport. All sorts of costs have been bandied about. It would certainly cost a great deal to re-site the runway, but, given the additional factors that have exacerbated the problems at the airport, one hopes that the Government will consider that proposal.
  The Government's proposals also did not make it clear who would pay for the noise amelioration schemes. The onus has been put on captains to make on-the-spot safety checks of their aircraft. I am sure that the Minister will elaborate on that further. I hope that I have not taken that matter out of context.
  The local authority lacks the ability to refuse operators the use of Coventry airport as long as the freight operator has a proper licence for the use of the airport, although it may be in the public interest for the authority to be able to refuse certain types of freight operators the use of airports such as Coventry. Had the local authority been able to intervene in the issue of air freight transport of calves to the continent, perhaps some of the problems would not have arisen in relation to that airport. Those aspects should be considered by the Secretary of State for Transport or a proper public inquiry so that we can introduce proper regulations.
  The Secretary of State has produced the Department's document or its proposals, depending on the way in which one chooses to interpret it. The proposals are:
  "Department to commission and consult on guidance to create a national framework to assist preparation of noise amelioration schemes
  Department to encourage aerodromes to review existing noise amelioration measures and their enforcement, and arrangements for local accountability.
  Department to open discussions with BAA and local consultative committees about making Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports more responsible and locally accountable for their noise control measures."
  818
  Why cannot we do the same thing in relation to airports such as Baginton airport
  "New enabling power for aerodromes to establish and enforce noise control arrangements, including for ground noise.
  New power of designation to replace existing sections 5 and 78–80 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and replace them with new power for the Secretary of State to have the discretion to compel aerodromes to prepare noise amelioration schemes.
  Designated aerodromes to prepare noise amelioration scheme, consult locally and agree it with 'lead' local authority".
  Where disputes take place, the Secretary of State will have the power to settle them.
  "New powers of enforcement to enable local authorities to take action against designated aerodromes who do not enforce schemes.
  `Call-in' power to be available for Secretary of State to approve schemes himself.
  These new powers to be applied to all other aerodromes from largest airports to smallest private sites, including those used by helicopters."
  In conclusion, it is noticeable that no help has been given to residents outside London, with the possible exception of Birmingham, with noise prevention schemes. The residents in Coventry and the surrounding area hope that the Secretary of State, bearing in mind the representations that Members from both Conservative and Labour parties have made, will announce a date and a time for the debate on his 1993 proposals, so that the House can amend them and vote to make those proposals law.
  12.7 am
  Mr. James Pawsey: I thank the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for allowing me the courtesy of intervening in the debate. I am grateful to him for the time that he has given me. I also acknowledge the attendance at the debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), and the hon. Member for Coventry—
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: North-East.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I meant the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth).
  Therefore, three Coventry Members and one Warwickshire Member are present for this important Adjournment debate.
  Coventry airport, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East says, is in my constituency, and has been since boundary changes in 1983. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East spoke with considerable knowledge. That does not surprise me, as I am aware that he is the former leader of Coventry city council and obviously his experience and knowledge has shown through in the debate that he opened this evening.
  In the past 10 years, I have experienced, together with hon. Members on both sides of the House, a substantial increase in the number of complaints about the noise and nuisance that has been caused by aircraft flying in and out of Coventry airport.
  I must make a special reference to the night flights. For my sins, I happen to live some distance away from Coventry airport, but none the less from time to time I hear the aircraft passing over my roof. At times they seem to be coming through the roof, not over it—although no doubt that is something of an exaggeration. But it is not an exaggeration to say that the number of night flights

  819
  has grown substantially over the past few years. Coventry airport is now one of the busiest freight airfields in the United Kingdom.
  Part of the problem has been caused by the fact that many houses were built reasonably close to the airport during the years when it was enjoying very little popularity and only a small number of light aircraft were landing on and flying from the strip. The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East was right to draw attention to the problems recently caused when an aircraft crashed in his constituency, killing members of the crew and two animal handlers. That was a disaster that could easily have been a catastrophe—had the aircraft been only a few feet lower, it would have landed in a densely populated housing estate at Willenhall, with severe loss of life. It was only by the grace of God that a disaster did not become a catastrophe.
  The problem is further worsened by the fact that there are now a substantial number of live animal flights from the airfield. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East said, there has already been one fatal accident in which a young woman was killed. The demonstrations and protests continue on the site. I am concerned about the growing risk to public safety. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the high cost to Warwickshire taxpayers of policing the site and I have been advised that the police operations on the site currently cost about £27,000 a day—a substantial sum. The animal flights should be halted before there are further injuries or fatalities.
  I am well aware of the consultative committees that have been set up to supervise airfields—there is one at Coventry. But they lack the necessary teeth and do not have sufficient bite. If my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is unable to say that he would like to strengthen or beef up the consultative committees, perhaps he might say a word about the increased powers that his Department should take on. If we cannot strengthen the consultative committees, we should be looking to introduce legislation to give the Department greater powers to deal with growing aircraft noise and nuisance, and to study the size and type of aircraft using the smaller provincial airports and the number of hours that are being flown.
  My constituents suffer acutely from the problem. I have constituents who live in the villages of Baginton and Stoneleigh, and there are many other adjoining villages such as Binley Woods, which are outside my constituency, where residents are also affected. Clearly it is time that proper controls were exercised.
  12.13 am
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for raising the important subject of airport safety. I have noted that all three of his neighbours—the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)—are here tonight. I appreciate that their presence underlines the importance that the people of Coventry and the parliamentary representatives attach to the issue.
  820
  I want to assure the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that, in safety terms, airports outside London are treated no differently from airports that serve London. I note what he said about the control of airports lying in the hands of local authorities. He mentioned the local authority's frustration at not being able to intervene in determining which flights should use the airport. I hope that he will appreciate that it is important that responsibility for technical and operational safety issues relating to civil aviation safety in the United Kingdom rests with the Civil Aviation Authority.
  Under the Air Navigation Order 1989, any aerodrome used by aeroplanes flying for the public transport of passengers or for flying training must be licensed by the CAA. Before the CAA grants a licence for an aerodrome, it needs to be satisfied that the aerodrome is safe for use by aircraft, having regard in particular to the physical characteristics of the aerodrome and its surroundings. It must also be satisfied that the person applying for the licence is competent to ensure that the aerodrome and its airspace are safe for the use of aircraft. In addition, the Civil Aviation Authority helps to safeguard the safety of both aircraft passengers and people on the ground by ensuring that aircraft registered in the United Kingdom are maintained and operated to the highest possible standards.
  I understand that the hon. Gentleman's immediate concerns about airport safety, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, originate from the recent crash of an Air Algerie aircraft at Coventry airport. As the hon. Gentleman stated correctly, that accident is now the subject of a formal investigation by the air accident investigation branch and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on it at this stage. The air accident investigation branch will publish a report of its investigation in due course.
  I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date for the release of the report, simply because I do not have that information to hand—I am not sure that the inquiry team would be able to give a final date at this stage. The report will, if appropriate, make safety recommendations based on the lessons learned from the accident.
  I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East expressed about the export of live animals. I hope that both hon. Members will understand that I cannot come to any conclusion this evening on issues which derive from incidents which occurred on the ground at Coventry airport. However, the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East made some important remarks about one very sad incident.
  Although I appreciate that the Air Algerie crash on the approach to Coventry airport has caused considerable concern to local residents—and to all of those living in the vicinity of major airports—the reality is that aircraft pose a very small risk to people on the ground. The House may be reassured to know that, since the Civil Aviation Authority started recording data on aviation accidents and incidents in 1976, no one on the ground has been killed or injured in accidents involving aircraft taking off or landing at United Kingdom airports.
  Anticipating the topics of discussion at the public meeting which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech, it might be helpful if I confirm that the aircraft involved in the accident at Coventry was foreign registered. That obviously raises some particular questions on which

  821
  he touched. As with any foreign aircraft operating in the UK, it was required to comply with the internationally agreed minimum safety standards set out in the annexes to the Chicago convention.
  Where we have concerns that a particular foreign aircraft is not complying with those standards, we will continue to arrange for the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out a safety check on that aircraft. For example, in view of concern about the safety of aircraft involved in the transport of livestock from Coventry airport, my Department has taken the additional measure of asking the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct inspections of non-European Economic Area aircraft used for such operations. The inspections are aimed at ensuring that those aircraft are airworthy. My Department will not issued permits for such flights until it is satisfied that the aircraft meet international safety standards.
  Because of general concerns about the safety of some foreign aircraft, we welcome recent international activity. In particular, we endorse the US Federal Aviation Administration view that the safety standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation should be applied as effectively as possible. In all honesty, the ICAO system is the only practical way of ensuring global aviation safety standards, but there is a need to ensure that system operates effectively. I am delighted to report that as a result of our intensive lobbying, the ICAO council has agreed to establish a safety oversight programme. We will maintain our strong interest by participating in ICAO working groups.
  We are participating also in the task force set up by the European civil aviation conference to consider further arrangements to improve the overall safety standards of foreign aircraft flying to Europe. That task force's first report is due shortly.
  Protection of the public on the ground near the busiest airports—this applies to the constituents of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East and of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth—is addressed by the Department by the establishment of public safety zones. Those are funnel-shaped areas, extending outwards from the ends of runways, within which development is controlled through the planning system. Experience has shown that, although the risk of an aircraft crash is small, accidents are most likely to occur near the ends of the runways during landing or take-off.
  Where public safety zones have been established, the statutory requirement is that local planning authorities are required to consult the Civil Aviation Authority before
  822
  granting permission for the development of land within a zone. The objective is to limit the number of people who may be in those areas at any one time and so be at greatest risk. If it is considered that a proposed development will increase unduly the number of people at risk, particularly in the part of the zone closest to the runway ends, advice will be given to the planning authority that the development should not be permitted.
  Not all airports have public safety zones. The risk generally increases with the amount of traffic. At airports where traffic is relatively light, the risk is considered insufficient to justify zones. Traffic at Coventry airport is currently below the level that triggers establishment of zones. Even had public safety zones been established at Coventry airport, the recent crash would have occurred just outside them.
  As I announced to the House on 21 July last year, a review of policy on public safety zones is currently under way. That commenced by updating previous studies of accident data to cover the years 1989 to 1993. Worldwide data are used because, fortunately, UK aircraft accidents are relatively rare. No conclusions have yet been reached, but I shall let the House know the outcome of that review when it has been completed.
  The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned particular concerns relating to night flights. I understand how difficult it is to balance the economic growth that airports and airport activities generate with the considerable annoyance to local residents caused by flights at night. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about that disturbance, and are keen for the Government to bring forward the Bill on the control of aircraft noise that we outlined in the March 1993 report to which my hon. Friend referred.
  My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping assured the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that the only reason for delay in bringing forward a Bill is the pressure of other business. That remains a clear statement of the Government's position. We appreciate local concern that there is a need to apply greater regulation. We continue to believe that represents the right way forward. We will—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Twelve midnight.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Hague
  The 72 statutory instruments introduced by this Department in the past 12 months are as follows:

  SIs completed during period 20 February 1994 to 20 February 1995

  SI Number

  Title

  1994/470

  The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  1994/500

  The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1994

  1994/506

  The Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/523

  The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Subsidy) Order 1994

  1994/527

  The Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1994

  1994/542

  The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1994

  1994/544

  The Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1994

  1994/559

  The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Regulations 1994

  1994/561

  The Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/562

  The Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1994

  1994/563

  The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1994

  384

  SIs completed during period 20 February 1994 to 20 February 1995

  SI Number

  Title

  1994/578

  The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1994

  1994/579

  The Housing Benefit (Permitted Totals) Order 1994

  1994/592

  The Statutory Maternity Pay (Compensation of Employers) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/667

  The Social Security (Contributions)(Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1994

  1994/671

  The Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) (Amendment) Scheme 1994

  1994/704

  The Social Security Pensions (Home Responsibilities) Regulations 1994

  1994/715

  The Personal Injuries (Civilians) Amendment Scheme 1994

  1994/726

  The Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/730

  The Statutory Sick Pay Act 1994 (Consequential) Regulations 1994

  1994/731

  The Child Support Act 1991 (Consequential Amendments) Order 1994

  1994/771

  The Home Guard (Amendment) Order 1994

  1994/772

  The Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Amendment Order 1994

  1994/773

  The Ulster Defence Regiment (Amendment) order 1994

  1994/781

  The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Subsidy) Regulations 1994

  1994/895

  The Occupational Pension Schemes (Deficiency on Winding up etc.) Regulations 1994

  1994/1003

  The Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/1004

  The Income Support (General) Amendments Regulations 1994

  1994/1062

  The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 1994

  1994/1082

  The Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/1101

  The Social Security (Sickness and Invalidity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1994

  1994/1105

  The Social Security Revaluation of Earnings Factors Order 1994

  1994/1230

  The Maternity Allowance and Statutory Maternity Pay Regulations 1994

  1994/1367

  The Social Security Maternity Benefits and Statutory Sick Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  1994/1553

  The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1994

  1994/1608

  The Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous) Amendments (No. 2) Regulations 1994

  385

  SIs completed during period 20 February 1994 to 20 February 1995

  SI Number

  Title

  1994/1646

  The Social Security (Cyprus) Order 1994

  1994/1661 (C.30)

  The Social Security Act 1989(Commencement No. 5) Order 1994

  1994/1751

  The Protected Rights (Transfer Payment) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/1779

  The Social Security (Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 1994

  1994/1807

  The Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 3) Regulations 1994

  1994/1832

  The Social Security Benefit (Persons Abroad) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1994

  1994/1837

  The Social Security (Credits) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/1882

  The Statutory Maternity Pay (Compensation of Employers) and Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/1906

  The Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Amendment (No. 2) Order 1994

  1994/1924

  The Income-related Benefits Scheme (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 1994

  1994/1925

  The Housing Benefit (Supply of Information) and Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/2021

  The Personal Injuries (Civilians) Amendment (No. 2) Scheme 1994

  1994/2137

  The Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1994

  1994/2138

  The Council Tax Benefit (Permitted Total) Order 1994

  1994/2139

  The Income-related Benefits Scheme (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 5) Regulations 1994

  1994/2194

  The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1994

  1994/2299

  The Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1994

  1994/2319

  The Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/2343

  The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1944/2556

  The Social Security (Severe Disablement Allowance and Invalid Care Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/2593

  The Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/2686

  The Social Security (Adjudication) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1994

  1994/2802

  The Social Security (Jersey and Guernsey) Order 1994

  1994/2891

  The Occupational Pensions (Revaluation) Order 1994

  386

  SIs completed during period 20 February 1994 to 20 February 1995

  SI Number

  Title

  1994/2926(C.65)

  The Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 (Commencement) Order 1994

  1994/2943

  The Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1994

  1994/2944

  The Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1994

  1994/2945

  The Social Security (Incapacity Benefit—Increases for Dependants) Regulations 1994

  1994/2946

  The Social Security (Incapacity Benefit) Regulations 1994

  1994/2947

  The Social Security (Severe Disablement Allowance) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/2975

  The Social Security (Medical Evidence) Amendment Regulations 1994

  1994/3061

  The Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 6) Regulations 1994

  1994/3196

  The Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment (No. 4) Regulations 1994

  1995/35

  The Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1995

  1995/74

  The Social Security (Widow's Benefit and Retirement Pensions) Amendment Regulations 1995

  1995/123

  The Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1995

  Correspondence
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what pilot project his Department intends to initiate at the central correspondence unit following the report by Coopers and Lybrand reviewing the support work within DSS headquarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  A review of support services in our headquarters offices in London recommended that the Department should pilot the use of more centralised teams to provide replies to correspondence from Members of Parliament and members of the public. A pilot project will start in April and will be evaluated in the autumn.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants have won an appeal against refusal of income support under the habitual residence test.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what separate sub-categories are used under the habitual residence test to identify those people who are to be refused income support.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The habitual residence test applies to all income support claimants who satisfy the conditions of entitlement for that benefit. No separate sub-categories
  387
  are used to identify those people who are refused income support because of the habitual residence test. As part of our monitoring of the change, we collect information on the numbers of British Citizens, European Economic Area nationals and others who pass or fail the test.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much invalidity benefit was paid to(a) men and (b) women in the latest available year; and what is the latest available number of (i) male and (ii) female claimants.

  Mr. Hague
  The available information is in the table.

  IVB beneficiaries Percentage of incapacitated on 3 April 1993

  Percentage of estimated annual IVB expenditure1

  Men

  1,156,000

  78 per cent.

  Women

  424,000

  22 per cent.

  1 estimated invalidity benefit—IVB— paid in the final week of the 1992–93 statistical year.

  Notes:

  1. All information in the table is based on a 1 per cent. sample of claimants to benefit within Great Britain, rated up by 100 and rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit estimated expenditure at May 93: by the number of working adults in a family unit and whether the claimant is aged between 18 and 24

  £ Millions

  Housing benefit Annual housing benefit expenditure (£) estimated from a sample taken in the last week of May 1993

  Council tax benefit Annual council tax benefit expenditure (£) estimated from a sample taken in the last week of May 1993

  Claimant aged between 18 to 24

  Others

  Total

  Claimant aged between 18 to 24

  Others

  Total

  No-one in the benefit unit working

  425.1

  1855.8

  2280.9

  58.3

  347.7

  406.1

  (a) One adult in the benefit unit working

  41.2

  359.3

  400.6

  5.0

  80.2

  85.3

  Single parents included in (a)

  n/a

  n/a

  222.2

  n/a

  n/a

  39.0

  (b) Two adults in the benefit unit working

  0.6

  17

  17.6

  0.1

  6.4

  6.5

  (c) Three or more adults in the benefit unit working

  1

  2

  2

  1

  0.5

  0.5

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system, 1 per cent. sample May 93. Symbols and abbreviations:

  1Nil or negligible

  2 Amount rounded to zero

  n/a not appropriate

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

  2. Adults in work can include claimants, their partners and non-dependants.

  3. The figures are for family benefit units which may be a single person or couple, with a dependant aged up to 16, or 19 if the dependant is in full-time non-advanced education.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families currently receiving housing benefit have(a) one adult working, (b) two adults working and (c) three or more adults working, specifying the number of people aged 18 to 24 years

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in which years the Comptroller and Auditor General decided to qualify his audit opinion of the supplementary benefit scheme before it was replaced by income support in 1988.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Comptroller and Auditor General has never qualified his audit opinion of the supplementary benefit scheme before it was replaced by income support in 1988.

  Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the total amount of council tax benefit annually given to families with(a) one adult working, (b) two adults working and (c) three or more adults working, specifying the amount given to people aged 18 to 24 years in each category; and how much was given to single parents in category (a).

  (2) what is the total amount of housing benefit given annually to families with (a) one adult working, (b) two adults working and (c) three or more adults working, specifying the amount given to people aged 18 to 24 years in each category; and how much is given to single parents in category (a).

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The available information is set out in the table.

  each category includes: and how many single parents are included in (a).

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The available information, as at the end of May 1993, is set out in the table:
  389

  Number of families in receipt of housing benefit where at least one adult is working.

  Thousands

  May 1993

  Number of adults working

  Total number of families

  Number of people aged 18–24 in the family

  Total number of people aged 18–24

  0

  1

  2

  3

  4

  1

  382

  268

  89

  22

  2

  1

  142

  2

  29

  12

  13

  4

  —

  —

  23

  3 or more

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Total

  413

  281

  102

  27

  3

  1

  167

  The number of single parent families in receipt of housing benefit, with one adult working is 134,000.

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries taken at the end of May 1993.

  Notes:

  1. For the purpose a family has been defined as a household where there are dependants or non-dependants. It is not possible to separately identify non-dependants who are not part of the family.

  2. The number of people aged 18 to 24 includes the claimant, partner, dependants and any non-dependants, regardless of whether they are working or not.

  3. Adults working could possibly be the claimant, partner or any non-dependants.

  4. Figures are for GB and have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  5. "—" represents less than 500 rated-up cases.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families currently receiving council tax benefit have(a) one adult working, (b) two adults working and (c) three or more adults working,

  Number of families in receipt of council tax benefit where at least one adult is working

  Thousands

  Number of adults working

  Total number of families

  Number of people aged 18–24 in the family

  Total number of people aged 18–24

  0

  1

  2

  3

  4

  1

  514

  367

  118

  26

  3

  1

  182

  2

  63

  25

  27

  10

  1

  —

  50

  3 or more

  10

  3

  2

  4

  1

  1

  14

  Total

  587

  395

  147

  39

  5

  2

  247

  The number of single-parent families in receipt of council tax benefit, with one adult working is 137,000.

  Source:

  Council tax benefit management information system annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries taken at the end of May 1993.

  Notes:

  1. For the purpose, a family has been defined as a household where there are dependants of non-dependants. It is not possible separately to identify non-dependants who are not part of the family.

  2. The number of people aged 18 to 24 includes the claimant, partner, dependants and any non-dependants, regardless of whether they are working or not.

  3. Adults working could possibly be the claimant, partner or any non-dependants.

  4. Figures are for GB and have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  5. "—" represents less than 500 rated-up cases.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Civil Justice Review Committee
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the members of Lord Woolf's civil justice review committee and its working groups.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Lord Woolf is assisted in his inquiry into access to justice by a team of assessors. They are: John Bolton, solicitor and arbitrator; Dick Greenslade district judge; Rupert Jackson QC; Phillip Sycamore, solicitor; and Robert Turner, Master of the Queen's Bench Division. Professor Ross Cranston, professor of commercial law at the London School of Economics and 390
  specifying the number of people aged 18 to 24 years that each category includes: and how any single parents are included in (a).

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 16 February 1995]: The available information, as at the end of May 1993, is set out in the table:

  Political Science, is acting as academic consultant to the inquiry. Professor Richard Susskind has just been appointed as an information technology consultant.

  A sub-group comprising Master Turner and District Judge Greenslade, with representatives of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the National Consumer Council, is working on a single code of rules. Mr. James Rennie, a retired Parliamentary Counsel, has been engaged as draftsman.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment of legal needs in respect of(a) social security, (b) housing, (c) debt, (d)

  391
  employment, (e) matrimonial law, (f) the Children Act 1989 and (g) immigration in different pats of the country his Department is making; and when he expects to publish these assessments.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For a number of years, the Legal Aid Board has been undertaking pioneering work in establishing methods for predicting legal need in some of these areas of work. Details of this work—which is continuing—are contained in the Legal Aid Board's annual reports. This work will need to be built upon as the ideas outlined by the Lord Chancellor earlier this year are developed further. The results of such work will be published in due course if it seems appropriate to do so.

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible(a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For information in respect of 1991 and 1992, I refer the hon. Member to the Civil Service Commissioners' Reports for 1991–92 and 1992–93 respectively. Copies of both reports are available in the Library of the House. In 1993 and 1994, there were 10 new fast-stream entrants to the Lord Chancellor's Department, as shown in the table.

  Parliamentary question for written answer on Monday 27 February

  Year

  Number appointed

  Females

  Males

  1993

  6

  2(Grade 7)

  4

  1994

  4

  3

  1

  Totals

  10

  5

  5

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to publish the report of Lord Woolf's review of the civil justice system.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor expects to receive the first report of Lord Woolf's inquiry into access to justice after Easter this year.

  Civil Justice Reform
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to establish a permanent standing committee on civil justice reform.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has no plans at present to establish a permanent standing committee on civil justice reform.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to institute an inquiry into the Balibo killings of 16 October 1975.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We have no plans to institute an inquiry. The Australians took the lead at the time in investigating 392
  the deaths of five members of an Australian television team working in East Timor in October 1975. In view of the circumstances then prevailing in East Timor, there was no means of ascertaining the precise circumstances in which they died. No firm evidence was discovered of who was responsible for their deaths. It is most unlikely, at this distance from the events, that another inquiry would shed any new light on the matter.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response his Department has made to the report of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights concerning the killings at the Santa Cruz cemetery in Rili in November 1991 and the subsequent investigation by the national commission of inquiry.

  Mr. Goodlad
  We welcomed Indonesia's decision to invite the UN special rapporteur to visit East Timor last July. With our EU partners we are considering his report, and Indonesia's response, at the present session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Peru
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place an English translation copy of the Interamerican Human Rights court ruling on the massacre of prisoners in the Peruvian El Fronton prison on 18 and 19 June 1987 in the Library.

  Mr. David Davis
  We have not received a copy of the ruling. However, we shall try to obtain one in order to place it in the Library.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 884, if the representations about banning of three journals by the Government of Indonesia were made privately.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Yes.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests have been made to the Indonesian Government for information on the location and use of defence equipment exported from Britain.

  Mr. Goodlad
  Any such requests are made on a confidential basis. It is not our practice to disclose such exchanges.

  Border Controls
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will be presenting oral legal argument before the European Court of Justice in the action between the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Countries, case C-445/93, 18 March 1993, regarding the abolition of border controls.
  393
  Mr. David Davis
  We have submitted written observations to the ECJ in this case. An oral hearing has been requested by the Commission. In due course, we will receive notification of the date of that hearing.

  Surinam
  Mr. Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Surinam concerning the rights of indigenous and Maroon peoples to be consulted over land use divisions covering the areas in which they live.

  Mr. Baldry
  I am not aware of any recent problem concerning the Maroon people in Surinam and we have received no other request to make representations on their behalf. However, if the hon. Member would care to write about his concerns, I would be happy to look into the matter.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas students currently studying in the United Kingdom are in receipt of funding from his Department; and what expenditure this creates.

  Mr. Baldry
  In the current financial year, ending on 31 March 1995, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is providing funding for some 11,500 overseas students studying in the United Kingdom. The total costs will be approximately £97.6 million.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ensure the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Baldry
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly to provide him with a list of the 29 statutory instruments sponsored by my Department in 1994.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 1979 his Department sought information from a recipient country on the location and use of defence equipment which was exported to that country from Britain.
  394
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Any such requests are made on a confidential basis. It is not our practice to disclose such exchanges with other Governments.

  South Africa (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will authorise the United Kingdom permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors in Vienna to request that the agency investigates whether manufactured nuclear warheads were hidden from the IAEA investigation team which verified South Africa's non-nuclear status in connection with South Africa's application to become a member state of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. David Davis
  The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed South Africa's non-nuclear weapon status in 1993. We have no plans to request another investigation.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 December to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett),Official Report, column 897, if he will detail applications to join defence, security and/or security defence-related companies approved by his Department for employees who had left his Department of its agencies within the last two years.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since my answer of 1 December to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the following applications from staff in my Department have been approved for employment with defence-related companies. Only one application to join a security company—an Air Vice Marshal to join TNT Express (UK) Ltd—has been approved during the last two years.

  Company

  Rank/Grade

  Action Information (Management)

  1 x Lt. Colonel

  Aramark plc

  1 x Captain

  BAe plc

  1 x Grade 3

  BAe Sema Ltd.

  1 x Commander RN

  BMT Defence Services Ltd.

  1 x Grade 7

  Cray Systems Ltd.

  1 x Lt. Colonel

  Data Sciences (UK) Ltd.

  1 x Squadron Leader

  EDS Scicon Defence Ltd.

  1 x HEO

  1 x SPTO

  1 x PTO

  1 x Lt. Commander RN

  1 x Major General

  1 x Group Captain

  Hewlett Packard Ltd.

  1 x Lt. Commander RN

  Hiller Parker May and Rowden

  1 x HEO

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  1 x Group Captain

  M L Douglas Equipment Ltd.

  1 x HPTO

  NPBI

  1 x Colonel

  Olin Ordnance

  1 x HPTO

  Pennine Services

  1 x Major

  Racal Radar Defence Systems Ltd.

  1 x Squadron Leader

  Siemens Plessey Electronic Systems Ltd.

  1 x Grade 6

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible in(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) 1994 were women.

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office, which comprises only 38 staff, does not employ fast-stream entrants on their first civil service appointment.

TREASURY

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the criteria used for classifying grant-maintained schools as private sector institutions for the purpose of national income accounts;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the status of (a) grant-maintained schools and (b) universities and colleges as private sector institutions for the purpose of national income accounts; and what are the differences between them.

  Mr. Nelson
  The national accounts are constructed by the Central Statistical Office in accordance with internationally agreed standards. Current practice is described in the CSO publication "United Kingdom National Accounts: Sources and Methods", third edition, available in the House of Commons Library.

  At present, grant-maintained schools, universities and colleges are all classified as private non-profit-making bodies serving persons. There is no difference in their national accounts status.

  The main criterion for determining whether an organisation is classified to the public or private sector is who controls it. Grant-maintained schools are classified to the private sector primarily because they are considered to be run independently by governors appointed by the private sector.

  CSO will he reviewing the sector classification of these bodies as part of a wider review to identify whether any changes are necessary to meet recently revised international standards.

  Housing Associations (Discounted Securities)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the implications of his plans to stop the tax loophole between companies in banking groups in respect of discounted securities on housing associations which are partly financed by the use of discounted securities.

  Sir George Young
  I assume that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the proposals at clauses 76 and 77 of the current Finance Bill. These are not directed solely at transactions between companies in banking groups, and I understand from representations that about a dozen housing associations have issued securities on discounted or indexed terms that they believe will be affected by my right hon. and learned Friend's proposal. It appears that 396
  these associations have given indemnities to the holders of their securities against the effects of changes to their tax treatment. It follows, if the clauses in question pass into law, that these borrowings and any further borrowings on similar terms will cease to offer reduced borrowing costs compared with more conventional borrowing. We have, however, proposed that existing borrowings by housing associations should not be subject to the new basis of charge until 1 April 1996. This will give the associations concerned a breathing space in which to rearrange their financial plans.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he and the Secretary of State for the Environment have made into how much of the private finance raised by the housing associations has been achieved via the use of discounted securities.

  Sir George Young
  I understand from representations received and from press reports that about £130 million of borrowing in aggregate may have been raised by housing associations' issuance of discounted securities, and about a further £30 million by issuance of indexed securities which may also be affected by the measure I believe the hon. Gentleman has in mind. These figures total some 2.5 per cent. of estimated total private sector borrowing by housing associations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has had discussions with the Secretaries of State for Health and for the Environment, following the Department of Health's approving the use of discounted securities for a housing association to finance low-rent accommodation for student nurses and junior doctors in 1989.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend took the views of ministerial colleagues fully into account in deciding to extend a degree of transitional protection to existing borrowings by housing associations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy(a) to amend his proposals to exempt housing associations in his proposed plan to curb tax avoidance with discounted securities and (b) to issue advice to the Housing Corporation and other relevant bodies on alternative means to raise private finance.

  Sir George Young
  We have proposed amendments to this year's Finance Bill granting a degree of transitional relief for existing borrowings by housing associations. For the future, these bodies already know of alternative means of raising private finance to those affected by our Budget proposals, and have used them for the overwhelming majority of their borrowing.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment about ensuring that housing associations' issue of discounted securities will not be affected by any action to curb tax avoidance in respect of discounted securities between subsidiaries in a banking group.

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. and learned Friend's proposal is not directed solely at transactions between subsidiaries in a banking group, and it is appropriate that securities issued by housing associations should come within its scope if they have the relevant characteristics. We have, however, concluded that it is appropriate to extend a degree of transitional protection to existing borrowings by housing associations.

  Delegated Pay
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

  Mr. Nelson
  None of the NDPBs sponsored by the Treasury falls into the categories listed. One NDPB follows its own pay arrangements; for the remainder, remuneration is on a fee paid basis.

  Housing (Negative Equity)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what help is being given to home owners with negative equity.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Bank of England estimates that the number of households with negative equity has fallen by over 44 per cent. since the end of 1992. The Government are pursuing sound economic policies designed to sustain economic recovery. That is the surest route to rising prosperity for all, including home owners who currently have negative equity.

  St. John's House, Bootle
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the demolition of St. John's house in Bootle; how many civil servants are currently employed there; and what provision is being made for the continuation of their functions.

  Sir George Young
  St. John's house in Bootle is occupied by 1,650 Inland Revenue staff and 200 Home Office staff. The building is in need of major refurbishment and staff have had to put up with poor working conditions for a number of years. Detailed option studies were undertaken by Property Holdings and the Inland Revenue to consider how the problems associated with the building could be resolved. Having considered all the options, including value for money, the decision has been taken to demolish the whole of St. John's house and to put in its place a new, but smaller, building which will house 850 of the existing occupants. The other 1,000 Inland Revenue staff will move to private leased accommodation elsewhere in Bootle. There are no plans to move work out of Bootle and the Inland Revenue remains committed to retaining a substantial presence in Bootle.

  Value Added Tax (Sports Clubs)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for refunding VAT paid on sports supplies which have been purchased by non-profit-making sports clubs; if it is the responsibility of sports clubs to consult their members on how any refund should be used or distributed to its members; and what discussions he has had with HM Customs and Excise regarding the payment of(a) VAT and (b) VAT refunds.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In June 1994 Customs and Excise invited all non-profit-making sports clubs to claim repayment of VAT on certain sporting and physical education services supplied by them to members during the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1994. many of the 398
  repayments have now been made. Sports supplies purchased by clubs are generally not exempt from VAT.

  Whether or not sports clubs have a responsibility to consult members concerning allocation of the refunds is for the clubs and their members to determine between themselves. It is not a matter in which it would be appropriate for the Government or customs to intervene. VAT accounting arrangements fall within the statutory responsibilities of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for managing the tax.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place for the timing of payments of 12 per cent. tax to the Exchequer by the organisers of the national lottery; and what provision has been made of the payment of interest to the Exchequer.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Payments of lottery duty are made on the 15th of the month following the month in which the liabilities arises. There are no arrangements for the payment of interest to the Exchequer in relation to the lottery duty.

  Civil Service Job Losses
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of job losses in the civil service in the next two years.

  Sir George Young
  The statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", published on 24 February, shows Departments' civil service staff plans as follows:

  Outturn

  Planned Figures

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  548,000

  527,000

  516,000

  494,000

  477,000

  This accords with the expectation, announced in the civil service White Paper—Cm 2627—that numbers would fall significantly below 500,000 in the next few years.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what changes he plans to implement in the number and the location of Customs and Excise officers in Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many Customs and Excise officers were based in Wales dealing with (a) VAT, (b) import controls, including checking passengers at airports and ports, (c) coastal surveillance and (d) general intelligence in September 1979, September 1990 and September 1994; and what is the planned number in September 1995.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: As part of the implementation of the fundamental expenditure review, Customs and Excise currently plans the following changes in Wales which will take place over the next five years:

  399

  Locations

  Officers at 23 February 1995

  Officers at 31 March 2000

  Cardiff

  205

  275

  Merthyr

  22

  0

  Newport

  17

  0

  Swansea

  96

  40

  Haverfordwest

  12

  0

  Carmarthen

  49

  79.5

  Bangor

  0

  18

  Colwyn Bay

  26

  0

  Pembroke Dock Excise

  7

  0

  Aberystwyth

  5

  4

  Newtown

  6

  0

  Customs

  98

  47.5

  Total

  543

  464

  Over recent years, customs enforcement strategy has progressively moved away from a static presence at all ports and airports towards more flexible, better targeted checks operated by fast response teams. Accordingly, customs staff are deployed flexibly throughout Wales and it would not be in the public interest to identify their location in greater detail.

  Customs and Excise does not keep reports of local resource deployment for 1979. Its planning system does not easily allow it to identify staffing levels at a mid-point in the year and the figures in the schedule are, therefore, for fiscal years. The import control figures in the schedule include a small element of export freight resources which cannot easily be identified and excluded. Coastal surveillance is not a separately identified activity within Customs and Excise's operational planning system, so the figures requested under categories (c) and (d) are included as a global figure headed "Intelligence" in the schedule.

  Customs and Excise officers based in Wales

  1990–91

  1994–95

  1995–96

  VAT

  357.0

  306.0

  256.5

  Import controls1

  186.0

  88.5

  70.5

  Intelligence2

  16.0

  29.0

  51.0

  1 Includes a small element of export freight resources

  2 Includes both coastal and other intelligence.

  Fraud
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 576, if he will itemise by year the level and number of frauds from each Department, indicating those involving (a) agencies and (b) non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 23 February 1995]: The data which are gathered centrally on fraud are used primarily as a means of promoting awareness of fraud risks, and to identify trends in the types of fraud committed. The data are not kept in the form requested in the question.
  400

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Banbridge Sewage Treatment Works
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the nature of and the need for the proposed remedial work to Banbridge sewage treatment works contained in the May 1993 programme of the water service; and what is the current cost of that remedial work and the date on which the work is planned to start and be completed.

  Mr. Moss
  Two stages of improvements to Banbridge sewage treatment works were contained in the May 1993 programme.

  The first stage, costing an estimated £450,000, involves construction of a new inlet works and improvements to treatment units and the outfall. This work will commence in mid-March 1995 and is due for completion in early 1996. These planned improvements are required to replace and upgrade plant and to cater for increased loading on the works.

  The second stage will involve a further increase in the capacity of the works. This stage is currently programmed to commence in late 1997. The contract period is likely to be 1 year and current estimated cost is £500,000.

  Small Firms Employment Scheme
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 679–80, on what basis consultants were selected for the small firms employment scheme; and if he will list the experience and qualifications of those consultants.

  Mr. Ancram
  The Fair Employment Commission formed a panel of consultants who were engaged under the small firms employment scheme to provide consultancy advice to companies. Applications for inclusion on the panel were invited from established management consultants or consultancy firms who had at least five years proven experience in human resources/personnel consultancy with specific expertise in one or more of the following areas: selection and recruitment systems: use of psychometric instruments; and promotion of equality of opportunity in employment.

  Applicants were also required to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Acts and the Fair Employment in Northern Ireland code of practice.

  Although information regarding the experience and qualifications of individual consultants is available, it could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost.

  Northern Ireland Boundary Commission
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 167–68, and the answer of 1 December 1994 given by the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), Official Report, column 1326, if he will clarify the number of occasions on which Irish Government Ministers sought to influence the work of the Northern Ireland Boundary

  401
  Commission, and the dates on which any meetings took place.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 15 February 1995]: My answer of 7 February explained that at the intergovernmental conference held on 28 January 1994 the Irish side was advised that there were statutory procedures for interested parties to make representations in respect of the Boundary Commission's published provisional recommendations. The Government's practice is that details of their exchanges with the Irish Government remain confidential, but I can confirm that when the Irish side referred again to the issue at the intergovernmental conference held on 10 March 1994 they were reminded of the independence of the Boundary Commission. My hon. Friend the Minister's answer referred to both these occasions.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 167, if he will list the occasions on which Northern Ireland constituency boundaries were raised by the Irish members of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental secretariat after the publication of the provisional recommendations of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission.

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  [holding answer 15 February 1995]: The Government's practice is that details of its exchanges with the Irish Government remain confidential. As is reflected by the communiqué issued following the intergovernmental conference on 28 January 1994, the Irish have been consistently advised that there are statutory procedures for interested parties to make representations in respect of the Boundary Commission's published provisional recommendations.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the throughput of abattoirs in each year since 1990, showing(a) overall units, (b) sheep, (c) pigs, (d) calves under six months and (e) bovines over six months.

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 February 1995]: The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Livestock units

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Bovines over six months

  1990

  968,400

  754,608

  1,085,647

  498,717

  1991

  941,285

  631,494

  1,034,357

  506,286

  1992

  958,569

  970,891

  963,914

  498,565

  1993

  935,759

  1,003,623

  1,079,172

  432,660

  1994

  922,269

  803,472

  1,089,777

  444,229

  Throughput of calves under six months was negligible. (Council directive 91/497/EEC).

  Note:

  1. Livestock unit = one bovine, seven sheep or three pigs.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the position of those charities which appear not to be approved in the 402
  disbursement of the moneys provided from that part of the receipts of the national lottery available for the support of good causes.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No. Within the framework of my general directions on the matters that should be taken into account, it is for the National Lottery Charities Board to determine its own priorities in relation to individual charities.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs in response to a similar question.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Howard
  A list of the 102 statutory instruments sponsored by the Home Office in the 12 months from February 1994 to January 1995 has been placed in the Library.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been undertaken under the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984 for the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The number of prosecutions brought by the Data Protection Registrar for alleged offences under the Data Protection Act 1984 is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1990

  30

  1991

  17

  1992

  27

  1993

  68

  1994

  32

  Note:

  Year ending 31 May

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum were received from citizens of the Ivory Coast in each month of 1994; how many have been(a) granted asylum and (b) refused; of those refused, how many have been given exceptional leave to remain; and how many are still awaiting determination.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The available information on nationals from the Ivory Coast is provided in the table. As at 31 December 1994, an estimated 1,150 applications for asylum from the Ivory Coast were outstanding.
  403

  Applications received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, by location of application, and decisions, nationals of the Ivory Coast, January to December 1994.

  Number of principal applicants

  Applications received

  Decisions 1 2 3

  Refusals

  Total applications

  Applied at port

  Applied in country

  Total decisions

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognized as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  Refused under para.180F of Immigration Rules4

  1994

  January

  25

  15

  10

  20

  —

  —

  20

  20

  —

  *

  February

  45

  10

  35

  10

  —

  —

  10

  5

  *

  *

  March

  40

  25

  15

  15

  —

  —

  15

  10

  —

  5

  April

  70

  50

  20

  20

  —

  —

  20

  15

  *

  *

  May

  65

  50

  20

  25

  —

  —

  25

  15

  5

  5

  June

  95

  55

  40

  25

  —

  —

  25

  25

  *

  *

  July

  50

  35

  15

  20

  —

  —

  20

  15

  *

  —

  August

  110

  80

  30

  35

  —

  —

  35

  25

  *

  10

  September

  135

  95

  40

  35

  *

  —

  35

  20

  *

  10

  October

  30

  5

  25

  35

  —

  —

  35

  20

  5

  10

  November

  25

  5

  20

  45

  —

  —

  45

  40

  —

  10

  December

  10

  —

  10

  30

  —

  —

  30

  25

  —

  10

  Total

  705

  425

  280

  320

  *

  —

  320

  240

  20

  60

  1 Provisional and estimated figures rounded to the nearest 5 with '*'= 1 or 2.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  4 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  Electronic Surveillance
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place within the European Community for the protection of employees in the workplace who may be subject to electronic surveillance without their prior authorisation or consent; and what legislation relates to the unlawful use of electronic monitoring equipment with respect to privacy and data protection.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As to the first part of the question, I am aware of no such measures. As to the second part, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to a question from him on 21 February,Official Report, column 158

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigations have been undertaken in relation to organisations involved in electronic bugging of offices or other workplace premises in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No such records are held.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, columns 158–59, if he will outline the nature and extent of complaints lodged with his Department in relation to the operation and practices of companies or organisations involving electronic surveillance services.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Advertisements offering information-gathering services, which may or may not involve electronic surveillance devices, attracted about 40 letters of complaint from hon. Members and others in 1994. The main point of concern was that confidential personal information could be obtained without authority and advertised for sale. The amendment to the Data Protection Act 1984 made by section 161 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 addresses this concern.

  Mr. Colin Dunning
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will release to solicitors acting for Mr. Colin Ivor Dunning the expert evidence referred to in the letter dated 11 January from his Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I am arranging for this evidence to be sent to Mr. Dunning's solicitors without further delay.

  Theft
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of property stolen in theft by an employee in 1992, excluding the offence involving a pension fund referred to in table 2.20 of the 1992 "Criminal Statistics for England and Wales" Cm 2410.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Excluding the offence involving the pension fund, the value of property stolen was £55.7 million.

  Campsfield House
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many detainees at Campsfield house detention centre are currently on hunger strike; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  On 23 February 1995, two detainees at Campsfield house were refusing meals; both were taking milk and water.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost to Her Majesty's Government of Campsfield detention centre.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The total cost to the immigration service of running its detention accommodation at Campsfield house in the financial year 1993–94 was £1,913,872.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, columns 214–15, how many of the 188 cases under consideration at the beginning of 1995 had been with C3 division for (a) six months, (b) 12 months and (c) 18 months or longer.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Of the 188 cases under consideration with C3 at the beginning of 1995, 106 had been with the division for over six months, 38 for over 12 months, and 25 for over 18 months.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deaths in the United Kingdom resulted directly from addiction to(a) heroin and (b) other drugs in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The only clearly identifiable direct cause of death from addiction to drugs is from overdose, and the relevant information is contained in table 14 of the Home Office "Statistical Bulletin" entitled "Statistics of drug addicts notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom, 1993", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Gloucestershire Police
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors were taken into account before refusing a special grant to the chief constable of Gloucestershire for the exceptional costs of the Cromwell Street inquiry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Applications for special grant are considered against the following criteria: the expenditure must be exceptional, unforseen and of a scale likely to threaten the efficiency of the force.

  The application by Gloucestershire police authority was carefully considered against these criteria, taking into account advice from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, but was not judged to meet the criteria.

  Drug Action Teams
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in setting up regional drug action teams as set out in "Tackling Drugs Together".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  "Tackling Drugs Together" is a consultation document. The Government are considering the responses to its proposals, which include the setting up of local drug action teams in 1995–96. Definite proposals will be published in a White Paper in the spring.

  Football Spectators
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many restriction orders have been made under the Football Spectators Act 1989 in each year since its introduction.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Part II of the 1989 Football Spectators Act, which provided the courts with the power to make restriction orders to prevent certain convicted hooligans from travelling to key football matches outside England and Wales, came into force on 24 April 1990. The number of restriction orders is as follows:406

  Year

  Number of orders

  1990

  19

  1991

  4

  1992

  2

  1993

  0

  1994

  1

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many restriction orders made under section 15 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 were enforced with regard to the Ireland v. England football match of 15 February.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Two.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers exist to enable him to restrain within the United Kingdom people subject to a restriction order preventing them from attending certain sporting events in the United Kingdom or overseas who seeks to breach that order even though they are not suspected of committing any other offence.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Section 15 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 gave the courts power to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences to prevent them from attending key matches outside England and Wales. Those subject to such orders are required to report to a police station—of their choice—usually at a time when such a match is taking place. It is an offence to fail to do so without good reason. There is no separate power to prevent a person subject to a restriction order from leaving the country at the stipulated time.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action was taken by the football unit of the national criminal intelligence service to reduce the likelihood of crowd violence in advance of the Ireland v. England football match on 15 February.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my written reply of 22 February,Official Report, column 234.

  Immigration (Non-NATO Forces)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are kept, and what approval procedures are required, for the entry into the United Kingdom of members of non-NATO armed forces.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Separate records are not kept of the entry of members of non-NATO armed forces. Those coming for official duties or training who are subject to control under the Immigration Act must satisfy the immigration officer that they qualify under the immigration rules.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent of drug abuse in prisons.

  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.
  407
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Frank Cook, dated 27 February 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Question on the extent of drug abuse in prisons.
  The information currently available on prisoners is limited to that provided by the Home Office Addicts Index which relates to those assessed as being addicted to Class A drugs. During 1993, 3,764 drug addicts were identified by prison medical officers in England, Scotland and Wales. Not all of these prisoners were, however, necessarily misusing drugs while in prison. In addition, it is known that a significant number of prisoners use Class B drugs but no statistical information is currently available.
  However, this year the Prison Service will be introducing a mandatory drug testing programme for prisoners. As part of the programme prisoners will be required to participate in random drug testing. This will provide a better indication of the extent of drug misuse in prison and the Service will be able to use this information to monitor the effectiveness of local drug strategies.
  The presence of drugs in prison is unacceptable and tackling drug misuse is a high priority for the Service.
  A new prison Service drugs strategy has been developed as part of the Government's strategy against the misues of drugs, as set out in the Green Paper "Tackling Drugs Together". The new strategy will be issued to all Prison Service establishments in the near future.
  The reduction in the level of drug misuse will be achieved through the implementation of local drug strategies which will have the objective of reducing the supply of drugs; reducing the demand for drugs; rehabilitating drug misusers; and reducing the potential for damage to health arising from the misuse of drugs.
  Mandatory drug testing is an important part of the strategy. The first phase of implementation has already started in eight establishments. This will be carefully monitored and evaluated and the results will provide the basis for testing throughout the Prison Service. Prisoners who test positive will be liable to the usual range of disciplinary action on adjudication including additional days, loss of privileges and fines. Other measures to be taken will include imposition of closed visits and removal of home leave. Prisoners who test positive will be offered treatment for their drug misuse problem.
  The strategy also contains measures to prevent drugs entering prisons. These include the increased use of drug dogs; more effective searching of prisoners, staff and visitors; the use of closed-circuit television cameras during visits; and the imposition of closed visits for prisoners found guilty of drug offences in prison.
  The Prison Service will also be substantially expanding the number and type of drug treatment programmes available to prisoners. Careful monitoring and evaluation of these programmes will help to determine the development of drug treatment in other establishments.

  Greater Manchester Probation Service
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many staff were employed and at what grades by the Greater Manchester probation service on 30 June 1992, 30 June 1993 and 30 June 1994;

  (2) how many court reports were completed by the Greater Manchester probation service during 1992 and 1993;

  (3) how many offenders were supervised by the Greater Manchester probation service on 30 June 1994.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshaw (Mr. Morris) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Clark) on 21 February 1995,Official Report, column 157.

  Ernest Saunders
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,408
  Official Report, column 585, what reasons the parole board gave for its recommendation to release Ernest Saunders.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Under the parole arrangements existing at the time when Mr. Saunders was released, the parole board was not required to give reasons for its recommendations.

  Prisons (Alcohol)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many finds of illicit alcohol were made in gaols in England and Wales for each year since 1990.

  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 Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 27 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many finds of illicit alcohol were made in jails in England and Wales for each year since 1990.
  This information is not routinely kept by the Prison Service.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Pay)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

  Mr. Howard
  No decision has yet been taken on future pay arrangements for NDPBs sponsored by the Department.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will list by European Union member state the most recent estimate of illegal immigrants living in that member state.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  There are no official data on the numbers of illegal immigrants in EU member states, because, by its very nature, illegal immigration is very difficult to measure and any estimates, including any for the United Kingdom, would be highly speculative.

  Pucklechurch Remand Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 503, about Pucklechurch remand centre, what were the appropriate arrangements that were put into effect to hold the category A prisoners; what has been the cost of putting these arrangements into effect to date; and how long they will remain in force.

  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.
  409
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 27 February 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the arrangements for holding category A prisoners at Pucklechurch.
  As these arrangements concern the security of an establishment, it would not be appropriate for me to publish any details. Staff were diverted from elsewhere for this work. Additional costs of approximately £12,000 were incurred for travel and subsistence, excluding the cost of staff time which would have been incurred anyway.
  The prisoner was transferred to another prison on 15 February.

PRIME MINISTER

  Border Controls
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will inform the European Commission that he will ask Parliament to amend article 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to make unenforceable in the United kingdom any directive or judgment of the European Court which diminishes the control on the movement of persons which the United Kingdom at present exercises at its frontiers.
  410
  The Prime Minister
  No. I have already made it clear that we will take whatever action is necessary to maintain our frontier controls. However, amendment of section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 would not have the effect suggested.

  Social Development Summit
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria he will use when deciding whether he will attend the world summit on social development.

  The Prime Minister
  I will not be attending. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker will represent the United Kingdom.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Dining Rooms
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what is the current waiting time for booking dining rooms A, B, C, and D for(a) dinners, (b) lunches and (c) afternoon events.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  This is a matter for the Director of Catering Services. I have asked her to write to the hon. Member.

EDUCATION

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill apply to all regulations for which her Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the statutory instruments which her Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  School Curriculum (Swimming)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the status of swimming in the school curriculum and what is her Department's guidance to local education authorities and schools regarding charging for swimming lessons.

  Mr. Forth
  Swimming is a compulsory part of the national curriculum. The national curriculum for physical education requires that, by the age of 11, all pupils should be able to swim unaided at least 25 m and demonstrate an understanding of water safety. Local education authorities and schools should not charge for swimming lessons. They may, however, request voluntary contributions provided that it is made clear that these are optional and that registered pupils are not treated differently depending on the level of contributions made.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what discussions she has had with councillors in Lancashire concerning nursery education for four-year-olds and the funding of such provision.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from councillors in a number of local authorities, including Lancashire, concerning nursery education for four-year-olds and the funding of such provision.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action her Department is taking to improve facilities in schools for children with moderate learning difficulties.

  Mr. Forth
  Annual capital guidelines for 1995–96 include notional allocations of over £7 million for special education projects. No specific sums are earmarked for schools for children with moderate learning difficulties: it is for local education authorities to decide their own capital expenditure priorities and to make the best use of the resources available to them through ACGs. Further sums will become available through supplementary credit 412
  approvals for specific special education projects in the course of the financial year.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action her Department is taking to bring up to the standards set out in "Building Bulletin 77" the schools for pupils with severe learning difficulty in Kirklees.

  Mr. Forth
  The guidance in "Building Bulletin 77" is not mandatory. It sets out good practice in the design of accommodation for new special school buildings and for the adaptation of existing special schools. My right hon. Friend takes account of how closely proposals for new construction in special schools—in Kirklees, and elsewhere—comply with the bulletin when considering the approval of premises under section 185 of the Education Act 1993.

  Staff Transfers
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 783–84, how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff responsible for sport were transferred to the Department of National Heritage in July 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 22 full-time staff.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 783–84, how many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff responsible for science were transferred from her Department to the Cabinet Office in July 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 42 full-time staff.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 16 February,Official Report columns 783–84, how many staff responsible for Her Majesty's inspectorate and support for Her Majesty's inspectorate still remain in her Department following the transfer of the majority of those staff to Ofsted in September 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  On the establishment of Ofsted in September 1992, 86 HMI and support staff remained in the Department and have since retired. Three HMI became DFE staff and remain in the Department, as do 20 former HMI support staff. Seventeen DFE staff remain on loan to Ofsted and may return to the Department in due course.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 16 February,Official Report, columns 783–84, how many of her staff responsible for Her Majesty's inspectorate and support for Her Majesty's inspectorate transferred to the Office for Standards in Education in September 1992.

  Mr. Forth
  A total of 493 full-time and 52 part-time staff.

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which her Department is responsible in(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) 1994 were women.

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the civil service commissioner's report for 1991 and 1992 which gave the required information for these years.
  413
  In 1993, the Department recruited seven staff to fast-stream grades of whom two were women. In 1994, there were 10 recruits, of whom six were women.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Eritrea
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what overseas aid has gone to Eritrea in the last two years; and what plans there are for future aid.

  Mr. Baldry
  Bilateral aid to Eritrea, including emergency assistance, totalled almost £2 million in 1992–93 and £6 million in 1993–94. Since 1992 we have also contributed more than £6 million through the EC. We expect to continue our bilateral technical co-operation programme of about £1 million a year. Future emergency assistance will reflect needs as they arise.

  Syria
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total aid that the European Union has agreed to provide to Syria; why the aid package was agreed; and how much will be contributed by the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Baldry
  Since 1978 the European Community has provided to Syria a total of 461 mecu, or £362.9 million—exchange rate February 1995, 1 ecu equals £0.7889—of which the UK share was approximately 16 per cent. This support forms part of the EC's programme of assistance for all Mediterranean non-member states.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposal he has to reduce suffering in Rwanda.

  Mr. Baldry
  We continue to support the Rwandan Government's programme of reconciliation and socio-economic rehabilitation and recovery, which is the agreed framework for accelerating economic and social development in Rwanda. Donors have already pledged $583 million in support of the programme.

  Amazonian Rain Forest
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to discourage the destruction of the Amazonian rain forest.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom has taken a leading role in promoting the implementation of the forest principles agreed in Rio. We have also provided more than £14 million for bilateral forest protection projects in Amazonia since 1989 and are supporting the joint G7-European Union pilot programme to conserve the Brazilian rain forest. We have provided £1.5 million to the pilot program trust fund managed by the World hank, and plan to provide additional assistance.

  South American Street Children
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is currently being given to help South American street children.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Overseas Development Agency has committed over £800,000 to projects with street children in Brazil, Ecuador and Peru. This assistance is largely channelled through UK non-governmental organisations such as Childhope, the International Children's Trust, CAFOD and Oxfam. British partnership schemes, run by our embassies in the region, provide additional support to local NGO projects.

  Contracts
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the contract value, in pounds sterling, to(a) Coppee (UK) Ltd., (b) Westinghouse Brake and Signal, (c) NEI, (d) GEC Alsthom, (e) Cegelec, (f) Crown Agents, (g) Brecknell Willis, (h) Balfour Beatty and (i) Thorn EMI from the Ankara Metro project.

  Mr. Baldry
  (a) Coppee (UK) £51 million (b) Westinghouse Brake and Signal £8.15 million.

  The following companies are subcontractors of the contract awarded to Coppee (UK):

  Companies

  £ million

  (c)

  NEI

  3.2

  (d)

  GEC Alsthorn

  17.1

  (e)

  Cegelec

  8.9

  (f)

  Crown Agents

  4.2

  (g)

  Brecknell Willis

  4.7

  (h)

  Balfour Beatty

  5.7

  (i)

  Thorn TTSI

  1.9

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to the external finance limit for the current year for the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Mr. Baldry
  The external finance limit for CDC set out in the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget report 1994–95", Cm 2519, has been increased from zero to £30.56 million. The increase is made up of £22 million due to a classification change, £2.7 million to allow for investment of cash balances held at the end of 1993–94 and £5.86 million in respect of continuing interest payments made by CDC.

  The classification change has no consequences for public expenditure and the other elements of the increase will be met by a decrease in the cash limit for, and reallocation of provision within class II, vote 5. The increase will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Victims' Families
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Attorney-General to what extent the families of victims are taken into account by
  415
  the Crown Prosecution Service during the prosecution process.

  The Attorney-General
  When taking a decision to prosecute, the interests of the victim and his or her family are an important factor in determining the balance of the public interest.

  Racial Attacks
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the head of the Crown Prosecution Service to discuss racial attacks.

  The Attorney-General
  I meet the Director of Public Prosecutions on a regular basis. Cases with a racial element are discussed as and when they arise.

  Public Order Act 1986
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applications from the Crown Prosecution Service to bring prosecutions under section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 he has turned down.

  The Attorney-General
  Since the Public Order Act 1986 came into force, consent to prosecute under section 18 has been granted in five applications out of seven. I have also received 12 applications for consent to prosecute under other sections of part III of that Act, of which 10 have been granted and two have been refused.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General how many regional offices of the Crown Prosecution Service are below their recommended manning levels; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Nationwide the Crown Prosecution Service has its full complement of lawyers and close to its full complement of administrative staff.

  Crime Victims (Compensation)
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Attorney-General what role he played in the considerations by the Government of plans to alter the principles of compensation for victims of violent crime.

  The Attorney-General
  By convention the Law Officers do not normally disclose whether they have given advice on a particular subject or the substance of any advice that they may have given.

  Increased Sentences
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to introduce an incentive pay scheme for his staff based on the number of times they obtain an increase in sentence on appeal.

  The Attorney-General
  None.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Attorney-General how many successful prosecutions were concluded by the Serious Fraud Office in the last year; and what was the total value of all payments to prosecuting counsel instructed by the Serious Fraud Office over the same period.
  416
  The Attorney-General
  During the period 1 April 1994 to 31 January 1995, 13 defendants were prosecuted to conviction by the Serious Fraud Office.

  The total payments on fees to prosecuting counsel during this period was £2,655,000. That amount includes some payments in relation to professional services carried out prior to that period but excludes costs incurred within the period where payment has not yet been made.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the agreed cost of legal services to the Ministry of Defence by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in respect of the Scott inquiry; and what other or later invoices than those cited in his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 13 May 1994,Official Report, column 251, in respect of the Scott inquiry have been sent by the Treasury solicitors to the Ministry of Defence and all other Departments.

  The Attorney-General
  The agreed cost to date of legal services provided to the Ministry of Defence by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in respect of the Scott inquiry is £137,306.18.

  Invoices sent by the Department since 13 May 1994 are as follows:

  Department

  £

  Ministry of Defence

  2,311.38

  Department of Trade and Industry

  25,840.71

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  15,490.62

  Non-departmental Public Bodies (Pay)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

  The Attorney-General
  There are no NDPBs sponsored by the Departments for which I am responsible.

HEALTH

  Surgery
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to restrict the performance of keyhole surgery to surgeons trained in the specialty.

  Mr. Sackville
  Minimally invasive techniques have been used safely and effectively in various surgical specialties for many years. There is no one branch of surgery specifically devoted to these techniques.

  We are now talking to the royal colleges about a new system which will bring together groups of experts under the auspices of the royal colleges to evaluate major advances in surgery and medicine.

  It is for individual provider hospitals to ensure high standards of practice for all patients and for purchasing

  417
  authorities to ensure that their populations have access to high quality care. Surgeons practising minimal access techniques should he properly trained in those techniques and junior trainees should be closely supervised by experienced staff.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will add to the patient's charter the right to have surgery performed by a registered medical practitioner trained in surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  No. All procedures should be carried out by an appropriate person. A consultant will normally have overall responsibility for the care of a particular patient.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to stop NHS trusts entering into contracts with private contractors to provide very long-term care for elderly patients.

  Mr. Bowis
  None. The national health service has always contracted with private contractors. It is the responsibility of health authorities to arrange and fund continuing health care. We issued guidance to health authorities on their responsibilities for meeting continuing care needs on 23 February, copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Pensioners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will set up an investigation into the recent supply of the names and addresses of NHS pensioners and their Paymaster General's office reference numbers to third parties.

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the National Health Service Pensions Agency under its chief executive, A.F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 27 February 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Health has asked me to respond to your written parliamentary question of 17 February 1995 because it falls within my area of responsibility.
  The Agency contracts Paymaster to administer the payment of NHS pensions. They had, without reference to us, issued promotional material to pensioners from a third party but I have been assured by Keith Sullens, who is the Chief Executive of Paymaster, that at no time has any information about NHS pensioners been released to third parties.

  NHS Efficiency
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the efficiency rating of the NHS in relation to other EU health services.

  Mr. Malone
  Between 1978–79 and 1992–93, hospital and community health services' efficiency in England increased by over a fifth. Data on health services in other European Union countries are available in "OECD Health Systems", Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development 1993.

  We share the judgment of OECD, whose latest "Economic Survey", July 1994, points out that the national health service
  "was, and is, a remarkably cost effective institution"
  418
  and that it achieves "comparable health outcomes" with other large OECD countries.

  Private Finance
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the value of business plans estimated under the private financial initiative, broken down by region.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 3 November 1994 at column 1269.

  Four further projects have been approved, each with a capital value of £1 million or over. These are:

  £ million

  Northern and Yorkshire Region

  Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  multi-storey car park

  3.2

  South Thames Region

  Eastbourne Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  clinical waste incinerator

  3.0

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority

  residential accommodation

  1.0

  Mid-Downs Health Authority (Princess Royal Hospital)

  magnetic resonance imaging

  1.0

  Child Protection Register
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children(a) in the Hastings and Rother area, (b) nationally and (c) in east Sussex are on the child protection register.

  Mr. Bowis
  Figures in "Children and Young People on Child Protection Registers Year Ending 31 March 1994", copies of which are available in the Library, show that 0.32 and 0.60 per cent. of the population aged under 18 were on the child protection register at 31 March 1994 in England and east Sussex respectively. Information is not available centrally for areas smaller than local authorities.

  Depressive Illness
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of clinical depression have been diagnosed in the NHS for each year since 1990;

  (2) how many cases of seasonal affective disorder have been diagnosed in the NHS for each year since 1992.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally for England. The situation in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Insulin Pens
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the total annual projected cost of making the provision of insulin injection pens and needles available on general practitioner prescription.

  Mr. Malone
  The cost of making injection pens and needles prescribable by general practitioners would depend upon the price the Department is able to negotiate with the manufacturers, and the rate at which general practitioners prescribe them.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 158, if she will list all seizures of anabolic steroids made by the Medicines Control Agency for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency does not keep separate statistics on the quantities of anabolic steroids seized as a result of its enforcement action.

  However, investigations into the illegal trade in anabolic steroids remains a high priority of the MCA. During the last year, as a result of 28 investigations, anabolic steroids with a black market value of several million pounds were seized.

  Reactive Hypoglycaemia
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study she is making of the south Cumbria alternative sentencing options study, and other evidence as to the links between reactive hypoglycaemia and crime; and what plans her Department has to recognise reactive hypoglycaemia as a medical condition requiring further clinical study and research.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are not aware of the study to which the hon. Member refers. If the hon. Member sends me a copy, I will write to him.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each NHS trust the annual budget for public relations for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  We do not collect this information centrally. It is for each national health service trust to decide how much of its budget it should spend on public relations.

  If the hon. Member is concerned at the public relations expenditure of a particular NHS trust, he should write to the chairman.

  Disabled Living Centres
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each of the last three years the level of funding for disabled living centres by each district health authority.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which her Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs gave him today.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the statutory instruments which her Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Sackville
  A list be will placed in the Library.

  The Royal Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral statement of 20 February,Official Report, column 31, on the London health service, what is the capital investment sum needed to provide at the Royal London Whitechapel site the services and facilities to be withdrawn from the London child hospital, the Queen Elizabeth hospital for children and St. Bartholomew's hospital; over what time scale the expansion of the Whitechapel site will take place; and how much of the capital needed will he provided by her Department.

  Mr. Malone
  The estimated gross capital cost of the proposed single site option, phased over five or six years, as set out in the consultation document "Health Services for the Future" published by East London and the City health authority, is £202 million. This is £106 million more than the £96 million needed to maintain the status quo.

  Funding sources will be confirmed when the Royal Hospitals Trust has developed its full business case following the outcome of public consultation.

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the link between paracetamol use and the occurrence of migraine.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency continually monitor the safety of all licensed medicines in the United Kingdom, including products that contain paracetamol. Since 1964, there has been one report of migraine as a suspected adverse reaction to paracetamol. An estimated 2,000 million paracetamol tablets are sold in the United Kingdom each year. The alleged link between paracetamol and the occurrence of migraine has not been substantiated.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number and percentage of emergency ambulance calls in London took 14 minute and each subsequent number of minutes up to 90 minutes in January.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information from the London ambulance service has been placed in the Library.

  Primary Care, London
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral statement of 20 February,Official Report, column 40, regarding further investment in primary care initiatives of £85 million in London, if she will list the areas which will receive it, the amounts that they will receive and the initiatives that will be funded.

  Mr. Malone
  The areas are those covered by the London initiative zone—LIZ:

  Brent (excluding Harrow)

  421

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  Barking (excluding Havering)

  Camden and Islington

  City and East London

  Eastern Enfield and Edmonton area of Haringey

  Waltham Forest (excluding Redbridge)

  Greenwich (excluding Bexley but including Thamesmead)

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  Wandsworth (excluding Sutton and Merton)

  North Croydon

  The amount of funding each area receives will be determined by North and South Thames regional health authorities and will he based on plans submitted by local health authorities.

  The investment will fund a wide range of primary and community care schemes, details of which can be obtained from local health authorities. A total of £10 million of the investment will be specifically allocated to develop a new educational programme for London general practitioners as I announced on 16 February 1995. Details of the schemes which will form part of this programme can be obtained from the Thames regional health authorities.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information she has of the extent to which local authorities have used their discretion to increase the personal expenses allowance of a married person in long-term residential care to enable them to support their spouse remaining at home; on how many occasions this rule has been operated by a local authority because the whole of a resident's occupational pension has been used to pay for the costs of care; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally. The Government have reminded local authorities that they have discretion to vary the resident's personal expenses allowance to assist the spouse remaining at home.

  Child Care
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest estimate of the number of mothers who do not live with or directly care for their natural dependent children.

  Mr. Sackville
  No suitable estimate is available.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr.Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the current position in the civil service regarding equality of opportunity for women, people of ethnic minority origin and disabled people.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am pleased to announce the publication today of the first in a series of annual data summaries of equal opportunities in the civil service. The Government are committed to equality of opportunity for all people and is determined that the civil service should set the best possible example. Figures show that, taking the service as a whole, steady progress has been made 422
  over the last five years by women, individuals with disabilities and members of ethnic minorities. They make up a higher proportion of the service overall and are increasingly to be found at senior grade levels.

  Hon. Members may also like to see an Office of Public Service and Science paper describing in more detail the current situation regarding ethnic minorities in the civil service. "Equal Opportunities in the civil service for People of Ethnic Minority Origin" was presented to the Home Secretary's advisory council on race relations by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, OPSS, on 26 January 1995. Copies of both publications have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Science Budget
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, if he will make a statement on the allocation of the science budget.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy announced the allocation of the science budget of £1,281.675 million for 1995–96, subject to parliamentary approval of the Supply estimates,Official Report, 2 February, column 754.

  The figures for the two subsequent financial years have now been provided to assist the bodies funded from the science budget with their forward planning. As the table shows, part of the provision has not been attributed to individual bodies at this stage, in order to provide flexibility to target funding to emerging high priority initiatives, including those resulting from the technology foresight exercise. The total provision will also be reviewed in the normal way in the forthcoming public expenditure survey. Actual allocations for 1996–97 will be announced early next year following advice from the Director-General of Research Councils.

  Science budget: Planning figures for financial years 1996–97 and 1997–99

  1996–97 £ million

  1997–98 £ million

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  160.03

  161.63

  Economic and Social Research Council

  60.63

  61.23

  Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  354.96

  358.51

  Medical Research Council

  275.06

  277.81

  Natural Environment Research Council

  153.94

  155.48

  Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council1

  196.37

  196.37

  Royal Society

  20.79

  20.79

  Royal Academy of Engineering

  2.62

  2.62

  Pensions

  34.77

  37.06

  OST initiatives

  2.25

  2.25

  High performance computing2

  12.21

  12.21

  Additional funding for LINK

  6.00

  12.00

  Technology Foresight/strategic initiatives

  20.76

  31.43

  Total

  1,300.39

  1,329.39

  Notes:

  1. includes £8 million provision for international subscriptions reserve (to be adjusted as necessary to provide the agreed level of cover).

  2. high-performance computing was previously included within the EPSRC allocation.

  Hydrates Research
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the British contribution to the research ship Joides Resolution experimental drilling programme for hydrates in the Atlantic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  One scientist, a microbiologist from the geomicrobiology group of Bristol university, will join the programme for part of December 1995 to investigate the contribution of bacteria to the formation and breakdown of the gas hydrate.

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of those accepted for fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible in(a) 1991, (b) 1992, (c) 1993 and (d) 1994 were women.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  For the departments and agencies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, and other areas which fall within the Cabinet Office vote, the information is as follows:

  1993

  1994

  Total

  42

  41

  Women

  16

  17

  Women (percentage)

  38

  41

  The figures include European fast streamers who are subsequently assigned to Departments.

  Information for the years 1991 and 1992 is contained in the Civil Service Commissioners' report for the relevant year. Copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much the Medical Research Council spent on research into multiple sclerosis in(a) 1993–94 and (b) the current year.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The Medical Research Council is the main agency through which the Government support medical and related biological research. It receives its grant in aid from my Department. The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support in the light of its own judgment of priorities and the quality of research application it receives. The council is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications for research funding.

  The MRC supports a wide range of neurological research relevant to multiple sclerosis—in particular, studies of the neuromuscular system. The 1993–94 funding in this area was a total of £19 million.

  The council's specific expenditure on multiple sclerosis in the financial year 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available, was £137,000. It is not yet possible to provide figures for the current financial year. In addition, the MRC's initiative on the neuroscience approach to human health will help to promote several approaches which may he relevant to the disease.

  Besides MRC-funded work, there is also research being undertaken in various universities and NHS hospitals with
  424
  public funding. However, information is not collected centrally on other Government-funded research on multiple sclerosis.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Department of National Heritage in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Secretary of State for National heritage to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) of 25 January, Official Report, column 195; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The figure given in the answer of 25 January by the Secretary of State for National Heritage was for the number of spells of absence and not the number of days lost. The number of days lost is as given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member of Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, column 756, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Chessington computer centre in 1993 and the figure given in his answer to the hon. Member of Eastleigh of 26 January, Official Report, column 756; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based on workings days lost—excluding weekends and public holidays. The figure given in the answer of 26 January was calculated including weekends and public holidays, as explained in the letter from the chief executive.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Lord Advocate's Department in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Member for Eastleigh of 31 January, Official Report, column 651; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based upon workings days lost—excluding weekends and public holidays. The figure given in the answer of 31 January by the Secretary of State for Scotland was calculated including weekends and public holidays.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Intervention Board in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the hon. Member for Eastleigh on 3 February,

  425
  Official Report, columns 923–24; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February was for 1993. The figure given in the answer of 3 February by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was for 1994 as requested.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28 what factors underlie the disparity between the figures given for sickness absence at the Government property lawyers in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Eastleigh of 27 January, Official Report, columns 409; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based upon working days lost—excluding weekends and public holidays. The figure given in the answer of 27 January by the Attorney-General was calculated including weekends and public holidays.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figures given for sickness absence at the Serious Fraud Office in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Attorney-General to the hon. Member for Eastleigh of 27 January, Official Report, column 409; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based upon full-time equivalent staff years, excluding casual workers. The figure given in the answer of 27 January by the Attorney-General is based upon total staff, including casual workers. The remaining difference is accounted for by differing is accounted for by differing techniques for counting sickness absence, which extends over more than one year.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the Public Record Office in 1993 and the figure given in the answer from the Lord Chancellor to the hon. Member for Eastleigh of 25 January, Official Report, column 389; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February was expressed as days lost per staff year. The figure given in the answer of 25 January by the Lord Chancellor used a lost time rate calculation which, when recalculated using the previous method, produces an analogous figure.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) of 7 February,Official Report, columns 124–28, what factors underlie the disparity between the figure given for sickness absence at the
  426
  Central Office of Information in 1993 and the figure given in his answer to the hon. Member for Eastleigh on 2 February, Official Report, column 754; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The sickness absence figure given in answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on 7 February is based upon working days lost—excluding weekends and public holidays. The figure given in the answer of 2 February was calculated including weekends and public holidays, as I explained in that answer.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member of Eastleigh of 16 February,Official Report, column 782, what factors underlie his statement that the figure given for sickness absence at the Treasury Solicitor's Department in 1993, given in the answer from the Attorney-General of 27 January, Official Report, column 409, also includes factors not attributable to sickness.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The factors not attributed to sickness absence given in my answer of 16 February to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) include maternity leave, special leave and secondment outside the Department.

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  [holding answer 9 February 1995]: This information is not held centrally and for the period prior to 1992–93 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The costs of all external consultants, including management consultants, met by Cabinet Office, including the Office of Public Service and Science and its agencies, since 1992–93 are as follows:

  Cabinet Office including OPSS and its agencies1

  £ 1994 prices

  1992–93

  6,450,700

  1993–94

  6,898,300

  1 Includes operational business expenditure undertaken by CCTA on behalf of other Departments.

  The major portion of this expenditure is incurred by CCTA on information technology projects to enable Government Departments to enhance the effectiveness of their IT systems.

  The costs of all external consultants, including management consultants, met by COI and HMSO since 1992–93 are as follows:

  £ (1994 Prices)

  COI

  1992–93

  143,400

  1993–94

  58,200

  427

  £ (1994 Prices)

  HMSO

  1992

  431,100

  1993

  1,082,200

  1994

  1,750,750

  Consultants are used in a variety of activities designed to produce different types of benefits. Much of the work undertaken by consultants is linked to the requirement of Government programmes such as training and designing IT systems, rather than cost saving exercises. In the financial year 1993–94 the OPSS spent £70,838 on consultancy support for its central market testing programme, which produced quantifiable savings of £393,924.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Postal Services
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects that a European Union policy for postal services will be in place; and what progress has been made towards this, so far.

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Council of Ministers' resolution of December 1993 mandated the Commission to bring forward proposals by July 1994 that defined the universal postal service and an appropriate area of reserved services, and established quality and technical standards. This flowed from the recommendations of the EC Green Paper on the development of the single market for postal services, published in June 1992. The Commission has not as yet come forward with these proposals: the delay, we understand, is due to problems with drafting the directives and debate about the appropriate legal basis. The Government will continue to press for draft directives, but it is too early to predict the likely time scale for their introduction, adoption and implementation.

  Exports (Indonesia)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 314–15, with regard to the £17.1 million claims paid in respect of export credits for capital goods and projects to Indonesia in 1985–86 what percentage of those moneys related to exports unrelated to defence equipment.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 6 December 1994,Official Report, column 125.

  Bank Receptions
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions since April 1992 banks and other commercial interests have hosted receptions for his Department; and if he will publish the names of the hosts involved in each event.

  Mr. Heseltine
  The right hon. Member is no doubt referring to the reception hosted by Standard Chartered bank on 22 February. This was arranged entirely on the initiative of the member concerned and Standard 428
  Chartered bank. As far as I am aware, this is the only event of its kind in recent history.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many grants under assisted area status have been offered to companies in the Hastings area; how many have been accepted; how many jobs will be created over the next three years; and what is the total of public money offered in grants, and the total sum of money that has been or will be invested by those receiving the grants.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of regional selective assistance grants offered to companies in the Hastings area totalled seven by the end of January 1995. Six of these offers have been accepted with the result that some 58 new jobs will be created at a grant cost of £229,000. Total project costs are £6,690,000.

  Electricity Pool Prices
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to prohibit the power generators from artificially withdrawing capacity from the grid in order to he able to charge higher pool prices for electricity.

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for the independent regulator—the Director General of Electricity Supply—who made a statement on 27 January about electricity pool prices.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence he has to show that PowerGen and National Power have artificially taken capacity out of the grid in order to raise the pool price for electricity.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no evidence to that effect.

  National Strategic Technical Acquisition Plan
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department has taken to implement the national strategic technical acquisition plan.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has endorsed the technology priorities identified in the national strategic technology acquisition plan and reviewed its programme of aeronautics technology support, CARAD II, to ensure its alignment with the plan. My Department has also implemented the recommendation of the NSTAP industry/official joint working group, agreed with the Aviation Committee and the Society of British Aerospace Companies, to fund jointly with industry the appointment of NSTAP technology co-ordinators to promote the implementation of the plan. They are now being appointed.

  Aerospace Industries
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on Government support for research and technology in the aerospace industry.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department's policy is to work closely with the aerospace industry, helping it to improve its international competitiveness in aircraft technology. We recognise the importance of supporting research in the industry, including collaboration within the European Union, while working towards a progressive reduction in the international level of state aids. Since 1979, my Department has made £387 million available in support
  429
  for civil aircraft and aero-engine research and technology demonstration carried out in industry, universities and research establishments, as well as contributing £37 million towards the construction of the European transonic wind tunnel.

  China
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the value of exports from and imports to the United Kingdom from the People's Republic of China in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Needham
  The information is regularly published by the Central Statistical Office in "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", available in the Library of the House.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in a speech to the British Retail Consortium on 24 January 1995 that the Government intend to make good use of the new enforcement provisions of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to ensure that laws arc enforced fairly, transparently and consistently.

  Departments are currently reviewing their existing laws against this commitment to identify where the new powers should be used to improve existing procedures.

  Consideration is also being given to how to incorporate the provisions into new legislation and to the terms of the model appeals mechanism referred to in section 6 of the Act.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Heseltine
  Because of the number of statutory instruments, I have arranged for the list to be placed in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many cases payments made under the arable area payments scheme have been refused; in how many cases repayment has been demanded in each of the last three years and in the current year; and in how many of those cases these refusals or demands for repayment have followed contact with farmers which led to the belief that a favourable view had been taken.

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not held centrally for the United Kingdom and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Suckler Cow and Sheep Premiums
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many applicants for suckler cow premium and sheep annual premium have been refused because of insufficient documentation for the latest year for which figures are available;

  (2) what formal documentation is required to be produced by applicants for suckler cow premium and annual sheep premium under category 3(c) of the 1993 national reserve.

  Mr. Jack
  The conditions which had to be satisfied by applicants to category 3(c) of the 1993 national reserves for sheep and suckler cows are set down in schedule 2, part V of the Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1993.

  A total of 2,225 of the 2,560 applications for sheep quota and 1,210 of the 1,614 applications for suckler cow quota from category 3(c) of the 1993 national reserves were assessed as ineligible. Data are not available on the number of applications rejected because insufficient documentary evidence was submitted.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Jack
  This Department has been responsible for 130 statutory instruments during the period 1 February 1994 to 31 January 1995. These are as listed:

  The Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/160)

  The National Rivers Authority (Severn-Trent and Anglian Regional Flood Defence Committees Areas) (Boundaries) Order 1994 (SI 1994/245)

  The Milk Marketing Scheme (Substitution of Date of Revocation) Order 1994 (SI 1994/282)

  The Agriculture Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/249)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (West Penwith) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/250)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Somerset Levels and Moors) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/251)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (South Downs) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/252)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Pennine Dales) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/253)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (The Broads) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/254)

  The Marek's Disease (Restriction on Vaccination) (Revocation) Order 1994 (SI 1994/472)

  The Quick Frozen Foodstuffs (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/298)

  431

  The Medicines (Veterinary Drugs) (Pharmacy and Merchants' List) (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/599

  The Plant Breeders' Rights (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/675)

  The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) (Fees) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/676)

  The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order 1994 (SI 1994/673)

  The Common Agricultural Policy (Wine) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/674)

  The Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/672)

  The Drinking Water in Containers Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/743)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Blackdown Hills) Designation Order 1994 (SI 194/707)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Cotswold Hills) Designation Order 1994 (SI 1994/708)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Shropshire Hills) Designation Order 1994 (SI 1994/709

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Dartmoor) Designation Order 1994 (SI 1994/710)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Essex Coast) Designation Order 1994 (SI 1994/711)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Upper Thames Tributaries) Designation Order 1994 (SI 1994/712)

  The Racing Pigeons (Vaccination) Order 1994 (SI 1994/944)

  The Milk Marketing Board Scheme of Reorganisation (Further Extension of Period for Application) Order 1994 (SI 1994/951)

  The Arable Area Payments Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/947)

  The Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/804)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (West Penwith) Designation (Amendment) (No.2) Order 1994 (SI 1994/933)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Somerset Levels and Moors) Designation (Amendment) (No.2) Order 1994 (SI 1994/932)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (South Downs) Designation (Amendment) (No.2) Order 1994 (SI 1994/931)

  The Environmentally Sensitive (Pennine Dales) Designation (Amendment) (No.2) Order 1994 (SI 1994/930)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (The Broads) Designation (Amendment) (No.2) Order 1994 (SI 1994/929)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Exmoor) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/928)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Avon Valley) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/927)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Lake District) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/926)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (South Wessex Downs) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/925)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (South West Peak) Designation Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/924)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Breckland) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/923)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Clun) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/921)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (North Peak) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/922)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (South River Valleys) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/920)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (Test Valley) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/919)

  The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (North Kent Marshes) Designation (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/918)

  The Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/979)

  The Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1029)

  The Integrated Administration and Control System (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1134)

  432

  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1994 (SI 1994/1302)

  The Habitat (Salt-Marsh) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1293)

  The Habitat (Former Set-aside Land) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1292)

  The Habitat (Water Fringe) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1291)

  The Wells Harbour Revision Order 1994 (SI 1994/1440)

  The Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Crops, Food and Feeding Stuffs) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1985)

  The Marketing Development Scheme (Specification of Activities) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1404)

  The Marketing Development Scheme 1994 (SI 1994/1403)

  The Milk and Dairies and Milk (Special Designation) (Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1446)

  The Channel Tunnel (Amendment of the Fisheries Act 1981) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1390)

  The Flavourings in Food (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1486)

  The Medicines (Medicated Animal Feeding Stuffs) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1531)

  The Suckler Cow Premium (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1528)

  The Fish Health (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1448)

  The Diseases of Fish (Control) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1447)

  The Home-Grown Cereals Authority (Rate of Levy) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1424)

  The Oil and Fibre Plant Seeds (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1423)

  The Medicines (Fees Relating to Medicinal Products for Animal Use) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1554)

  The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2126)

  The Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1994 (SI 1994/1568)

  The Feeding Stuffs (Sampling and Analysis) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1610)

  The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Conservation Measures) (Amendment) (No. 6) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1680)

  The Third Country Fishing (Enforcement) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1681)

  The Sea Fishing (Enforcement of Community Quota Measures) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1679)

  The Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/1716)

  The Organic Farming (Aid) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1721)

  The Nitrate Sensitive Areas Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/1729)

  The Preserved Tuna and Bonito (Marketing Standards) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2127)

  The Medicines (Veterinary Medicinal Products) (Applications for Product Licenses) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2157)

  The Plaice and Sole (Specified Sea Areas) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2169)

  The Agricultural Holdings (Units of Production) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2183)

  The Pig Carcase (Grading) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2155)

  The Brancaster Staithe Fishery (Variation) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2230)

  The Organic Products (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2286)

  The Animals, Meat and Meat Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2465)

  The Feedings Stuffs (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2510)

  The Thames Estuary Cockle Fishery Order 1994 (SI 1994/2329)

  The Arable Area Payments (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2287)

  The Countryside Access Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2349)

  433

  The Potato Marketing Scheme (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2404)

  The Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2448)

  The Milk Marketing Board Scheme of Reorganisation (Third Party Rights) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2460)

  The Bovine Offal (Prohibition) (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2628)

  The Spongiform Encephalopathy (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2627)

  The Apple Orchard Grubbing Up (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2731)

  The Sheep Annual Premium Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2741)

  The Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2740)

  The Bucellosis (England and Wales) (Amendment) (No.2) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2762)

  The Milk Marketing Board (Residuary Functions) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2759)

  The Beef Carcase (Classification)(Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2853)

  The Medicines (Standard Provisions for Manufacturer's Licences for Veterinary Medicinal Products) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2852)

  The Sheep Annual Premium and Suckler Cow Premium Quotas (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2894)

  The Importation of Animal Products and Poultry Products (Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2920)

  The Agricultural Marketing Act 1958 Part I (Certification of Cessation of Effect in Relation to Milk) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2922)

  The Milk Marketing Scheme (Certification of Revocation) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2921)

  The Diseases of Animals (Approved Disinfectants)(Amendment) Order 1994 (SI 1994/2965)

  The Dairy Produce Quotas (Amendment)(No.2) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2919)

  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3003)

  The Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation)(No.2) Scheme 1994 (SI 1994/3002

  The Draft Milk Development Council Order 1994

  The Medicines (Veterinary Medicinal Products) Veterinary Surgeons from other EEA States) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2986)

  The Medicines (Restrictions on the Administration of Veterinary Medicinal Products) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/2987)

  The Diseases of Poultry Order 1994 (SI 1994/3141)

  The Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3082)

  The Agricultural Processing and Marketing Grant Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3137)

  The Marketing Authorisations for Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3142)

  The Medicines (Veterinary Drugs) (Renewal Applications for Licences and Animal Test Certificates) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3143)

  The Beef Special Premium (Amendment) Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3131)

  The Medicines (Veterinary Drugs) (Pharmacy and Merchants' List) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1994 (SI 1994/3169)

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport Order 1994 (SI 1994/3249)

  The Sole and Nephrops (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1994 (SI 1994/3273)

  The Enzootic Bovine Leukosis (Amendment) Order 1995 (SI 1995/13)

  The Fertilisers (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/16)

  The Beef Special Premium (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/14)

  434

  The Suckler Cow Premium (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/15)

  The Bovine Animals (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1995 (SI 1995/12)

  The Pigs (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1995 (SI 1995/11)

  The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/77)

  The Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (England) (Partial Revocation) Order 1995 (SI 1995/39)

  The Apple Orchard Grubbing Up (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/40)

  The Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/100)

  The Surplus Food Regulations 1995 (SI 1995/184)

  The Welfare of Animals During Transport (Amendment) Order 1995 (SI 1995/131)

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he is taking to promote animal welfare: and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 February 1995]: We shall continue to review and develop our animal welfare provisions in accordance with objective advice and will in particular:
  continue to press in Brussels for effective journey limits to be included in the proposed Community measures on the welfare of animals during transport;
  maintain our pressure to improve existing Community measures on farm animal welfare, pressing home in particular the case for phasing out the veal crate now that we have got the review of the relevant Community measure brought forward from 1997 to 1995;
  continue to work with interested parties to encourage the establishment of welfare-friendly outlets for surplus dairy calves;
  maintain our extensive programme of research and development and our provision of advice to farmers on welfare matters.

DEFENCE

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether the chemical weapons convention will enhance international security; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The chemical weapons convention provides for a comprehensive, global and verifiable ban of a complete class of weapons of mass destruction and also for the destruction of very large quantities of existing chemical warfare agents. Once fully implemented, it will make a significant contribution to international security.

  Wages
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the total wage and salary bill of(a) defence personnel and (b) civilian personnel at his Department's establishments, in each district council area in Hampshire, in 1989 and in the most recent year, expressed in constant prices.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  435

  Defence Personnel
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, for each district council area in Hampshire, the number and percentage of the population represented by(a) defence personnel and (b) civilian

  1 July 1989

  1 July 1994

  Number

  Service personnel1Percentage of population

  Number

  Civilian personnel2Percentage of population

  Service personnel1Number

  Civilian personnel2Number

  Hampshire

  36,715

  2.34

  20,397.50

  1.30

  29,092

  18,473.0

  Basingstoke and Deane

  0

  0.00

  69.5

  0.05

  0

  39.5

  East Hampshire Eastleigh

  2,398

  2.32

  799.5

  0.77

  1,316

  666.5

  Eastleigh

  0

  0.00

  20.0

  0.02

  0

  7.0

  Fareham

  1,785

  1,80

  279.5

  0.28

  1,511

  328.0

  Gosport

  6,520

  8.40

  3,978.50

  5.13

  4,141

  3,790.0

  Hart

  2,491

  3.09

  785.0

  0.98

  2,019

  840.5

  Havant

  0

  0.00

  17.0

  0.01

  0

  14.0

  New Forest

  570

  0.35

  142.0

  0.09

  699

  164.5

  Portsmouth

  9,080

  4,84

  5,851.0

  3.12

  9,016

  4,710.5

  Rushmoor

  7,142

  8.32

  5,072.5

  5.91

  4,621

  4,236.0

  Southampton

  53

  0.03

  237.5

  0.12

  13

  161.0

  Test Valley

  4,291

  4.21

  1,234.0

  1.21

  3,798

  1,578.5

  Winchester

  2,385

  2.46

  1,911.5

  1.97

  2,095

  1,937.0

  1 UK regular service personnel. The figures for 1 July 1994 provisional.

  2 UK based permanent civilian staff counted as full-time equivalents.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Bill apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Soames
  In the last 12 months my Department has sponsored the following six statutory instruments:

  The Injuries in War (Shore Employments) Compensation (Amendment) Scheme 1994.

  The International Headquarters and Defence Organisation (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1994

  The Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) (Amendment) Order 1994.

  The Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts Continuation Order.

  Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Application to the Armed Forces etc.) Regulations 1994.

  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency Trading Fund Order 1995.

  Surplus Equipment Sales
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Defence if he will set out the procedures adopted for the sale of surplus small arms prior to the establishment of the Disposal Sales Agency and list British companies 436
  personnel at his Department's establishments, in (i) 1989 and (ii) the most recent year.

  Mr. Soames
  Service and civilian personnel numbers are available at local authority area level and the available figures are as set out. Comparable population estimates are not yet available for 1994.

  involved over the previous five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The rules for the sale of small arms, prior to the establishment of the Disposal Sales Agency and continued since, are to restrict surplus sales to the export market. United Kingdom companies seeking to purchase surplus small arms are required to hold a section 5 firearms licence; to provide proof of a secured contract to an acceptable customer with end user certification and to obtain an export licence. Contracts have been let which ensure that other surplus weapons are reduced to scrap.

  It is not MOD policy to reveal details of purchasers without their written consent. A list of British companies involved over the previous five years would require disproportionate efforts to produce should all consents be forthcoming.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the position adopted for the sale of surplus armoured vehicles and tanks prior to the establishment of the Disposal Sales Agency, and the companies purchasing surplus armoured vehicles and tanks over the last five years; and what items were involved.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke on 1 December 1994,Official Report, columns 899–900. The positions adopted prior to and subsequent to the establishment of the Disposal Sales Agency are unchanged.

  Royal Marines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what review is being conducted into the strength of the Royal Marines; what is the target level for the future strength of the Royal Marines; and how many redundancies will be required from current levels.
  437
  Mr. Soames
  A redundancy programme for the Royal Navy, of which the Royal Marines are an integral part, was announced following the "Front Line First" study and other efficiency measures already in train. Included in this are about 100 regular Royal Marines personnel. The strength of the Royal Marines regulars is not otherwise under review, and—apart from those already mentioned—no RM redundancies are planned. There is no target or ceiling for future strength and manpower will continue to be maintained to meet commitments.

  My Department is at present reviewing the future requirement for the Royal Marines Reserve, but no decision on its future size and shape have yet been taken. Any proposals which are accepted in principal by Ministers would then be subject to a period of consultation, during which all interested parties would be offered the opportunity to comment.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 465, how much it would cost to fit self-destructing and self-neutralising mechanisms retroactively on those anti-personnel mines held by the United Kingdom armed forces for their use in any future conflict.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 23 February 1995]: Some theoretical work undertaken by the Defence Research Agency has indicated that it may be feasible to fit self-destructing mechanisms to existing Ranger anti-personnel mine stocks, but no detailed engineering study or cost analysis has been undertaken. This will be one of the options which will be assessed when Ranger comes to be replaced.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, who is responsible for the purchasing by his Department of self-destructing and self-neutralising anti-personnel mines.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 23 February 1995]: Any acquisition of anti-personnel landmines, which would have a self-destructing or self-neutralising mechanism, would be purchased by my Department's procurement executive.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Tourism
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps he is taking to ensure comparable investment per capita in the promotion of tourism in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Allocations to the national tourist boards reflect the differing circumstances and priorities in each country and are not made on a per capita basis. Direct comparisons are therefore misleading.

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage what plans he has to promote tourism in the midlands.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Government support for tourism is channelled through the statutory British Tourist Authority and English tourist board. Through the English tourist board, support is made available to the 11 non-statutory 438
  regional tourist boards, including the heart of England tourist board and east midlands tourist board.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will make a statement on the current work of the British Tourist Authority.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The British Tourist Authority promotes Britain as a tourist destination in overseas markets. The Department of National Heritage will be providing £34.5 million in grant in aid to the BTA in the coming financial year.

  I shall be making public my agenda for action by Government and the tourist boards to help the tourist industry improve its competitive performance on 1 March.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is his most recent estimate of the value of tourism to the English economy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The United Kingdom's earnings from domestic and inbound tourism are estimated to have been £33 billion in 1993. This represents 5.2 per cent. of gross domestic product. Figures for England alone are not available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the estimated contribution from(a) the single regeneration budget, (b) the total public sector and (c) the private sector to London's tourism over each of the next five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  London will benefit from the single regeneration budget by £316 million over the next seven years and an investment of this size will have a substantial effect in attracting visitors to the capital. In November, I announced £4 million of public funds that would be made available for BTA to run a marketing campaign in conjunction with the London tourist board; this will be matched from the private sector. The LTB will also receive £439,000 of public funds from the English tourist board this year. Forecasts of SRB, public and private funding for the next five years are not available.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many local authority playing fields have been sold off since 1979.

  Mr. Sproat
  This information is not available centrally.

  Wakefield Sculpture Park
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he last visited Wakefield sculpture park; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sproat
  I have not yet had the pleasure of visiting the Yorkshire sculpture park. I hope to have the opportunity to do so. The Yorkshire sculpture park is, I know, one of our national assets and is of international significance, and I look forward to experiencing its delights.

  National Lottery
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made of the effect of the national lottery on the sums available for good causes from football pools operators.
  439
  Mr. Sproat
  It is for the Football Trust and the Foundation for Sport and the Arts, in the first instance, to assess the impact of the national lottery on their incomes.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for National Heritage which organisations in the south-west have benefited from funds from the national lottery.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No funds from the national lottery have yet been distributed to good causes. The distributing bodies expect to begin making announcements about successful applications shortly with grants being made shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received regarding the decision to fund only capital projects from national lottery receipts.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The national lottery distributors are able to provide limited revenue support for a lottery funded capital project where that funding cannot be found from any other source. It is necessary to limit the use of revenue funding from lottery proceeds to maintain the principle of additionality and to prevent the silting up of available funds with on-going commitments. The National Lottery Charities Board will not be subject to the presumption in favour of capital expenditure.

  Drama and Music Students
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action his Department is taking to support young people who would need financial support to go to drama or music school.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Responsibility for this issue rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. I know that she is aware of particular concerns currently about discretionary grants from local authorities for dance and drama students.

  Channel 4
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what representations he has received from Channel 4 regarding payments to the Independent Television Commission.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have received a number of letters from the chairman and chief executive of Channel 4, and met them on 17 October 1994 to listen to their views.

  Press
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he has discussed with the Press Complaints Commission media coverage of crime and the press code of conduct.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have met members of the Press Complaints Commission and the newspaper industry to discuss the effectiveness of press self-regulation. Amendments to the code of practice are matters for the industry's code committee.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 158, when he expects to announce any decision on changes to the law as it relates to privacy following the reports on privacy and media intrusion by the National Heritage Committee HC 294 1992–93, and HC 38, 1993–94, and of the report of Sir David Calcutt's review of press self-regulation.
  440
  Mr. Dorrell
  The White Paper on privacy and media intrusion will set out what, if any, changes may he needed to the law as it relates to privacy. It will be published when we have completed our consideration of the legal issues relating to the proposed criminal and civil remedies.

  Teletext
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to review the allocation of television broadcasting line capacity in order to encourage further improvements in teletext services on ITV and Channel 4.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. The present allocation aims to make the best use of spare capacity within the television signals on Channel 3 and 4 while enabling the provision of a public teletext service meeting the detailed content requirements specified in the Broadcasting Act 1990.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many letters were sent to hon. Members last month by each Minister in the Department.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 22 February 1995]: The following number of letters were sent to hon. Members last month:

  Member

  Number

  The right hon. Stephen Dorrell, MP

  33

  Iain Sproat, MP

  101

  Viscount Astor

  122

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many letters were received in the Department from hon. Members last month.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 22 February 1995]: Some 297 letter were received in my Department from hon. Members last month.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department has sponsored 21 statutory instruments in the last 12 months as follows:

  Title of SI

  Number

  The National Lottery Regulations 1994.

  SI 1994/189

  The Broadcasting (Prescribed Countries) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/454

  The Broadcasting (Foreign Satellite Programmes) (Specified Countries) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/453

  The Hyde Park and Regents Park (Vehicle Parking) Regulations 1994.

  SI 1994/432

  The Return of Cultural Objects Regulations 1994.

  SI 1994/501

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1994.

  SI 1994/595

  The Grants to the Redundant Churches Fund Order 1994.

  SI 1994/962

  The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production Order 1994.

  SI 1994/1065

  The National Lottery (Licence Fees) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/1200

  Ancient Monuments (Class Consents) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/1381

  441

  Title of SI

  Number

  The National Lottery etc Act 1993 (Amendment of Section 23) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/1342

  The National Lottery (Revocation of Licences) Procedure Regulations 1994.

  SI 1994/1170

  Sports Grounds and Sporting Events: the Football Spectators (Seating) Orders 1994.

  SI 1994/1666

  The Ecclesiastical Exemption (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/1771

  The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production (Amendment) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/1904

  The Safety of Sports Grounds (Designation) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/2239

  The Protection of Wrecks (Designation, No. 1) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/1842

  The Broadcasting (Restrictive Trade Practice Act 1976) (Exemption for Networking Arrangements) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/2540

  The European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/3218

  The Films Co-Production (Amendment) Order 1994.

  SI 1994/3222

  The Broadcasting (Unlicensed Television Services) Exemption Order 1994.

  SI 1994/3172

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places are currently provided for youth training by further education institutions in each training and enterprise council area; and what this figure is expressed as a proportion of the total number of youth training places provided through each TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many young people in(a) the county of Cumbria and (b) the borough of Copeland he expects to be in receipt of youth training guarantees on 1 April.

  (2) How many youth training guarantees were made in 1994 to young people in the area covered by Cumbria TEC; how many youth training guarantees had been met by Cumbria TEC as at 21 December 1994; and how many youth training guarantees are projected to have been met by 31 March 1995 in the area covered by Cumbria TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  In 1994, 2,714 school leavers registered as eligible for youth training in Cumbria. As at 21 December 1994, all eligible young people bar one had received an offer of a place on YT within the guarantee period. At April 1995, it is expected that there will be 3,285 young people eligible for the YT guarantee in Cumbria, of which 632 will be from Copeland. The training and enterprise council expects fully to meet its obligations to offer a YT place to every eligible young person up to and beyond 31 March 1995.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many places were provided by further education institutions for youth training in each of the last five years for each region; what these numbers are as a proportion of the total places provided in each region in each year; what has been the cost in each region in each year of these training places; and what percentage of the youth training budget in each region in each year this represents.
  442
  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many further education institutions are contracted as training providers for youth training by each training and enterprise council; and what this figure is expressed as a proportion of the total number of youth training providers contracted to each TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils are private companies and are responsible for determining their own contracts with training providers. The Department does not have this information.

  Employment Training and Training for Work
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the number of starts in employment training and in training for work in each of the last five years; and what is the number in each year for those completing such training.

  Mr. Paice
  The information is given in the table. As figures on those completing training come from surveys, it is possible to give only an estimate of the percentage and not the actual number.

  Great Britain

  Year

  Total number of starts employment training 1989–90 to 1992–93, training for work1993–94

  Percentage of leavers in each year completing their agreed training—ET 1989–90 to 1992–93, TfW 1993–94

  1989–90

  431,000

  471

  1990–91

  389,000

  48

  1991–92

  293,000

  55

  1992–93

  291,000

  59

  1993–94

  338,000

  602

  Source:

  Management information provided by training and enterprise councils, the Welsh office and the Scottish Office, training for work national follow-up survey.

  Notes:

  1 July 1989 to March 1990.

  2 England and Wales only.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what plans he has to provide training in Government organisational and financial procedures for non-executive directors of TEC boards.

  Mr. Paice
  None. Training and enterprise councils are private companies and the induction and training of their directors is a matter for the board.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many out-of-school child care places were delivered by Dudley TEC in 1993–94 and are planned to be delivered in 1994–95 and in future years; and at what cost.

  Mr. Paice
  Dudley training and enterprise council was not one of the pilot TECs for child care and therefore did not deliver any out-of-school child care places in 1993–94.

  In 1994–95 the TEC is planning to deliver 95 child care places and has a budget of £60,615 which covers development work and setting up costs.

  In 1995–96, 139 full-time places are allocated to the TEC, with a budget of £100,895.
  443
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many contracts were issued by Cumbria TEC in the financial year 1994–95 to provide training for people with special needs.

  Mr. Paice
  One hundred and twenty four of the contracts issued by Cumbria training and enterprise council to date have capacity for training people with special needs.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what estimate he has made as to the ability of Cumbria TEC to provide sufficient contracts to meet the needs of the unemployed; and what contingency plans he has made.

  Mr. Paice
  The Government office for the north west is currently in negotiation with Cumbria training and enterprise council for the 1995–96 financial year and is confident that Cumbria TEC will continue to deliver effective programmes to support the unemployed in the area for which it is responsible.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance his Department(a) has issued, (b) plans to issue and (c) plans to revise in respect of the requirement for evidencing outputs and starts for output-related funding of training providers by TECs; and if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance documents on evidencing outputs and starts that his Department produces.

  Mr. Paice
  The evidence the Department requires to support claims is set out in the training and enterprise council contractual documents, copies of which are placed in the Library each year. Copies of the documents for 1995–96 have been sent to TECs and will be placed in the Library.

  Further guidance, explaining the requirements in more detail and describing the checks to be made, will be available to TECs at the beginning of 1995–96 and will be revised as necessary.

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what evaluation he has made of the technical and vocational education initiative; and what plans he has for it achievements to be continued.

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: The Department is responsible for the technical and vocational education initiative. We have undertaken three major evaluation studies of the programme: one covering students' experiences, one assessing TVEI's impact on the labour market, and one covering how well TVEI practices have become embedded in schools and colleges. There has also been research into the impact of specific TVEI themes. In addition, each local project is required to undertake its own evaluation. These studies suggest that TVEI has made a significant contribution to improving the preparation of young people for working life.

  Staff in Government offices continue to work with local education authorities, training and enterprise councils, schools and colleges to take forward the lessons of TVEI. In the White Paper, "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win", CM 2563, additional funds were announced to support action to spread best practice identified through TVEI and to ensure that all pupils in their last year of compulsory education can have at least one week's work experience.
  444

  Funding for Training
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the amount and type of funding or other support received from his Department by(a) the National Council for Vocational Qualifications, (b) the Business and Technology Education Council and (c) City and Guilds in (i) the current year and (ii) each of the previous three years.

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has provided funding or other support to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications comprising grant in aid towards its operating costs and specific contract funding to enable it to undertake activities in support of the development of national vocational qualifications and general national vocational qualifications and to help support other Government initiatives. Details of the funding provided in the current year to date and in the previous three years is shown in the following table.

  Year

  Funding £

  1994–95

  Grant in aid funding

  1,928,000

  Support for specific activities

  3,271,648

  1993–94

  Grant in aid funding

  3,826,000

  Support for specific activities

  3,244,703

  1992–93

  Grant in aid funding

  3,900,000

  Support for specific activities

  3,202,932

  1991–92

  Grant in aid funding

  3,700,000

  Support for specific activities

  1,878,721

  No funding or other support has been provided by the Employment Department to the Business and Technology Education Council or to City and Guilds in the current year or any of the previous three years. The Department does not normally fund awarding bodies.

SCOTLAND

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the financial status of each NHS trust in Scotland as at 1 February.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 31 January, the majority of NHS trusts in Scotland were forecasting that they would meet their financial targets. Of those that were not, only two will not break even on their income and expenditure account. The other trusts are within 1 per cent. of their target rate of return.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the remuneration of the chairman and the board members of Scottish Homes; what are the termination dates for their appointments; what compensation would be required for early termination; and what notice would be required.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information regarding the remuneration of the chairman and members appointed to the board of Scottish Homes and the termination date for their appointment is set out in the table. The terms of appointment of members indicate that, normally, no compensation is payable where a person
  445
  ceases to be a member before the expiry date of the term of office but schedule 1, paragraph 7(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 provides for circumstances where my right hon. Friend may consider it right for compensation to be paid. Such compensation would be of an amount which my right hon. Friend, with the approval of Treasury, may determine. No notice of termination is required.

  Name

  Annual remuneration£

  Termination date

  Sir James Mellon (Chairman)

  38,330

  31 March 1996

  Mrs. Frances McCall, MBE

  6,660

  31 March 1998

  Professor Duncan McLennan, MA, M Phil, FRSA

  6,660

  31 March 1997

  Dr. Tom N. A. Begg, OBE, JP, BA, PhD

  6,660

  31 March 1995

  Mrs. Heather Sheerin, OBE

  6,660

  31 March 1997

  Councillor Daphne M. W. Sleigh

  6,660

  31 March 1999

  Mr. Cameron H. Parker, OBE

  6,660

  31 March 1996

  Professor John Rankin Small, CBE

  6,660

  31 March 1997

  Mr. Alastair C. Dempster, FCIBS

  6,660

  31 March 1998

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if potential landlords who propose to acquire Scottish Homes or new town development corporation stock under large-scale voluntary transfers are excluded if they have no former experience or track record of managing and maintaining housing stock.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. However, when Scottish Homes and new town development corporations consider selling their houses to an alternative landlord it is essential that the organisation is able to demonstrate a long term guaranteed future for tenants and the ability to provide the required level of service. The appraisal and evaluation of any proposal will take these issues fully into account.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which registered housing associations, housing trusts, private landlords or private companies, community businesses or individuals have(a) expressed an interest in bidding for Scottish Homes stock or new town development corporation stock and (b) formally proposed to acquire such stock; and which of them are at (i) the initial screening stage to establish the validity of the proposal and (ii) the detailed evaluation stage involving consultation with tenants.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested relating to Scottish Homes stock is a matter for Scottish Homes and I have asked its chairman, Sir James Mellon, to write to the hon. Member.

  Details of organisation which have expressed an interest in new town development corporation stock are not held centrally. Glenrothes and East Kilbride have received formal bids for their stock from the following organisations:

  Glenrothes

  Kirkcaldy District Council

  The Munro Trust

  Kingdom Housing Association

  Glenrothes Community Housing Association

  Collydean Housing Association

  446

  Hillcrest Housing Association

  Bield Housing Association

  Kirk Care Housing Association

  East Kilbride

  East Kilbride District Council

  The Munro Trust

  All the offers received to date by the corporations have completed the evaluation stage including consultation with tenants, or have been withdrawn.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which will(a) follow the pay arrangements of the sponsoring Department and (b) pursue an independent and separate route under the delegated pay option (i) from April 1995 and (ii) from April 1996.

  Mr. Lang
  Such information will not be available for some time. Of the 49 existing executive NDPBs sponsored by my Department, around one third have pay arrangements involving a close link to national civil service settlements. It will be for the management in each NPDB concerned to develop and bring forward proposals over the coming year for new pay arrangements to operate following delegation of civil service pay to Departments and agencies and in the absence of national settlements from April 1996.

  Sheriff Court House, Haddington
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of whether the sheriff court house at Haddington satisfies the objectives set out in the justice charter for Scotland in respect of(a) accessibility for disabled people, (b) adequate and comfortable accommodation, (c) refreshment facilities, (d) services for defence witnesses and lawyers and (e) in all other respects; and if he will make a statement on plans to improve Haddington's sheriff court premises.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The accommodation for the sheriff court in County buildings at Haddington has a number of deficiencies, particularly in terms of facilities for court users. County buildings is partly owned by the Secretary of State for Scotland and partly by East Lothian district council. Substantial improvements to the sheriff court facilities within the building would therefore require participation by the council and my noble and learned Friend the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Member on 20 December 1994 indicating his willingness to consider proposals from the council.

  Breast Care Nurses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of breast care nurses employed in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland; of these nurses how many are employed by way of funding from outwith the national health service; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Statistics on the number of nurses engaged on breast care duties are not maintained centrally.
  447

  Prison Management Costs
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to public funds of managing each prison since 1979.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have

  Scottish Prison Service—expenditure by individual establishment1

  Annex

  £ thousands

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Aberdeen

  1,165

  1,553

  1,777

  1,726

  1,713

  1,776

  1,934

  2,469

  2,969

  2,967

  3,364

  4,277

  4,494

  Barlinnie

  5,569

  6,058

  6,991

  7,983

  8,539

  9,096

  10,089

  11,573

  13,015

  13,029

  13,975

  15,367

  17,383

  Barlinnie Unit

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  42

  361

  391

  440

  Castle Huntly

  993

  973

  1,067

  1,055

  1,143

  1,119

  1,355

  1,697

  1,891

  1,882

  2,021

  2,406

  3,402

  Corton Vale

  2,127

  2,345

  2,457

  2,978

  2,953

  3,060

  3,195

  3,629

  4,600

  5,010

  4,760

  5,196

  6,017

  Dumfries

  1,206

  1,473

  1,503

  1,932

  1,761

  1,778

  3,221

  3,202

  2,740

  3,323

  3,475

  3,958

  4,390

  Dungavel

  1,109

  1,145

  1,256

  1,352

  1,185

  1,134

  1,462

  2,101

  2,100

  1,957

  2,273

  2,863

  2,945

  Edinburgh

  4,249

  5,310

  5,353

  5,944

  7,306

  7,222

  7,592

  8,505

  9,382

  9,992

  10,774

  12,743

  13,133

  Friarton

  558

  681

  653

  818

  972

  966

  1,074

  1,205

  1,163

  1,165

  1,302

  1,502

  1,731

  Glenochil

  4,199

  4,918

  5,082

  5,657

  6,348

  6,476

  7,245

  8,219

  9,320

  10,228

  11,569

  12,868

  14,346

  Greenock

  399

  1,076

  781

  1,435

  2,624

  2,601

  2,997

  3,426

  3,405

  3,246

  3,925

  4,101

  4,918

  Inverness

  921

  1,050

  1,258

  1,315

  1,308

  1,375

  1,966

  2,316

  2,441

  2,367

  2,506

  2,910

  3

  Longriggend

  1,481

  1,699

  2,006

  2,325

  2,426

  2,471

  3,345

  4,066

  3,384

  3,764

  4,021

  4,264

  4,788

  Low Moss

  1,218

  1,690

  2,280

  2,835

  2,280

  2,177

  2,623

  3,035

  2,901

  3,981

  4,344

  4,438

  5,195

  Noranside

  702

  836

  936

  1,182

  1,223

  1,085

  1,349

  2,200

  1,632

  1,614

  2,375

  2,228

  2,483

  Penninghame

  566

  643

  664

  690

  682

  677

  859

  1,060

  958

  1,178

  1,258

  1,342

  1,611

  Perth

  3,485

  3,674

  4,352

  6,119

  5,272

  5,428

  7,016

  7,845

  8,275

  9,555

  10,212

  10,854

  11,661

  Peterhead

  3,328

  3,631

  4,162

  4,538

  4,788

  4,940

  5,604

  5,818

  6,700

  6,320

  6,124

  6,364

  7,765

  Polmont

  2,911

  3,644

  3,769

  4,883

  4,550

  4,184

  4,699

  5,770

  7,619

  6,649

  8,230

  8,546

  10,960

  Shotts

  958

  1,112

  1,127

  1,513

  1,413

  2,983

  5,879

  8,069

  10,612

  10,929

  10,090

  10,753

  12,670

  Shotts Unit

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  83

  447

  505

  607

  Total by establishment

  37,143

  43,511

  47,474

  56,279

  58,487

  60,549

  73,503

  86,203

  95,105

  99,281

  107,431

  117,874

  133,939

  Other expenditure

  13,887

  13,104

  15,363

  16,164

  22,162

  24,563

  22,801

  24,870

  26,394

  26,627

  29,332

  34,340

  20,404

  Total expenditure

  51,030

  56,615

  62,837

  72,443

  80,649

  85,112

  96,304

  111,073

  121,499

  125,908

  136,763

  152,214

  154,343

  1 1979–80 and 1980–81 not available.

  Note:

  "Other Expenditure" represents the cost of Central Administration and expenditure met from the Votes of other Departments on behalf of the Scottish Prison Service. These costs cannot be allocated due to the data capture system being designed for Vote, rather than Management information purposes.

  NHS Consultants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he intends to adopt to enable him to monitor and record the allocation of time that NHS consultants devote to(a) NHS responsibilities and tasks and (b) their private practice work.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 February 1995]: NHS consultants are contracted to work to the duties and responsibilities agreed with their employers. It is for the employing bodies to satisfy themselves that they are fulfilling their NHS commitments. NHS consultants are able to undertake private practice provided that it is not to the disadvantage of the NHS or NHS work. Whole-time consultants are expected to devote substantially the whole of their professional time to their NHS duties. They may not earn from private practice more than 10 per cent, of their gross NHS earnings; if they do so they transfer to a maximum part-time contract. The provisions of the maximum part-time contract allow the consultant to carry out private practice without a specific limit, but maintain the consultant's commitment to NHS responsibilities and tasks.
  448
  asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Godman, dated 27 February 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost to public funds of managing each prison since 1979.
  The attached Annex sets out yearly expenditure per establishment, from financial year 1981/82 onwards. The Agency records do not provide for information detailed by establishment, prior to this.

  M77
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scottish Militant Labour with regard to the extension to the M77; and what action he proposes to take.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 24 February 1995]: No representations on the M77 have been received from Scottish Militant Labour.

  Waste Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about Scottish Nuclear's proposal for a dry store for waste nuclear fuel at Torness power station.

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend expects to make a decision shortly.

ENVIRONMENT

  Sulphur Quotas
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to allocate unused
  449
  sulphur quotas from England and Wales to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Atkins
  As my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Industry said in his reply to the question from the hon. Member for Antrim East (Mr. Beggs) on 8 February 1995,Official Report, columns 315–16, this is a matter which is kept under regular review.

  Exchange Sale Scheme
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many responses he has received to his proposed exchange sale scheme for council leaseholders; and what proportion supported the scheme.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We received 38 responses to the proposal for the exchange sale scheme. More than three quarters supported the introduction of a scheme in principle and commented on the details.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the exchange sale scheme for council leaseholders.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We are reviewing the scheme in the light of the comments received to our consultation exercise. We hope to announce details shortly.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs earlier today.

  Item

  Type

  Date

  Number

  Location

  1

  Soil

  1988–89

  8

  Around Winchester municipal waste incinerator

  2

  Soil

  1988–89

  12

  Around Fawley chemical waste incinerator

  3

  Air

  1991–94

  5

  Stack emissions from Havant incinerator

  4

  Air

  1992–94

  6

  Stack emissions from Basingstoke incinerator

  5

  Air

  1991–94

  6

  Stack emissions from Marchwood incinerator

  6

  Air

  1992–94

  4

  Stack emissions from Winchester incinerator

  Irish Sea (Science)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by the Irish sea science co-ordinator in reviewing Irish sea science since his appointment was announced on 11 March 1992.

  Mr. Atkins
  The co-ordinator has prepared "A Review of Current Activities and Future Needs" with the assistance of organisations on both sides of the Irish sea. The review which has been submitted to the UK and Irish Governments as the "Second Report of the Irish Sea Science Co-ordinator", concludes that the Irish sea is already receiving much scientific attention. The review assesses the contribution of current scientific work to understanding environmental change and human impact in the Irish sea and identifies broad priorities for further work. I am placing copies in the Library of the House today.
  450

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of the statutory instruments will be placed in the Library sponsored by my Department in the last 12 months—1 February 1994 to 31 January 1995—will be placed in the Library. In addition to those orders, a further 254 local orders were also processed.

  Pollution
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the United Kingdom is taking to phase out the production of substances damaging the ozone layer.

  Mr. Atkins
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 February 1995 c. 674]: The production of chlorofluorocarbons has been phased out in the European Union except for some limited production for a small number of essential uses, such as gas medical inhalers, and to meet the domestic needs of certain developing countries as provided for under the Montreal protocol and European Union regulations.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all samples of the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans in(a) soil and (b) air which have been taken by his Department and agencies responsible to his Department in Hampshire in the past 10 years and, in each case, the location of the sample site.

  Mr. Atkins
  In addition to the samples reported in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollutions technical report, 1989, entitled "Determination of PCBs, PCDDs and PCDFs in UK Soils", the following soil and air samples have been taken on behalf of HMIP. The results of items 1 and 2 will be published by HMIP this spring. The results of items 3 to 6 are already available on HMIP's public registers.

  The co-ordinator is now preparing a report on specific, immediate priorities for future research and monitoring. This further report will be made available to the House once it has been completed.

  New Forest
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 16 February,Official Report, column 808, if the terms of reference of the New Forest committee and the New Forest consultative panel which it administers apply to the Crown lands of the New Forest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The terms of reference of both the committee and the panel apply equally to the Crown lands of the New Forest.
  451

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 89, which waste consignments for the Drigg disposal facility contained quantities of free liquid.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following waste consignments have been seized by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution since 1990 and found to contain quantities of free liquids.

  Date of seizure

  Consignor

  18 May 1994

  Wylfa—Nuclear Electric

  7 October 1993

  AEA—WNL

  1 October 1992

  BNF—Sellafield

  24 January1992

  BNF—Sellafield

  24 January 1992

  Hunterston—Scottish Nuclear

  20 March 1991

  Dungeness—Nuclear Electric

  31 August 1990

  BNF—Sellafield

  20 July 1990

  Amersham International—Amersham

  18 July 1990

  AEA—Harwell

  26 June 1990

  AEA—Harwell

  15 March 1990

  Wylfa—Nuclear Electric

  1 March 1990

  Hinkley Point—Nuclear Electric

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to announce the appointment of the new chair for the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee; what consultation he has carried out regarding the appointment; and what criteria were used in selecting the new chair.

  Mr. Atkins
  An announcement will be made in due course. The chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee is appointed by the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Scotland and for Wales, in consultation with other ministerial colleagues as appropriate, and is chosen on the basis of his or her abilities to fill what is an important and demanding position.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what plans he has to change the status of(a) the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and (b) the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations;

  (2) what plans he has to merge the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations.

  Mr. Atkins
  There are no current plans to change the status of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, although the effectiveness of all such committees is kept under review. Questions concerning the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations are a matter for the Health and Safety Commission in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.

  Mr. Gummer
  Sir John Knill, the current chairman of Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee is due to step down as chairman of RWMAC at the end of May of this year. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and I had intended to 452
  invite Dr. David Harrison, chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations to be Sir John Knill's successor. However, in recent weeks differences have emerged between the RWMAC and ACSNI members of a joint study group examining the approach to site selection for disposal facilities.

  I have recently received their report including the minority views of the two ACSNI members, which I shall be publishing shortly. In the light of these differences, Dr. Harrison has indicated that he feels it would be in the best interests of both committees that they should not at the present time have the same chairman and he has therefore withdrawn his name from consideration for the chairmanship of RWMAC. I have reluctantly acquiesced.

  A further announcement will be made in due course about Sir John Knill's successor.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made by the European Commission to Her Majesty's Government in respect of local labour clauses within contracts for objective 1 projects; what the Commission's position is on such contracts; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  No representations have been made by the Commission on this subject on Merseyside, though on the initiative of local partners it will be considered at a future meeting of the monitoring committee.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the European Commission calling for greater representation of local authorities and for the representation of social partners on the committees monitoring the use of objective 1 funds on Merseyside; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Commission has made no representations to me on these issues, following the agreement of the single programming document with the Commission last year.

  Ethnic Minority Funding
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to the answer of 21 February,Official Report, column 149, regarding additional section 11 funding, if she will give the amounts of ring-fenced section 11 funding within the single regeneration budget of November 1994.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure on the section 11 schemes which are now part of the single regeneration budget is expected to be £60.5 million in the current financial year, 1994–95. These schemes will continue to receive funding through the single regeneration budget for their planned lifetimes.

WALES

  Child Care
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a special "under-fives initiative"
  453
  along the lines of proposals submitted to him by Chwarae Teg.

  Mr. Richards
  I expect to make an announcement on this shortly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will extend beyond the next financial year the funding of the training and enterprise council out-of-school initiative.

  Mr. Richards
  The out-of-school child care grant initiative was introduced in 1993 as a three-year pump-priming initiative to stimulate the market for child care for children of school age. There are no plans to extend the pump-priming period.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a child care task force to draw up a child care action plan for Wales as proposed by the Equal Opportunities Commission in its report "Equal Opportunities Commission Evidence to the Welsh Office on EC Childcare Recommendations."

  Mr. Richards
  Chwarae Teg already has a central role in stimulating and guiding actions to promote child care, working with relevant agencies in Wales. I am not convinced that a child care task force will make effective action more likely.

  Mr Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to raise awareness among employers of the EC child care recommendation adopted by the Council of Ministers in March 1992.

  Mr. Richards
  I look to Chwarae Teg to lead action to raise awareness among employers. The Welsh Office's core funding for Chwarae Teg recognises this.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he will take on EC child care recommendations evidence from the Equal Opportunities Commission in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  The Equal Opportunities Commission's evidence will be taken into account in the Welsh Office contribution to the Government's report on the EC child care recommendation 1992.

  I refer the hon. Member the the replies given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) today.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the development of the NHS trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  There are currently 24 operational NHS trusts in Wales and I announced on 16 January that we were establishing a further three trusts with an operational date of 1 April 1995.

  Additionally, public consultation on applications received from the University hospital of Wales and Cardiff Royal Group and the West Glamorgan east unit—Neath and Port Talbot—and district service unit has now ended. In the light of representation received, and taking account of the individual merits of both applications, my right hon. Friend and I have decided to establish these units as NHS trusts to become operational from April 1995 and April 1996 respectively.

  The orders giving the effect on these decisions have been signed today.

  My right hon. Friend and I are satisfied that the new University hospital of Wales healthcare NHS trust can
  454
  become fully operational on 1 April 1995. However, we have always made it clear that we will only appose full trust status when management at a trust can concentrate on improving patient care, our key criterion for agreeing trust status. My right hon. Friend and I have therefore decided to approve trust status for the new Glan-y-Mor NHS trust to become fully operational on 1 April 1996.

  During the intervening period, when the trust will run in shadow form and undertake a limited number of functions of a fully operational trust, the new trust will be able to complete the integration of the West Glamorgan east unit and district services unit and make further progress on the development of the new Baglan hospital.

  We will announce shortly details on chairmen and non-executive directors for the new NHS trusts.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accident and emergency departments there are in Wales; what was the corresponding figure in each year since 1986; and how many accident and emergency departments have been relocated in each year since 1986.

  Mr. Richards
  The number of accident and emergency departments in each year since 1985–86 is given in the following table. Information concerning relocation of these departments is not available centrally.

  Year

  Number of accidents and emergency departments1

  1985–86

  72

  1986–87

  71

  1987–88

  71

  1988–89

  71

  1989–90

  70

  1890–91

  70

  1991–92

  68

  1992–93

  69

  1993–94

  67

  1Includes all hospitals which reported treating patients in the speciality of accident and emergency during the year, including hospitals which treated only a small number of patients in this specialty.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the schools which have contributed to the total balance held by local education authority schools and the balances held by each school together with the date it was recorded.

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply my hon. Friend gave to the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on 23 February 1995,Official Report, column 301,

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 14 February Official Report, column 610, if he will list the date that the balances were recorded in the audited account of each grant-maintained school; and if he will list by local education authority the balance held by locally maintained schools on the same date.

  Mr. Redwood
  The financial balances detailed in my answer of 14 February were taken from the annual accounts of grant-maintained schools in Wales for the year ending 31 March 1994. According to financial
  455
  outturn statements for 1993–94 prepared by local education authorities under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988, locally maintained schools held the following balances.

  £

  Clwyd

  5,245,788

  Dyfed

  3,921,715

  Gwent

  7,730,178

  Gwynedd

  3,592,432

  Mid Glamorgan

  12,833,594

  Powys

  1,567,732

  South Glamorgan

  1,848,000

  West Glamorgan

  10,856,158

  Wales

  47,595,597

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has, and what guidance he has issued, to prevent further loss of hedgerows in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The 1990 survey conducted by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology indicated that, although removal was a cause the loss of hedgerows was mainly due to poor management. The Countryside Council for Wales, at the request of Welsh Office Ministers, introduced the hedgerow renovation scheme in 1992 to improve management. The hedgerow clauses in the Environment Bill will enable the introduction of a notification scheme allowing local authorities to prevent the removal of important hedgerows.

  Tir Cymen
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to extend the Tir Cymen scheme to the whole of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Tir Cymen is being run as an experimental scheme for five years. Decisions as to its future will be taken following a review to be undertaken before the end of the period.

  Designated Areas
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those designated areas in Wales that have been damaged in each of the last five years with the cause of the damage in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The protection and monitoring of designated habitats is the responsibility of the Countryside Council for Wales and the information is not held centrally. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the data requested; a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the number of designated areas in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I will continue to consider each proposal for designation as it arrives.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to protect designated areas in Wales from being damaged; and what advice he has issued to local authorities in respect of this.
  456
  Mr. Redwood
  The protection of designated habitats is the responsibility of the Countryside Council for Wales. National parks are the responsibility of their committees and areas of outstanding natural beauty are managed by the appropriate local authority or authorities.

  Guidance on the protection of such areas is contained in various planning policy guidance notes, regulations, letters and circulars.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what discussions he has had with the Council of Welsh Districts and the Assembly of Welsh Counties with respect to the shift in monitoring of small sites of special scientific interest from the Countryside Council for Wales to local authorities;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the scientific competence of local authorities with respect of their monitoring of small sites of scientific interest;

  (3) what additional funding will be made available to Welsh local authorities to enable them to carry out effective monitoring of small sites of scientific interest.

  Mr. Redwood
  No decisions have yet been taken on the extent to which local authorities in Wales will be involved in the oversight and monitoring of small sites of special scientific interest. No new duties will be imposed on local authorities in Wales. Although no discussions have yet taken place, I fully intend involving local authority associations in discussions on how their members might become more involved in local nature conservation and countryside matters. I would expect these discussions to cover the questions of resources and scientific competence.

  Country Parks
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional funding will be made available to local authorities to fund country parks following the reduction in the budget of the Countryside Council for Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The designation and maintenance of country parks is entirely a local authority matter. It is for the Countryside Council for Wales to decide upon its level of funding of education and interpretation interests in country parks.

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what hectarage of new forest has been planted in Wales in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  New planting (hectares)

  1979

  1,163

  1980

  1,353

  1981

  1,244

  1982

  1,330

  1983

  1,347

  1984

  1,339

  1985

  1,079

  1986

  792

  1987

  846

  1988

  1,102

  1989

  984

  457

  Year ended 31 March

  New planting (hectares)

  1990

  648

  1991

  525

  1992

  411

  1993

  429

  1994

  626

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of woodland grant scheme has been paid to landowners in Wales in each year since its interception.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information is as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  £ thousands

  19891

  25

  1990

  405

  1991

  463

  1992

  622

  1993

  756

  1994

  1,222

  1 Part year.

  Technology band

  Prosper

  Site name

  MW DNC

  Parliamentary constituency

  Landfill Gas

  AD Waste Ltd.

  Standard

  0.875

  Alyn and Deeside

  Landfill Gas

  Renewable Power Generation Ltd.

  Tythegston

  1.175

  Bridgend

  Municipal and Industrial Waste

  Associated Energy Projects plc

  Lamby Way

  1.446

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  Municipal and Industrial Waste

  Pyrogen (Merthyr) Ltd.

  Taff Merthyr Colliery

  9.000

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  Out of Town Retailing
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning applications for our out-of-town developments have been referred to him in the last two years, what was the result of those applications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Between 1 February 1993 and 31 January 1995, 26 out of town centre retail applications were referred to me under the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) (No. 2) Direction 1993, or as departures from the development plan or as a result of call-in requests. It was decided not to intervene in 23 cases; three are still under consideration. In addition, 25 such proposals came forward on appeal of which three have been dismissed, 12 were withdrawn by the applicants, four were allowed and six have yet to be determined.

  Recycling Plans
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh local authorities have now produced recycling plans: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  All 37 district authorities have produced recycling plans.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has issued to farmers in respect of encouraging organic farming.
  458
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he has issued to landowners for increasing forest cover in Wales; and what plans he has to make extra funds available for this under the woodland grant scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Forestry Commission has published a wide range of information and advice on the creation of new woodlands. In his statement of 19 July 1994,Official Report, columns 177–91, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that significant extra funds would be provided for forestry throughout Great Britain.

  Waste to Energy Project
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 7 February,Official Report, column 152, which four projects in Wales have been awarded contracts for waste-to-energy schemes under the third round of the non-fossil fuel obligation.

  Mr. Redwood
  The following waste-to-energy projects were awarded contracts under the third round of the NFFO:

  Mr. Redwood
  An organic aid scheme was introduced by WOAD on 1 September 1994 in order to aid farmers wishing to convert land to organic production. An information pack containing details of the scheme and listing addresses where further advice might be obtained is available from divisional office.

  Showering Facilities
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changing and showering facilities are available to Welsh Office staff who work at(a) Gwydyr house and (b) Cathays Park.

  Mr. Redwood
  At Gwydyr house there are showers in toilet/washroom areas. At Cathays Park there are separate changing rooms with showers.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made on the introduction of a public rights of way network in Wales as promised in "This Common Inheritance—The Third Year Report".

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest available information is that 66 per cent. of the 1995 target strategic network will be open by the end of the financial year 1994–95. The 1995 target is a milestone towards the end of the century deadline, by which time the entire system of public rights of way is intended to be open and properly signposted in Wales.
  459

  Local Development Plans
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh local authorities have produced local development plans under the terms of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The relevant planning provision of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 came into effect on 10 February 1992. Since that date, five districts have adopted local plans which cover the whole of their area. A further two districts have deposited plans and 11 districts and two national parks have published consultation drafts. Local plans, taking into account government guidance and local needs and priorities, have an important role in promoting and guiding development and in protecting and conserving our natural and build heritage. I want to see full local planning coverage in Wales at the earliest possible date and up to date and succinct plans giving clear guidance on acceptable land uses.

  Reclaimed Land (Building)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what guidance he has issued to local authorities in Wales to ensure that new building takes place on reclaimed land wherever practicable.

  Mr. Redwood
  Welsh Office circular 21/87—development of contaminated land—indicated that the Government wished to encourage full and effective use of land in urban areas and the re-use of sites which have been previously developed. Planning policy guidance note 12, Wales, published in February 1992 requires local authorities to include in development plans, land use policies for the improvement of the physical environment, for example, by reclaiming contaminated and derelict land so that it can be brought back into use more quickly and reduce pressure on green-field sites. In addition, the need for reclamation is referred to in other planning guidance. The value of using reclaimed land for new building is repeated in "The Environmental Agenda for Wales", published recently. I have stressed the priority of this work to the WDA and local authorities in the meetings I have held with it about developments.

TRANSPORT

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the enforcement provisions contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 apply to all regulations for which his Department is responsible, past, present and future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the statutory instruments which his Department has sponsored in the last 12 months.
  460
  Mr. Norris
  My Department was responsible for 116 statutory instruments during this period. I have placed a list in the Library.

  Bray's Detective Agency
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 February Official Report, column 3, on what date Bray's Detective Agency ceased to be contracted to his Department; and what was the total expenditure by his Department in relation to the contract or contracts with Bray's.

  Mr. Watts
  Bray's Detective Agency ceased to be contracted to the Department of Transport on 31 July 1994. The total sum paid to Bray's by the Department on 31 July 1994. The total sum paid to Bray's by the Department amounted to £267,377.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on which road schemes promoted by his Department private detective agencies are being retained to identify protestors, serve writs, or for other purposes; in each case, what is the name of the agency and to whom the agency is contracted; and what financial liability rests with his Department for his contract.

  Mr. Watts
  Bray's Detective Agency is currently being employed through the Treasury Solicitor in connection with the A12 Hackney Wick-M11 link and M65 Blackburn southern bypass schemes. The question of financial liability will depend on the degree and amount of any work that Bray's might be instructed to undertake.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what mileages were covered by the royal train in each of the past seven years; and what were the total costs measured per mile travelled.

  Mr. Watts
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Mileage covered by the royal train

  Total costs charged to Department of Transport, averaged per mile travelled £

  1987–88

  21,936

  44.40

  1988–89

  22,611

  45.64

  1989–90

  19,979

  58.55

  1990–91

  25,207

  78.66

  1991–92

  28,568

  78.20

  1992–93

  24,629

  87.23

  1993–94

  30,494

  80.33

  Notes:

  1. Information has been provided by British Railways Board.

  2. 1989–90 was the first year in which police costs were charged as a separate item to the Department of Transport. Full police costs were charged from 1990–91. In that year, police costs amounted to £600,000.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the total amounts paid for the royal train in each of the past seven years; what additions or reductions were listed in estimates; and what is his estimated total for the next two years.

  Mr. Watts
  Expenditure met by the Department of Transport and estimated expenditure for 1994–95,
  461
  1995–96 and 1996–97 in respect of the royal train, including refurbishment, and travel by scheduled train on official business by members of the royal family and their households has been as follows:

  Year

  Total paid £000s

  Supplementary estimates included £000s

  1987–88

  3,081

  —

  1988–89

  3,301

  —

  1989–90

  2,288

  —

  1990–91

  2,868

  +700

  1991–92

  2,628

  +1,075

  1992–93

  2,556

  +1,000

  1993–94

  2,827

  +730

  1994–95

  2,360

  +351

  1995–96

  2,041

  —

  1996–97

  2,041

  —

  Notes:

  1. The figures for 1987–88 to 1993–94 are outturns, for 1994–95 a forecast outturn and for 1995–96 to 1996–97 planned expenditure.

  2. Costs are met by the Department of Transport following receipt of agreed claims for journeys undertaken.

  Fish Factory Ships
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 633, when the consultation document on the regulation of fish factory ships will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library.

  Mr. Norris
  A consultation paper on possible further measures to ensure that fish factory ships meet agreed safety standards and carry adequate liability insurance will be issued shortly. Copies will be made available in the Library.

  Nuclear Waste Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 482, if he has now received representations from the Channel Islands on nuclear waste shipments.

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what change there has been since 19 December 1994 to the timetable for the announcement of his decision on the Newbury bypass.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I will announce my decision after I have had an opportunity to consider carefully the Highways Agency's answer to the questions I have posed.

  Donaldson Inquiry (MV Braer)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, when he hopes to publish the Government's response to Lord Donaldson's inquiry recommendations set up after the Braer disaster.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Shortly.

  Civil Servants (Fast Stream)
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of those accepted for 462
  fast-stream entry for which his Department is responsible (a) in 1991, (b) 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994 were women.

  Mr. Norris
  Intake to the Department's administrative and specialist fast stream for 1991 and 1992 are contained in the Civil Service Commissioners' report for both years. For 1993 the split was six men and three women; and for 1994, seven men and five women.

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the need to undertake remedial works on the Blackwall tunnel; and what estimate he has made of the likely length of time for such works if deemed necessary.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Bob Dunn, dated 27 February 1995:
  I refer to your request in the House for information on the need for remedial works at Blackwall Tunnel. This is a trunk road operational matter and your request has therefore been referred to the Highways Agency.
  I imagine that your enquiry is a result of recent press reports about subsidence caused during the excavation of a pilot heading for the Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) at Blackwall Tunnel in Greenwich. These gave the impression that the problem was far worse than was the case. There has been no damage to the tunnels and no remedial works are required beyond placing grout and concrete in and around the pilot heading. The incident in question was in any case under the southbound tunnel exit ramp, not under the tunnels.
  You may be interested to know that the normal maintenance regime provides for routine work such as cleaning, removal of debris, changing of light bulbs etc. to be carried out in the northbound tunnel during regular Tuesday night closures. Such work in the southbound tunnel takes place under lane closures that are implemented on two nights every week. Further, there are full closures of the southbound tunnel on six Saturdays nights per year—three in March and three in November for more extensive cleaning works.
  As you know major refurbishment of the northbound Blackwall Tunnel was completed as recently as 1992 at a cost in excess of £20 million.
  A recent study of the southbound tunnel has shown that after being in operation for 27 years the cladding and the ventilation system are in need of refurbishment/replacement. These works will take about eighteen months to complete, and are planned to start in 1996/97. Suitable advance publicity will be arranged closer to the start of works.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Wheelclamping
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who will be allowed to wheelclamp unlicensed vehicles on his behalf; whether private contractors or local authorities will be allowed to wheelclamp vehicles; whether the authority to wheelclamp unlicensed vehicles will remain following the introduction of continuous liability; and what level of remuneration will be set for
  463
  the wheelclamping companies for each vehicle that is wheelclamped.

  Mr. Norris
  The scheme for wheelclamping unlicensed vehicles is being developed in consultation with the police and local authorities. A pilot will take place in London later this year. The London boroughs now have responsibility for much of the parking enforcement in the capital, which includes responsibility for vehicle clamping and removal. Details of the scheme, including levels of remuneration for contractors, have yet to be agreed upon. Decisions on the use of wheelclamping under continuous licensing will be based on its effectiveness in tackling evasion under the current system.
  464

  Kidsgrove Station
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek assurances from Railtrack to keep open the booking office at Kidsgrove station beyond October 1995.

  Mr. Watts
  I understand that Regional Railways Central has no plans to close this booking office.

  Track Access Grants
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many track access grants to reduce Railtrack charges have been made since the announcement of this facility.

  Mr. Watts
  Ten.

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

Hearing Aids: Mail Order Selling
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to bring mail order selling of hearing aids under the regulatory framework of the hearing aid Acts.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, extending the coverage of the Hearing Aid Council Acts would require primary legislation. Before seeking parliamentary time for such a change, we would need to be convinced that it was necessary.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that there is a convincing case for primary legislation, because the failure to include mail order firms in those hearing aid Acts means that unscrupulous advertisers can sell inappropriate aids to deaf people with no possibility of detecting any of the 13 prescribed medical conditions which could be detected by a fully qualified prescriber? Surely it is in order for the Government to extend that legislation to protect all people who buy hearing aids, including the most vulnerable and the most gullible.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are aware of the noble Lord's concerns about mail order hearing aids, but many of the advertisements fall foul of the new version of the British code of advertising practice. If that is the case, it follows that if a complaint is lodged with the ASA the advertisements will not be placed and therefore the trade will be curtailed severely. I should like to emphasise that loss of hearing is an extremely serious condition. Anyone who is concerned about it should seek proper medical advice rather than buy a hearing aid indiscriminately.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, what consultation has there been with some of the organisations involved? I am thinking of the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and SENSE, but there are other bodies. What consultation was there about my noble friend's proposal before that rather negative reply was given?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that my reply was negative. We believe that the action provides safeguards. On the first part of his question, I am not in a position to enumerate the details of what has been done, but I shall write to the noble Lord with the information.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, in declaring an interest, will my noble friend differentiate between catalogue
1300
mail order and the mail order to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, was referring, which is advertised in the national press, because the catalogue mail order trade is carefully self-regulated, and, I believe, has a high reputation?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful comment. We are concerned, as I hope I made clear earlier, about those people who merely buy a hearing aid, from whatever source, by mail order without knowing whether it is suitable for their needs. Those who supply hearing aids in a responsible manner to qualified dispensers are obviously operating differently.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I can participate in debates in your Lordships' House thanks to a NHS hearing aid and the wonderful NHS staff whose work is so thorough? Despite the fact that some Members opposite do not agree, we should put on record our appreciation of the remarkable work that they do and that of those who construct the hearing aid which is probably the best in the world.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord is a satisfied customer and such a good example of the activities of the NHS. I just hope that all noble Lords feel grateful when they can hear every word said at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in answer to a previous question my noble friend said that this trade could be controlled by the ASA. What sanctions does it have?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if a form of advertising is held to be in breach of the British code of advertising practice, the media will not place the advertisements that the advertisers are trying to put out.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am rather puzzled by the noble Lord's Answer. The legislation which deals with the ordinary sale of hearing aids must have a purpose. Why do the Government believe that there is no need to apply that legislation to mail order selling? Is the noble Lord aware that for my part, there is no stronger red rag to a bull than being told about lack of legislative time? When one thinks of what the Government find time for, they might find time to do something useful. However, this matter is puzzling. Was mail order selling originally left out on purpose or is it a mistake which needs rectifying?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the origins of this matter go back to the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. When it was introduced, it was intended deliberately that the National Health Service would be outside the scope of the Act. Secondly, at that time it was not imagined that there would be mail order selling of that product at all. The crucial part of the Act provides that a dispenser of hearing aids is regulated. A dispenser is defined as:
"an individual who conducts or seeks to conduct oral negotiations with a view to effecting the supply of a hearing aid".

1301
Obviously, the National Health Service is excluded because it does not negotiate with a view to supply, and mail order is excluded because it is not an oral transaction.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is this situation parallel to that which applies in relation to glasses whereby buying them off the shelf may or may not help? Is there any question of hearing aids being harmful? Do customers have any protection under the Trade Descriptions Act if they lose their money?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that appliances are more likely to be useless rather than dangerous. If a product is purchased which is clearly unsuitable for the purposes for which it is intended, customers will be able to get their money back. Ultimately there is the sanction of the criminal law.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, as the Royal National Institute for the Deaf has been mentioned, I should state that I am president of that body, although I am not paid. Is the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is quite wrong: the hearing aids provided by the health service are not the best in the world? But that is a different question which I promise the Minister I shall raise again in a few weeks.
The Minister mentioned the advertising code of practice. Some of those unscrupulous advertisers are too clever for that. They get round it by manipulating the language. Therefore, that is no real answer. I hope that the Minister will reflect and perhaps return with a different answer, perhaps by letter.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we must be clear that the British code of advertising practice is interpreted according to the spirit and not the letter of what it contains. It has a very wide scope. As regards hearing aids, I understand that an improved range of National Health Service hearing aids will be available from 1st April.

NIREX Rock Characterisation Facility
2.46 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the terms of reference for the public inquiry into the NIREX rock characterisation facility.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, the Secretary of State for the Environment has today issued, under the provisions of Rule 6(10) of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1992, a statement of the matters about which he particularly wishes to be informed for the purpose of his consideration of the appeal by NIREX against Cumbria County Council's refusal of planning permission. I have arranged for details of the statement to be circulated in the Official Report and for a copy of it to be placed in the Library.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply.
1302
Will the Government make sure that all the points raised by Cumbria County Council are open to discussion? Secondly, will they also ensure that all questions raised by the Royal Society report—The disposal of radioactive waste in deep repositories—of November 1994 on the evaluation of the NIREX scientific programme will be considered by the public inquiry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the list of issues about which the Secretary of State wishes to be informed for the purposes of the consideration of the appeal is not a straitjacket. It does not prevent other matters being raised at the inquiry, such as those put forward by Cumbria County Council. It is for the inquiry's inspector to decide on their relevance and whether he should permit evidence to be called on other matters.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that that will be a public inquiry in the full sense of the term and that there will be no restrictions?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is a normal planning appeal inquiry. We believe that it provides adequate opportunities for interested parties to make known their views and for relevant issues to be explored fully and appraised carefully before a decision is reached.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of United Kingdom NIREX Limited. Is my noble friend aware that, as Cumbria County Council has pointed out, the proposed rock characterisation facility is intended to be for research only and is not to be a licensed nuclear facility? Does my noble friend agree that in finding a safe disposal site for radioactive wastes, knowledge is required to establish whether or not the geology is suitable? That is precisely why a rock characterisation facility is needed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, I agree with my noble friend Lord Cavendish. The RCF is intended for the purpose of research to assess the geological characteristics of the area and to allow informed decisions about whether to proceed with a repository to be taken at a later date. Any plans to go ahead with a repository would be subject to separate planning applications and consultations.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that he seems to have agreed with his noble friend that the rock characterisation facility is necessary; in other words, he appears to have pre-empted the result of the public inquiry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is for NIREX to decide whether it is necessary to continue with the research. That is why it has put in the planning application. If we are to go ahead with the burial of low or intermediate waste, I believe that such a research facility is required.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, as chairman of the Royal Commission whose report published 20 years ago led to the creation of NIREX, I have two related questions for the Minister because I am becoming somewhat

1303
confused. First, as the RCF is being considered because it will enable the properties of rock to be determined in the rock mass underneath the selected site for waste disposal, does the Minister agree that until the RCF has been constructed, measurements made and the scientific results evaluated, no inquiry can asses the suitability of the site for eventual waste disposal? Secondly, will the Minister confirm that, even if we were to abandon nuclear power altogether tomorrow and decommission all the nuclear reactors, the nuclear waste which has already accumulated would require substantial, safe underground storage?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I believe that it is the view of scientists that some form of deep-waste disposal site is required. In answer to the noble Lord's first question, I should stress that the research has been concentrated at Sellafield where the drilling of some 25 boreholes has been tested and monitored along with a full range of regional geophysical and mapping surveys and that RCF is purely the next step. However, it is, of course, subject to planning permission.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, will the Government ensure that the names and the whereabouts of the 10 unnamed sites considered by NIREX for 1989, and the results of the investigations carried out by the company on those sites, will be available to the inquiry?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords; I do not believe that that would be correct. After all, the inquiry is purely on the site as regards a particular form of rock characterisation. To name other sites which may have been looked at does not serve that purpose.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in answer to two previous questions the Minister said that such a facility is necessary. However, is it not the case that a public inquiry on the application will have to take into account the issue of whether or not such a facility is necessary? Therefore, has not the Minister twice pre-empted at least one part of the issue before the public inquiry?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, not at all. I said that it was government policy that such a facility is necessary. The question is whether the RCF should be built at Sellafield.

Falkland Islands
2.53 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have noted the observations of the ambassador-designate of the Argentine Republic, Senor Rogelio Pfirter, concerning the Falkland Islands.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we noted the observations on the Falklands made by Ambassador Pfirter to the press in Buenos Aires on 6th February which we find
1304
objectionable. We have made our views on the matter very clear to Ambassador Pfirter and to the Argentine Government.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her response. While I appreciate the difficulty that Ambassador Pfirter faced in that he had to answer questions from the press while standing shoulder to shoulder with his employer—namely, the President of the Argentine Republic —does my noble friend agree that it is, really most unhelpful to make such remarks in that context?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: Indeed, my Lords; we agree. However, from the exchanges between the new Argentinian Ambassador and our Permanent Under-Secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I know that the Ambassador clearly regrets the exchanges with the press which led to the reported observations.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the light of the importance of a political settlement with Argentina, both from the point of view of a long-term relationship with Argentina and the long-term interests of the Falkland Islanders, can the Minister give the House an assurance that such a political settlement will be pursued with some urgency, despite the unfortunate and unhelpful remarks made by the Argentinian Ambassador?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as I told the House last week, we have regular high level exchanges with the Argentine Government on a wide range of issues. I believe that the Argentinian Government have shared our desire to maintain a real improvement in our bilateral relationship over the past few years. From the visits of members of Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, from the activity of British investors, it is quite clear that good relationships are developing. However, I believe that we must hasten slowly in the matter and ensure that the preparations for better relations are most thoroughly prepared.

Income Gap
2.55 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the income gap between rich and poor in the United Kingdom does not widen.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Government believe that giving people choice and opportunities, encouraging success and promoting wealth creation is the best way to safeguard the living standards of all groups. Our policies enable people to take advantage of opportunities through improved education and training, help the unemployed get back into work and protect the vulnerable by targeting help where it is most needed.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. But I am not sure that he would get two or three

1305
cheers from the thousands of people who are unemployed. Unemployment is the greatest threat to any country. Therefore, will the Minister consider what growing unemployment has done to countries in Europe and the threat that it posed to this country in the 1930s? Ought it not perhaps to be taken most seriously? I know that the Minister cannot give me an answer immediately. But is he prepared to consider calling in the CBI, the TUC and the chambers of commerce—they would willingly help this or any Government—to help ensure that unemployment does not grow and that, therefore, especially in view of today's news, it does not threaten our country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to put his finger on unemployment as one of the major problems when it comes to looking at the bottom decile. However, perhaps I may point out to him, and, indeed, to the House, that over the past year or so unemployment in the country has fallen by over half a million and is now well below the level found in the countries of some of our major European competitors. But we are still not completely satisfied, as shown quite clearly in the Budget Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last November, when he announced a package of benefit and employment measures worth almost £700 million in order to help get more of the unemployed back into work.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in his first Answer the Minister spoke of improvements in education under this Government. Can he mention just one of them, because I cannot think of any?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am more than delighted to assist the noble Earl in that regard. However, as he comes from a university background I am surprised that he should ask such a question. In 1979 one in eight benefited from higher education; now it is one in three. More young people than ever are staying on in education and training: about 90 per cent. of 16 year-olds and 75 per cent. of 17 year-olds. I should have thought that the noble Earl would be aware of those figures. They certainly show the progress that has been made in further and higher education under this Government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the Government intend to tackle rising unemployment when they stand condemned by employers in the private sector construction industry for reducing investment in the fabric of our schools, our colleges and our homes in this country as part of their Budget strategy? That leads to job losses, lack of training opportunities and an increase in poverty.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not understand what a decrease in unemployment means. Despite there being half a million fewer people on the unemployment register now than over a year ago, we still talk about increasing unemployment. The noble Baroness is quite wrong in that respect. Further, if she studied page 71,
1306
Volume 2, of the Rowntree Report (which probably not many people managed to get into) she would see that improvements in education and training for unskilled workers are important, as is, in the European case, restructuring of taxation, especially payroll taxes like employers NIC, to reduce the relative costs of unskilled workers to employers. That is what we are attempting to do by refusing to sign the Social Chapter and to go along with some of the expensive desires of our European friends, and of the party opposite, which would actually make our competitive position in the world even worse.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister accept that access to further and higher education varies enormously from one area of the country to another and that the average figures that he mentioned conceal those enormous variations? Can he say, for example, how many children in the London Borough of Lambeth gained access to further and higher education in 1979 and 1985 respectively and whether as a percentage of the total the number of children leaving school without any qualification at all has decreased or increased since 1979 in that borough?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer the question about the London Borough of Lambeth, but if the noble Lord puts down a Question to that effect I am sure it will be answered. I would give the noble Lord the figure I gave for the whole country. It is obviously an important one, as are the comparable figures, which I do not have to hand but which we all know about, which show the improvement that has come about in the qualifications of school-leavers, which is self-evident if the number going to university has increased from one in eight to one in three.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of us feel a certain sense of resentment that he should imply that we have not read the Rowntree Report which this House is debating on Wednesday? I can assure him that many people on this side of the House have already done so. But since he is in that sort of mood, so am I. I was surprised to see this Question on the Order Paper, as my understanding of the philosophy of the party opposite is that it is precisely to do this—to ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to another part of the report which refers to one of the options that the noble Lord has just mentioned; that is, the poor are getting poorer. The other option is that more people are getting poorer. However, the report states that, by and large, it is the second of these options which seems to have happened particularly as unemployment has risen. Of course the snapshot taken by the Rowntree Report was of the situation two or three years ago, before unemployment started to fall. I would suggest that a snapshot taken today, with half a million fewer people out of work, would look slightly different to that of three years ago.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord reassure my noble friend Lord Avebury that things in

1307
Lambeth are improving greatly since there have been so many successes of Liberal Democrats being elected to the council?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I would hate to get into a discussion between the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Avebury. But clearly, if there have been such successes, he has not caught up with them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, returning to the reply which the Minister gave to my noble friend Lord Ennals, is he aware of the remarks of John Maples just a couple of months ago when he said:
"The reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest who are getting poorer"?
Does the Minister agree with the deputy chairman of his party?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if I remember the piece of paper which the Opposition have quoted from at length—they do not normally quote from government or Conservative Party documents at such length—Mr. Maples was talking about the perceptions that some people have. I know that the Opposition hate to think about it this way, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people in this country are markedly better off than they were in 1979.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will allow me to come back on this point. I think perhaps he misheard the quotation. John Maples did not refer to perceptions. He said:
"The reality is now that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest who are getting poorer".
Does the Minister still quibble with his honourable friend?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I quibble with Mr. Maples in that regard because, while undoubtedly there are some people who are poorer, there will always be a bottom decile, although sometimes one would not think so when one reads the Rowntree Report. But the fact is that the great bulk of our people have seen their standard of living increase immeasurably.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that those in the lowest income group have a far higher standard of living than they did in 1979? Is it not also true, since 1979 and 1992, that the average growth for a household in this country is 36 per cent. above inflation? Is it not true also that pensioners now have an average growth of 56 per cent. above inflation? When will the other side work out that since 1997 we have had a Conservative Government who have made these things possible?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is of course right in what he meant to say and equally right, I am quite sure, in what he says about the future! I can confirm, as I have already mentioned, that average incomes have risen by over a third —by 36 per cent.—between 1979 and 1991–92. It is also particularly encouraging that pensioners have done well during this period, with an average increase of 56 per
1308
cent., and far fewer are represented in this bottom decile than were represented when the party opposite left power. It is one of the little contradictions that one reaches only towards the tail end of Volume 2 of the Rowntree Report the fact that the least well-off, as represented by the bottom 20 per cent. by income, have seen a rise in the possession of consumer durables: telephones and central heating are up by over a half. Half have motor cars and video recorders and nearly a fifth have home computers.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, instead of the selective use of figures, as shown by the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, and instead of the standard, smooth party political answers which he has read from a carefully prepared brief, will the Minister bear the following in mind? There is in Britain today a growing underclass of people who are deeply embittered and they are becoming alienated from our society. Given the Right-wing drift of this Government, unfortunately encouraged by the Prime Minister, I fear for the future. I hope—this is a general point—that the Minister and his colleagues in government will reflect on the alienation of this growing underclass, because it is dangerous for our democracy and our democratic health.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I would not disagree at all with the noble Lord about the problem of an underclass—perhaps we can debate whether it is growing or not—which is caused not just by economic but also by behavioural reasons. We shall probably debate how far those are connected on Wednesday. I hope that I made at least some positive contribution when I mentioned that we take seriously the need to look for ways to continue the fall in unemployment, which, as I said—I underline this again because people seem unable to accept it —has added up to more than half a million in the past year and a bit.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will repeat a Statement being made in another place on Barings.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Environment Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 12,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 13 and 14,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 15 to 19,

Schedule 5,

1309

Clause 20,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 21 and 22,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 23 to 60,

Schedule 7,

Clause 61,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 62 to 66,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 67 to 73,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 74 and 75,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 76 to 87,

Schedule 12,

Clause 88,

Schedule 13,

Clause 89,

Schedule 14,

Clause 90,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 91 to 94,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 95 to 97,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 98 to 105,

Schedules 18 to 20.—(Viscount Ullswater.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Law Reform (Succession) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Intestacy and partial intestacy]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved the following amendment:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("14") and insert ("28").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I ventured to suggest that the survivorship period under an intestacy should copy what the practitioners in the law have been doing for a long time in regard to the making of wills. I then suggested that the period of 14 days was too short and that the period of 28 days would be more satisfactory.
The noble and learned Lord, with his usual graciousness, considered that suggestion and was kind enough to write to me in certain terms. I prefer that he paraphrases those terms, not I. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: When the Law Commission considered this question it took the view that 14 days was an appropriate survivorship clause interval to adopt as part of the general law. In the light of his great
1310
experience as a solicitor, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested at Second Reading, as he mentioned, that that was a rather short period in present circumstances and that in practice a period of 28 days would be better.
I have considered the suggestion carefully in the light of the information I have about current practice, and I have concluded that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right and that it would be an improvement to the Bill to substitute 28 days for 14 days. I advise the Committee to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995
3.12 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before your Lordships on Thursday 9th February, be approved.
I am conscious that this is the second of these orders which has been put before your Lordships recently, and that we are likely to be considering many more over the coming months. I shall therefore try to focus my remarks on those issues which are specific to Avon.
Apart from a few minor points, this order implements the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Avon. Its effect will be that on 1st April 1996 the Avon County Council will be abolished and replaced by four unitary authorities. The existing authorities of Bristol and Woodspring will be retained, and will be given unitary powers. Woodspring is to be renamed North West Somerset. The existing authorities of Bath and Wansdyke will be abolished, and replaced by a single unitary authority to be called Bath and North East Somerset. The existing authorities of Kingswood and Northavon will also be abolished and replaced by a further unitary authority to be called South Gloucestershire. There is a point here about continuing and new authorities, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, refers in her amendment, and to which I shall return later.
In the absence of clear agreement on alternative names for the unitary authorities, the Government have concluded that they should not make any change to the names recommended by the commission. However, authorities retain the power to make changes to names if they resolve to do so. No doubt that is an issue which some of the unitary authorities in Avon will wish to consider.
I should like to emphasise that this order is not a judgment on the performance of the existing local authorities in the area. That is not what the review of

1311
local government is about. It is about finding the best form of local government for the future in each area, and that is why this order is before your Lordships today.
I should say also that in Avon there has been a generally constructive debate about reorganisation and the implementation of change. The Government have not agreed with every point that has been put to them but have considered them all very carefully. The debate has been conducted in a sensible and non-partisan way. The Government welcome that.
The Government believe that authorities which are to assume unitary status should be given a fresh democratic mandate. There will, therefore, be whole council elections to all four unitary authorities in May this year. All four authorities will then have responsibility for planning and budgeting for change before they assume responsibility for the full range of local government functions on 1st April 1996.
In future, the three councils outside Bristol will hold whole council elections every four years, although if they decide later that they want to move to elections by thirds it will be open to them to ask for this. The Government have no view about which system is preferable. Bristol will return to its current arrangement of elections by thirds from 1997, as was requested by the authority.
Warding arrangements for the two new authorities are as recommended by the commission, except for the correction of a minor technical error in South Gloucestershire. There are no changes to the current warding arrangements for Bristol and North West Somerset.
The commission also recommended the abolition of the county of Avon and its return to Somerset and Gloucestershire for ceremonial purposes. The order abolishes the county area of Avon and provides for Bristol to be a county in its own right as it was before 1974, with its own lord lieutenant and high sheriff.
As in the case of other areas for which orders have already been placed before your Lordships, we shall be making separate provision to put into effect the Local Government Commission's recommendations for ceremonial arrangements elsewhere in the present County of Avon. We shall be providing that, for ceremonial purposes, Bath and North East Somerset and North West Somerset will be part of Somerset, and South Gloucestershire will be part of Gloucestershire.
Once the order is made, all authorities in the area will have extra duties and powers to start preparing for reorganisation. They will each be under a duty to co-operate in implementing change. Unitary authorities will have access to the information which they will need. Once the new councils for the four unitary authorities have been elected, they will have further powers to make the necessary preparations, including setting budgets and recruiting staff, for the functions they take over on 1st April 1996. They will be required to consider whether any of their new functions would best be discharged through voluntary joint arrangements with other authorities. Taken together, these provisions will ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new structure, with proper safeguards for essential services.
In addition to the legal framework, I understand that all of the local authorities in Avon have been working well together for a considerable length of time now to ensure a smooth transfer of services. The council leaders and chief executives, as well as specialist officer groups, have been working in the county. In the area of each unitary authority, members of all the councils involved have been working formally together, following an agreed work programme.
In her amendment to the Motion, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, regrets that two of the present authorities in Avon are to continue and gain unitary status. I am sure it would help noble Lords if I set out the Government's thinking on this. Where an existing authority, as a result of reorganisation, assumes responsibility for new functions but its area is unchanged, that authority continues. The Government simply have no powers to abolish it. However, where a unitary authority has new boundaries not based on the existing boundaries of a previous authority then that authority may be new. Therefore, in Avon, Bristol and North West Somerset will be continuing authorities. South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset will be new.
Much has been made of this. Fears have been expressed. The Government have been told that it is unfair, since the continuing authorities will have an advantage. For instance, it is said that they will have an inside track on recruitment since they can get the recruitment process under way now, before the new authorities have come into existence and therefore will get the first pick of the staff available.
The Government do not agree. As soon as the order is made, all the authorities involved have new powers and duties to start preparing for reorganisation. They also all have to co-operate. So, Bath and Wansdyke, for example, can start work towards reorganisation just as much as Bristol. But the Government are very clear that the decisions on how the new authorities will run their affairs should be made only after a new mandate has been obtained. The order says the authorities cannot make decisions or appointments until after the elections in May. But in May all four unitary authorities will have identical powers to do those things. So the essential point is that when new powers are given to authorities, they are given to all who need them.
I know that there is concern about the impact of reorganisation on local government staff. The Government have always made it clear that in areas affected by reorganisation, they expect that the majority of local government staff (some 90 per cent.) will simply become employees of the successor authorities. All front-line service providers, such as teachers, care workers, etc. will transfer by statutory transfer order, ensuring continued provision of services during reorganisation. The Government accept that TUPE (the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations) are also capable of application to local government reorganisation, but each case will depend on its facts.
The Government have also made regulations (which came into force on 28th December) providing for compensation in cases of redundancy arising from

1313
reorganisation. They have also recently consulted on draft regulations on general staffing matters and are considering the responses. Those regulations will provide, for example, for continuity of employment for transferred staff and appointment to new chief officer posts by open competition.
The order also makes specific provision in respect of a number of services. For the police, Articles 12 and 13 provide for the representatives of the four unitary authorities to replace Avon County Council's nominees on the Avon and Somerset Police Authority from 1st October 1995 for certain purposes, essentially so that they can be involved in decisions on the budget for 1995–96 and policing plans. Avon County Council's representatives will remain on the authority for all other purposes until that council is abolished.
For the fire service, the order provides for each of the unitary authorities to be fire authority areas. The Government will, in due course, be bringing forward proposals for a fire combination scheme, under the Fire Services Act 1947, so that the fire service will continue to be delivered over the present area.
As unitary authorities, the four Avon districts will be responsible for both strategic and local land-use planning for their areas. The Government are determined that there should be adequate arrangements for strategic planning in areas where reorganisation takes place. In the case of Avon, the commission proposed that the four unitary authorities should maintain separate local plans but work together on a joint structure plan. The Government have accepted that recommendation.
The draft order gives effect to it by transferring the county's strategic planning responsibilities to the four district councils. The Government look to them to make the necessary voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan. The Government expect that the authorities in Avon will establish satisfactory arrangements to fulfil this important planning function.
The Government's policy is that there should be statutory arrangements only where absolutely necessary; they believe that voluntary arrangements are more accountable. In addition, they do not think that they should tie the hands of the authorities which will be elected in May.
In accordance with the commission's recommendations, each of the unitary authorities in Avon will inherit the county council's responsibilities for minerals and waste planning within their respective areas. This will enable them to work together on strategic minerals and waste planning policies in their joint structure plan.
The unitary authorities will also become responsible for preparing minerals and waste local plan policies and proposals for their areas. Article 15(2) of the order empowers the authorities to include such policies and proposals in their district-wide local plans.
Finally, the order vests the superannuation fund maintained by Avon County Council in Bath and north-east Somerset and designates Bristol as the relevant authority for the purposes of certain financial regulations.
The local government review and reorganisation in Avon have been the subject of a long and vigorous discussion. This has, not unnaturally, resulted in a degree of uncertainty for all those involved with local government in the area. This order will end that uncertainty. It is now time for authorities to set aside their past differences and work together to make a success of reorganisation and future local government in the area. The Government are confident that they will do so. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committed.] —(Viscount Ullswater.)
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("but that this House regrets that the draft order incorporates the unsatisfactory principle of "continuing" authorities and fails to deal adequately with the detail of the transfer of services.").—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my amendment to the noble Viscount's Motion refers simply to my anxieties—they are widely shared—about the legal framework put in place by the Government for the implementation of reorganisation. I wish to put on record in some detail what those shortcomings are. I begin of course by declaring an interest in this matter as chair of the Association of County Councils. However, I do not speak to your Lordships this afternoon in that capacity but as a Member of this House.
Before I proceed, perhaps I may argue that any change in local government is dependent on the widest basis of support from the local community within that locality. If the local community feels that its functions will be better provided for and carried out by the new, stronger framework, then the case for change can be made. I believe that other speakers, in particular the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, will put before your Lordships local views drawing on local circumstances and detailed knowledge.
There are grave reservations about the changes proposed. Those are views with which I may wholeheartedly agree. However, the amendment does not deal with that basis but with some of the issues on implementation.
When the House debated the Cleveland (Structural Change) Order a few weeks ago, noble Lords described with great clarity the services, such as social services and education, which many perceived to be at risk during a process of fragmenting existing county services. In that debate the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, was able to cite an expressive list of organisations which had questioned that change. I believe that your Lordships are aware of a variety of organisations in Avon which have expressed views. It is a point to which other speakers may return.
However, the process of change must not fracture or damage the continuing provision of services on which people rely. Therefore the amendment concentrates on grave doubts about the effectiveness and equity of the

1315
legal procedure followed by the Government. Despite its criticism of the structure proposed, Avon County Council has, as the Minister said, worked co-operatively with the full party support of members and officers from the district councils. I hope that noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to those members and officers in the Avon County Council area who have served their community so well during the past 20 years.
Avon County Council has a record of innovation and pursuit of excellence in its services of which it can be proud. Latterly the county has diligently sought improvements to the order. If there is a smooth transition from the current structure to the new structure, it will be due to the efforts of all those concerned in existing authorities. It is in that context that I wish to draw attention to some of the anxieties.
The Motion before the House refers explicitly to what I have called the unsatisfactory principle of "continuing" authorities to which the Minister referred in his introduction of the order. As your Lordships will be aware from our earlier debate on Cleveland, a flaw in the drafting of the Local Government Act 1992 means that wherever a new unitary authority is established on the same boundaries as an existing district or county, that authority is in legal terms a continuation of the existing authority rather than being wholly new, despite the radical change to its functions. The principle of the completely fresh start has been lost. This is quite against what was understood on all sides at the time of the Bill's passage.
The Government were warned, as soon as this flaw became apparent, of the damage it would cause. As the Isle of Wight—a unitary authority to be based on the area of the existing county council—proceeds to full-blown reorganisation this April, it is becoming sadly apparent how right the warnings were. Your Lordships will recall that the decision to have a unitary authority for the island was not controversial between any of the existing authorities. Moreover, officers and members from the county and districts deserve only praise for the hard work they have put in to make the transition to the new structure as successful as possible. However, all three authorities on the Isle of Wight are quite clear that they perceive the unsatisfactory nature of the procedure, as a continuing authority principle is enacted.
Planning for a fresh start with the new authority has been seriously impeded by the continuing authority problem. In particular, morale and motivation in the two district councils is low. Given the history of agreement on the island over the principles of the review, there is no reason to believe that it will suffer these problems more acutely than continuing authorities to be established elsewhere. Quite the opposite, indeed.
The order before the House abolishes Avon County Council, which currently provides services such as education, social services, libraries and highways. It will be replaced by four new unitary authorities. Two of these will continue. That is to say, the existing districts will continue and all the Avon services will be added on to that base. The two other new authorities will be totally new, with services and staff from both the county and the districts being taken on the same terms within a
1316
framework of equality of treatment. The latter two authorities will have no legal existence at all until after the shadow elections. This mixture of continuing and wholly new authorities has brought to light a complication not seen in either the Isle of Wight or Cleveland, and that difference matters very greatly. There are difficult decisions to be reached about the destinations of key staff and the future of county-wide services.
Were the Government to give a head start to some of the authorities in the Avon area but not others, it would be quite inequitable. The view that I have to put forward is shared by the districts destined to be subsumed into the two wholly new authorities. This issue was raised and discussed in another place. The Minister responsible for local government and housing sought to clarify and place on record the effect and meaning of the order. The legislation is extremely complicated, as the Minister speaking in another place confirmed.
I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could confirm in his reply that the Government recognise that it would be inequitable were some authorities to have a head start on others. The Minister in another place stated that the order prevents a continuing authority from making any decisions before the shadow elections on behalf of that authority take place.
I shall prevail upon your Lordships' patience and set out as succinctly as I can the detail of the matter which the Government could help to clarify. Between the making of the order and the shadow elections this May, Article 20(1) enables transferor and transferee authorities to
"take such steps as appear to them to be necessary for the purpose of preparing for the transfer and exercise of functions which will, on and after the reorganisation date, be exercisable by the transferee authorities by virtue of this Order".
However, the scope of that preparatory power is limited by sub-paragraph (2) (a). It states that after shadow elections transferee authorities alone shall,
"make such arrangements for organisation and management and such appointments of officers as are necessary to secure the proper performance of those functions".
It would be very helpful if the Minister were to provide in his reply a few examples of things that authorities may and may not do between the making of the order and the shadow elections. Also, could he confirm the view of the Minister responsible for local government and housing that, before the election of the new authorities, existing authorities cannot make appointments? In particular, I should be grateful if he would confirm that continuing authorities may not draw up job specifications for posts relating to the new functions and advertise and interview for such posts.
Finally, can the Minister also confirm that when references are made to joint preparatory work before the May elections, it is his understanding that that work should include both the existing tiers in the area of the new authority, whether or not that authority is, in legal terms, continuing or wholly new.
If the Minister can provide reassurance on those issues, it will go some way to establishing a fairer basis for change, although it would be unrealistic to believe that even after the shadow elections the continuing

1317
authorities will not have something of a head start in purely practical terms. The secondary legislation can only ameliorate the problems caused by the Act itself, not overcome them.
I should be grateful if the Minister can also spell out in detail why it is that Article 19(2) requires transferor authorities to furnish other authorities with information, but does not require transferee authorities to do the same. Is there a thought that authorities winding down their operations will never need to know anything from the new authority taking them over?
Out of respect for your Lordships' time, I wish to refer only briefly to the fact that Avon County Council and members have sought some clarification on the issue of continuity. There is also a concern about how the transfer of functions is being carried out with regard to the new authorities. Can the Minister clarify the loose arrangement of statutory responsibility during the transfer? Does he understand that a transferor authority may retain a power associated with a statutory duty, even if it no longer has that duty? What actual difference in law and practice does he understand placing the duty with the new authority, rather than leaving it with the outgoing one, makes for the transferor? Lastly, does Article 11(2) (c) of the general regulations apply automatically to the areas of the wholly new authorities? If so, how is the clear prohibition on certain activity reconciled with the interpretation of the order by the Minister responsible for local government and housing?
I apologise for the detail of the questions which I have raised. This is an extremely important and serious issue. The order does not have enough detail about the areas of transfer of services and functions and the problems that will face those who are trying to cope with the area referred to by the Minister—the transfer of the police and the transfer of other functions. Strategic planning remains a concern; statutory bodies are important to provide vital services. I know that the Council for the Protection of Rural England will have regrets that the umbrella bodies which hold the services together will be undermined by this order.
The Government's intention as to the final pattern of local government in England is not yet known. But that need not lead to a piecemeal approach to dealing with the technical issues that are raised by any reorganisation. Detailed discussion needs to take place. Avon County Council is concerned that it does not feel that it has been consulted either through meetings or through correspondence with the department on the detail of transferring these functions. I hope that the answers that I shall receive to some of the important questions I have raised will help to resolve some of the very real, detailed and grave concerns at local level. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert ("but that this House regrets that the draft order incorporates the unsatisfactory principle of 'continuing' authorities and fails to deal adequately with the detail of the transfer of services.").—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)

Barings
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the insolvency of the merchant bank Barings. The Bank of England announced late last night, ahead of the opening of the Far East financial markets, that Barings was unable to continue trading and was applying for administration.
"Barings' problems have arisen from major losses caused by unauthorised dealings by the chief trader in its Singapore incorporated subsidiary. The losses arise from contracts on the Singapore, Osaka and Tokyo exchanges. At the close of business last week total losses appear to have been in excess of £600 million. Crucially, these contracts have further to run, exposing Barings to further unquantifiable losses. As a result, Barings was unable to continue to trade without the injection of substantial new capital.
"As the Bank of England announced last night, the British banks were prepared to supply all the capital needed to recapitalise Barings but only if it were possible to cap the potential liability of the outstanding contracts. In the event this did not prove possible. Other parties were not prepared to take on open-ended and therefore unlimited liabilities. The governor did not recommend, and in any event I would not have agreed, that public funds should take on these liabilities. Regrettably, in the circumstances there was no alternative to Barings having to apply for administration.
"Although it was not possible at the end of the day to recapitalise Barings, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the governor and his staff and the London financial community for their commitment over the weekend to the search for a solution.
"I would stress to the House, Madam Speaker, that these circumstances are unique to Barings and should not apply to other banks operating in London. The Bank of England is ready to provide liquidity to the banking system to ensure that it continues to function normally. Deposits at Barings are, of course, at the moment frozen and the extent of any losses on them will not become clear for some time. The deposit protection board will be writing to all of Barings' depositors potentially eligible for assistance.
"Madam Speaker, the House will be rightly concerned about how such huge unauthorised exposures could be allowed to happen and build up so quickly without the knowledge of the company, the exchanges or the regulators. I am determined to address that question rigorously and to review the regulatory system thoroughly in the light of this collapse. However, before we come to any firm conclusions, it will be necessary to establish in detail

1319
the facts of the case. These were transactions conducted on the far side of the world by overseas subsidiaries on overseas exchanges. There may be some falsification of the relevant records within the subsidiaries concerned. It will take some time to unearth the full and detailed catalogue of events and the methods employed to evade all the required management and regulatory controls.
"I have asked the Board of Banking Supervision to investigate fully and urgently all aspects of this episode and to report back to me. The investigation will include the circumstances under which such unauthorised transactions were able to take place and to remain undetected until too late. The board will need to work closely both with Barings and with the Singapore, Osaka and Tokyo exchanges. The House will recall that the Board of Banking Supervision is chaired by the Governor of the Bank of England and comprises six independent members and three members appointed ex officio from the Bank.
"I can assure the House that I am determined that, when the full facts are known, all the appropriate lessons will be drawn and that any necessary corrective steps will be taken.
"In today's global markets, the regulatory tasks are international and must be tackled internationally. Over the past two years, with other Finance Ministers in the G7, the G10 and the IMF, I have taken part in discussions of the need to ensure effective regulation of international dealings in derivatives and other instruments in high technology 24-hour trading conditions. The problems are obvious but practicable solutions are less self-evident. No system of regulation can ever guarantee total security. There is always the chance of unwise or fraudulent dealing by one or a group of individuals. The better the bank's systems and controls the less likely this is to happen. Every regulatory authority and every bank must now be considering what further steps it can take to protect itself against this sort of risk.
"Madam Speaker, I will report back to the House at the earliest opportunity on our analysis of this case, the lessons to be drawn and any proposals to strengthen security in highly complex financial markets. I would expect to publish a full report on the facts of the case subject only to the need to protect the legitimate confidentiality of innocent third parties and my other legal constraints.
"Meanwhile we must also be concerned about the implications of this for the employees of what was, until a few days ago, a successful and highly respected firm. The administrator will no doubt take early steps to clarify the position of the 4,000 or so employees, some of whom will be needed to administer the assets of the business and many of whom work for successful and profitable businesses for which purchasers will no doubt be found. Some redundancies will be inevitable but the employees in this country will of course be able to rely on a measure of statutory protection in the event of their employer being so insolvent that difficulties arise in the payment of salaries and redundancy payments.
1320
"This failure is of course a blow to the City of London. But it appears to be a specific incident unique to Barings centred on one rogue trader in Singapore. There has inevitably been some turbulence in the markets since the announcement but global markets should be quite strong enough to absorb it without lasting damage since these events have not changed any of the fundamentals that underline foreign exchange, equity and bond markets".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am aware that I and any of us who wish to comment on the Statement or ask questions must be sensitive to the effect of anything that we say on the value of sterling. Although I am second to none in my willingness on other occasions to criticise the Government's economic policies, I agree with the last sentence of the Statement; namely, it seems to me that the Chancellor is entirely right when he says that nothing that has happened in the past few days has changed any of the fundamentals that underline foreign exchange equity and bond markets, at least so far as this country is concerned. My own judgment, for what it is worth, is that certainly at the present time if anything sterling is undervalued and should not be moving in a downwards direction.
To turn to various aspects of the Statement, we have heard about losses in excess of £600 million. I assume that that is simply the Chancellor's best guess at this moment. There must be a doomsday scenario figure that someone in the Treasury must have which I assume is much larger. I do not know whether the Minister can enlighten us on that.
More to the point, given the nature of the transactions—I believe they are connected with the behaviour of various Japanese or Far Eastern stock markets—until the contracts are finally closed presumably we cannot possibly know the full scale of what is involved. Equally, I suppose that these contracts will close within not too long a period, given the kind of contracts we are discussing. One will then wish to have a statement on the total scale of the operation.
Obviously the Governor of the Bank of England was right to bring together last night those parties who could be helpful. Can the noble Lord enlighten us on whether there was any hope in what happened last night? I take the fairly ruthless view that if you engage in high risk financial activities in the hope of making a profit you have to accept that you may make a considerable loss; in other words, there is a downside risk, and that is the nature of the game that you play. I hope that no noble Lord will wish to be party to the view that it is the role of the Bank of England to meet these losses, certainly on an open-ended basis. I cannot see that the taxpayer can be asked to do that. Was there any hope of a formula being found? I am sure we all agree that, if there was a possibility of saving this bank, it would have been worth doing.

1321
That leads to a more general issue which I believe financial markets will wish to have explained to them. Since other banks can engage in precisely these activities while acting as banks, are we to believe that if the same thing happens in future—I do not mention any names in terms of clearing banks or anything like that—precisely the same line will be taken by the authorities, whether it be the Bank or the Treasury; namely, that in the end, if it is an open-ended commitment, they cannot guarantee any of it on a stop loss basis?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite right when he says that he is determined to address the general question of regulation rigorously and thoroughly. He has told us what the Board of Banking Supervision will do. Surely we must support that. However, is the board capable of doing that job? In particular, will it be able to get all of the information that it needs to find out what happened? As the Statement makes clear, that body has to work closely with Barings and foreign exchanges in the Far East. What obligation do those exchanges have to be totally transparent and tell the Board of Banking Supervision all they know about what has happened?
That takes me to the matter of uniqueness. The Statement has used the word "unique". I have to say that I am not persuaded. I find it difficult to believe that this is the only example of this kind of activity that has occurred. I ask whether in looking at the specific transactions the Board of Banking Supervision will have regard to perhaps a large number of earlier transactions at least undertaken by Barings and possibly the same trader. In order to get an understanding of what has happened it must not be assumed that this is unique; we need to approach it with an open mind and ask what more generally has been going on.
The Chancellor has said that he is determined to discover the full facts and to learn the appropriate lessons. He has also said that he will report back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I hope that that also means that there will be a report back to your Lordships' House. I remind your Lordships that not very long ago I had to deal with a similar Statement relating to BCCI. At that time I said that it would be appropriate for your Lordships to debate the matter. I remind the House that there has been a deathly silence from that day to this. We have not debated it and have not had a chance to say what lessons can be learnt from it. In some ways this matter is more important. Once the facts have been established, an opportunity must be found for your Lordships to look into it in detail and debate it.
I am totally sympathetic to what the Chancellor has said in his Statement. I wish to be as supportive as possible when he says that these regulatory tasks are international and must be dealt with internationally. He says that the problems are obvious but the practical solutions less self-evident. I agree with that. Nonetheless, I feel that we can do better. I hope that the Chancellor in grasping this nettle is saying essentially that he is determined, together with international colleagues, to produce an agreed regulatory framework without destroying international markets and freedom of operation in international markets.
1322
I raise one other matter of a slightly delicate kind. I can see who the losers are to some extent but in this kind of esoteric finance we have the classic problem of seeing precisely who are the gainers. Do the Government at this stage have any information to indicate that anything of a fraudulent kind has been going on? One view is that we are discussing incompetence; another is that we are discussing fraud; and a third view is that we are discussing both. I should like to know whether we can be enlightened on that or whether the Minister's answer at this stage will simply be that he does not yet know. I must be right in saying that among the losers will be those who have deposits in Barings. One's immediate intuition is that perhaps they are simply big businesses: who cares about them? They have tonnes of money and this loss will be peanuts to them. I do not take that view. I do not know who the depositors are, but I guess that among them will be public sector institutions, or near public-sector bodies, which bank with Barings. Does the Minister have any information about that? For example, if there are such public sector institutions that bank with Barings, will they at least fall to be recompensed by the Treasury on the grounds that they are in the public sector and therefore need to be looked after?
Some of us will remember being taught in school about the Baring crisis which occurred 100 years ago. I feel very old when I now talk about a new Baring crisis and think that in future schoolboys and schoolgirls will be asked exam questions on both crises. Having said how serious it is, one has to keep a proper perspective. I believe that every day on the London markets about 90 billion or 100 billion dollars worth of foreign exchange is traded. In comparison with that, £600 million is not a lot. Though I do not withdraw my criticisms—and next time that we debate the economy I shall be my normal nasty self—I hope your Lordships will agree that in the end this is not the biggest event to have hit the world and I believe strongly that it is one with which we ought to be able to cope.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, this is a sad day for the banking system. It is an occasion when the matter should be dealt with responsibly, as has the Minister in presenting this matter and as has the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in responding to it. I was also impressed by the way in which the Governor of the Bank of England dealt with it in a radio interview this morning.
In my time in industry I have dealt with many merchant banks, Barings among them. I have always had the highest regard for the expertise and the great historical associations that Barings has had. It is sad that that great name in banking will, as far as we can tell, no longer be there. Having said that, I believe that we must ask some general questions about the trade in derivatives which seems to have caused this crisis.
Derivatives as such are a perfectly legitimate way of hedging against known risks. For example, a company which is trading in a big way overseas and wants to hedge against currency or interest rate fluctuations is perfectly entitled to use that form of trading. However, not only has it become extremely sophisticated; it has

1323
also become an area of pure speculation. It is that speculative aspect of derivative trading which is the cause of concern.
Barings has taken up most of the space today in the newspapers but the Midland Bank has also announced its results. In the detail one can see that this year the profits from dealing have been reduced by over £550 million compared with last year. Midland Bank has great resources and was not prevented from making a substantial overall profit. Nevertheless, that is a further illustration of the massive fluctuations that can result from that form of trading.
We live in a global economy of high technical sophistication. Great deals can be made at great speed, emanating from any part of the world and moving to any other part of the world. Therefore, this issue is not one that we alone can resolve. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that this subject had been raised several times at the level of the G7. I wonder whether the Government now intend to propose an emergency meeting of whatever grouping of the G7 is relevant in order to re-examine the issues.
It is satisfactory to note that the Government intend to conduct a very detailed inquiry and come forward with proposals. Like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I too hope that we shall be able to debate them in this House.
The most worrying aspect of the affair is what will happen to the depositors. This case concerns a merchant bank with probably a limited number of depositors, many of them large companies. It must, however, also touch some individuals. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston said, if by some mischance or misfortune such a thing should ever happen to a clearing bank, then the situation with depositors would be much more serious. I entirely agree that we must tackle this matter cautiously and prudently. Nonetheless, we must consider the implications for the future.
We are justified in asking the Government, in their national and international role, to reassure us that they have looked again at the whole issue and have taken material, additional steps to try to prevent anything like this situation happening on this scale or possibly on an even greater scale in the future.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra, for the careful and responsible way in which they responded to the Statement of my right honourable friend the Chancellor. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for underlining the points made by my right honourable friend in the last sentence of his Statement.
I was asked a number of questions and shall try to respond as quickly and as briefly as I can. The Statement mentioned that the losses were in excess of £600 million. Indeed, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that some of the contracts have some time to run and it will therefore be a little time before the full extent of the losses are quantified. The noble Lord quite rightly pointed out that taking part in high risk business means that there are minuses as well as pluses. There is little doubt about that.
1324
Both the noble Lords asked what we would do if any other bank got into similar circumstances. It is not easy to respond to such a theoretical question. It depends greatly on the circumstances. As I said in the Statement, in this case the problem was the unlimited exposure on these outstanding contracts, which still had some time to run, and the very tight timescale in which the banks and the Bank of England had to manoeuvre and to put together a package. That had a lot of bearing on this particular matter. Clearly, other banks may have been and were prepared to come in and see whether they could help; but they were looking for some kind of cap on the unlimited liabilities and that was not available.
I was asked a question about the Board of Banking Supervision and what it will examine. Of course it will look at earlier transactions and indeed at every aspect of this case which it considers relevant. With regard to obtaining information, the Bank of England has extensive powers to glean information under the Banking Act 1987. Inevitably, it will have to rely on co-operation from overseas supervisors and exchanges. We have no reason to believe that the necessary information will not be forthcoming.The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, suggested that my right honourable friend the Chancellor might ask for an emergency meeting of the G7. I am not sure what is in my right honourable friend's mind in that respect. I should have thought that the first step is for the inquiry by the Board of Banking Supervision to report. We shall then be in a position to know exactly what happened and the steps that we should take.
To answer both noble Lords, the facts are not known in detail but it is clear that the chief dealer in the overseas subsidiary broke all the firm's internal control procedures and limitations by collusion and deceit. It appears that there may have been wider collusion and fraud. Only a full investigation will determine the facts.
With regard to deposits, the Bank of England has indicated its willingness to provide liquidity to the market so that the banking system can continue to function normally. The Deposit Protection Board will be writing to all Barings' depositors eligible for assistance under its scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether any public funds were at risk. Some public funds were on deposit with Barings. It will not be known for some time whether any losses have been incurred in that regard.
I hope that I have managed to answer at least the main questions asked by the two noble Lords.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I very much agree with the Chancellor that there was no way that he could use public money, much as he may have wished to save a bank as large as Barings and as important to the City. The Bank of England could not have provided such public money. It would have been quite wrong to have provided money for an uncapped liability.

1325
On the other hand, I find it incomprehensible that the main board of Barings did not sufficiently monitor the bank's employees around the world and allowed this kind of situation to arise. That is, however, an entirely different matter.
With regard to the Deposit Protection Board and its relationship to small depositors—I am sure that there will be such depositors—including public sector depositors, the noble Lord mentioned that they would he eligible for assistance. I am not quite sure what that means. Could he clarify that for me? Does it mean that if public sector bodies, which to a large extent might rely on government grant to survive, have lost some of that money, the Deposit Protection Board will provide resources to enable them to continue? Would it provide resources, which —much as we may regret what has happened—would be essential to keep those public sector bodies going?
Clearly, there will be some assets left in Barings and I imagine that they will be quite substantial assets. Can the noble Lord say, in the current circumstances in a bank of this size, what would be the order of priority for payment as between unsecured creditors, secured creditors, preferential creditors and depositors? I am sure that that information would be helpful to small depositors who have lost—or believe that they have lost—a lot of money. Will the noble Lord clarify that situation?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, for the reaffirmation he made at the beginning of his question regarding the need to protect public funds and the fact that the taxpayer could not be asked to stand behind this problem, but I am not entirely sure that I am grateful for some of his further more detailed questions and comments. However, I shall take refuge in the response that I shall write to him about the priority for payments from secured and unsecured creditors in this instance.
As far as we can tell, no public sector body is in the position envisaged by the noble Lord. As I mentioned earlier, it will be some time before we can get a proper grasp on the quantity of money involved. Clearly we shall need to look at any specific problems that arise in that regard. The Deposit Protection Board will help small depositors to a limit of 75 per cent. of £20,000. Therefore, the maximum the protection board will help a single depositor will be to the tune of £15,000.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can clear up one point. The press generally has stated that the decisions taken on behalf of the bank in Singapore from which all this arose were taken by a very junior official, apparently without reference to his superiors. Can my noble friend confirm whether that is so? If so, is it not a reflection on the way in which the bank is administered?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the chief dealer in the overseas subsidiary of Barings in Singapore appears to be the individual who brought about this problem, as I have already said. I should perhaps say that clearly the check
1326
sand balances in place at the time will be, and have been since this matter was exposed towards the tail end of last week, of considerable interest to Barings and the people who are to investigate.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is it correct that the dealer in question was only 26 years of age? Bearing in mind the awesome power he had over high risk investment, is that a unique situation in the banking industry?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my briefing does not contain a confirmation of the age of the individual concerned. However, I believe I saw his age stated in the newspapers as being either 26 or 28 and I have no reason to doubt that. I believe that the people who work in that rather tense environment are fairly young. Whenever I see television pictures of the floors of stock exchanges, the dealers seem to me to look, dare I say, like policemen—and getting younger by the year.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Minister may be correct in that it is relatively young people carrying out those operations. But would he not agree that they are responsible to the management within whichever organisation employs them? Though it may be true that the individual concerned was a rogue, I hope nevertheless that the inquiry will he looking at the systems of control and discipline within Barings, particularly in Singapore and perhaps in London, to see how it was possible for one trader on his own to bring a bank of this repute to its knees in such a short time. It is not simply a question of how a rogue could do it, if he was a rogue, but how it is possible that he was able to do it within our banking system.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Board of Banking Supervision, in its investigation, will be asking exactly the questions posed by the noble Lord; that is, how it happened, how such unauthorised transactions were able to take place and how they could remain undetected by the checks and balances one would expect to be in place.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I pointed out to the House on an earlier occasion that nowadays people engaged in this class of transaction mature in their mid-20s and are burnt out by 35. They cannot operate as fast as they are required to operate. The rate of information exchanged, with all the computer accessories and so forth, must involve an uprating of the rate at which information reaches the management. At this time it is not necessarily the fault of any specific management; this had to happen at some time, somewhere, before we learnt our lesson.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord makes a valid point in relation to the speed and the 24-hour nature of transactions of all kinds around the world. In regard to somebody being able to do naughty things, in the past it would have been

1327
a slower operation. Nowadays, with the use of modem super-highways and the like, it can be done readily and quickly.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the willingness on the part of banks in the City of London to inject initial capital if it had been possible to cap the liability. He referred to the difficulty of capping because of the uncertainty. Will my noble friend consider whether it will be possible at an early date to agree a cap on the basis that the certainty of a sum promised today with additional capital may be better than the uncertainty of what can be obtained from a bank in default? In that event, does he consider that the City of London may still be willing to put in additional capital or underwrite the debts rather than suffer the far greater losses that may flow from default in the City?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not a great expert in these matters. I should have thought that, with the administrator now in place, the die has been cast in that regard. As I expressed earlier to the House, the problem was the unlimited exposure. Added to that—perhaps I did not underline this point sufficiently—was the fact that a decision had to be arrived at before the opening of the Far East markets late yesterday evening. That meant that people were fighting against the clock as well as against the problems of the unlimited liabilities.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may first emphasise a point made by my noble friend Lord Peston. It is apparent from the questions and comments that have arisen in your Lordships' House on this tragic matter that this House is possessed of an expertise and wisdom which, for the sake of the nation, make it important that we should have the opportunity to discuss the matter in full when the Government are prepared to make a further Statement. Having said that, can the Minister say whether the investigation into fraud is being left to the Singapore authorities or whether, with our great experience, we are sending an assistant body of people from this country to help?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the principal investigation on the ground will be undertaken in Singapore. The point was underlined in the Statement that these events happened on the other side of the world, involving regulatory authorities and subsidiaries that exist there. Therefore, while the investigation set in train by my right honourable friend will be thorough and complete in every detail, much of the work will have to be done on the other side of the world, especially with regard to establishing what happened on those stock exchanges.
I was asked earlier whether the administrator could renegotiate contracts. I believe that that was the point of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Boardman. I am advised that he can renegotiate contracts on behalf of the bank. In relation to the debate and the report back, in the Statement I read to the House my right honourable friend said that he would report back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I have little doubt that, if he does that via a Statement, I shall be asked to come here and
1328
repeat it. I shall pass on to the usual channels the suggestion of a debate. However, I do not think that there is any point in debating the matter until the report is received.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mishcon in requesting that some time should eventually be allotted to the House so that we can discuss this matter further. Your Lordships will be aware that over the past two years there has been contemplated in many circles—by no means confined to any one party—the desirability of broadening and extending the role of bankers within our society and indeed among countries. Will the noble Lord please take note that my reticence on this subject at the moment remains in abeyance for the time being and that when the time does arrive perhaps the circumstances will justify my suspicion that bankers in general are not the last repositories of human wisdom?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think I get the drift of the noble Lord's argument. Perhaps we can at least agree that all this and everything else with regard to our knowledge of the world proves that bankers are only human as well.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the duration of the uncapped liabilities. Is it a matter of days, weeks or months?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not able to quantify the time. My understanding is that it is more days than weeks. It may be months, but it certainly is not a very long time. Some of these things have come home to roost, so to speak, already. The young gentleman concerned has not been at this business for very many weeks. I think it will take a few months to quantify, but not very many.
Lord Desai: My Lords, perhaps it needs to be said, because no one else has said it—although my noble friend Lord Peston implied it—that we had a very similar situation with BCCI. I said at the time of the BCCI debate that the Bank of England is not very good at regulation whatever else it may be good at. I do not think it is very good to say after the event that someone far away did this and we did not know it. If we operate in round the clock global markets which are technologically advanced there should already be in place systems of control both at the merchant bank level and at central bank level which can foresee the problem. This problem did not arise in the past week. From what we can gather it has been going on for about two weeks. The person concerned has been buying in. He has been operating in put rather than call options for the past week. He has been adding to his liabilities. That should have been noticed long ago. He has bought around 15,000 contracts. If he has bought 15,000 contracts, why was no one aware of it? What systems of control does the Bank of England have to check the exposure of clearing banks and merchant banks to such problems? Every time this happens everyone says, "What a marvellous response we have made". It is usually said after the event and a bank has failed. I worry that if a clearing bank is exposed to such a risk—let us hope it does not happen—we will have a substantial bill on our

1329
hands. At that stage it will have to be said that it will be a tough burden for the taxpayer to bear because the mistakes will not have been those of the taxpayer but those of the bank managers and the bank regulators.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is important that we have sensible and sound regulatory systems in place, but, dare I say it, it is perhaps only the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who thinks—I doubt whether even he thinks it—that that would necessarily prevent any kind of adverse situation arising, especially one which comes, as this appears to do, from someone behaving in a maverick way and breaking all the internal rules as well as all the other rules.
The noble Lord mentioned some other aspects. Those are exactly what the Board of Banking Supervision will be investigating, as indeed will the main regulator of Baring's Singapore subsidiary, which is the Singapore Monetary Authority. It has delegated its formal responsibility to an organisation called SIMEX, which is the Singapore International Monetary Exchange Limited. All these questions will be asked by it and we look forward to seeing the answers.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I have to declare an interest in these matters as a director of a securities house which is also a subsidiary of a bank. My noble friend will agree, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that if one is to contemplate any additional regulations in this market they would have to be agreed with every stock exchange, with every exchange involved in foreign exchange and with every user of those exchanges. We should not contemplate any legislation which places our banks at a disadvantage in international markets, however weak the regulatory bodies are in foreign countries.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes the point which was made earlier—we are dealing with an international market, international exchanges and international companies. It is all very well to call for regulation here in this country but, frankly, one has to look for sensible regulation and not overburdening regulation all around the world.

Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995
Debate resumed.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, in moving a little nearer home and looking west rather than east, perhaps we can return to the Avon (Structural Change) Order. It is clear that the county of Avon—this is no reflection on the county councillors or on the staff—has not won hearts and minds. The artificiality of the new county was always clear. Though I accept that 20:20 hindsight vision becomes even clearer 20 years on, some might say that they had a fairly clear vision of the problems even then. However, this is no reflection on the councillors, the officers and all the staff of the authority, for whom I have the greatest sympathy. Carrying out
1330
good local government is hard enough; carrying it out in the circumstances in which they have to do so is even harder.
It has seemed to me from central London that the answer which most people in that area wanted to be able to give to the question "Where do you live?" is "I live in Somerset" or "I live in Gloucestershire". It therefore seems particularly odd that their aspirations are met by the provisions for ceremonial purposes contained within the order, though that is perhaps the least of the problems of an approach which deals with structure before function. I find it a little ironic that even that aspiration has been met only in the most peripheral way.
In the case of Avon, I support the creation of the unitary authorities in place of the existing authorities for the reason I have already given, but I have considerable reservations about the order. The Minister said that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, regretted that two authorities were to continue as unitary authorities. Whatever the noble Baroness's views about counties, districts and unitary authorities, I read her amendment as regretting the technicality of the continuation—continuing authorities in that sense—and not anything directed at the particular authorities. The noble Baroness nods her head.
Outside the order, but fundamental to it, is the question of financing. Perhaps I may ask some questions in this connection before turning to the order itself. I am aware of the announcement of supplementary credit approvals allowing the capitalisation of revenue costs in connection with the costs of reorganisation. However, as your Lordships will readily appreciate, supplementary credit approvals are not grant. After reading the announcement, some questions occurred to me. The first question which I hope the Minister will be able to answer is how in the forthcoming financial year, 1995–1996, this will relate to the cap for each authority. Will there be any relaxation of the cap to take account of the recognised need for borrowing and the costs that will be incurred in connection with that borrowing?
Secondly, how will the costs be treated from 1996 onwards? Will they be disregarded for the purposes of SSA, grant and capping? This matter extends to all the costs of reorganisation, not just those that will be met by borrowing that is approved through the supplementary credit approvals. I expect that the Minister will say that the costs will be balanced by savings. Although one hopes not only that that will be the case, but that savings will outweigh costs over a period, it is inevitable that in the early years the costs will outweigh the savings. That is why I seek clarification of how those costs will be treated in the early years.
The announcement referred to supplementary credit approvals for the shadow authorities after their election. I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to give a reassurance that they will be available to the authorities after they are elected. I have heard some concern expressed in the area that that may not be the case. I should like to ask the Minister to state that sufficient amounts will be approved, but I recognise that that is

1331
probably a meaningless question. However, some recognition of the requirements of the shadow authorities would be much welcomed.
Turning to the amendment, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for expressing the concerns so succinctly in her amendment and so clearly in her speech. The noble Baroness apologised for the detail; but I believe that your Lordships will feel as I do that there was no need to apologise for that detail, which was extremely helpful. The Isle of Wight is a good example because there is consensus there about the objective and concern about the procedure. Although some of the points raised are different, that highlights the difficulties towards which authorities are heading, led by the format of the orders.
The noble Baroness referred to Article 21 of the order. I find that a difficult provision. It has been suggested that all outgoing authorities will be prevented from exercising their statutory functions. Is that so? Perhaps it will be the case if the reference to a "requirement" ceasing to have effect—that is the word used in the article—means that the transferor authority cannot deal with the subject matter at its discretion. Even if the article is not so tightly drawn, the transfer of responsibilities under the article will lead to real problems in the real world of real difficulties, even with the maximum of co-operation and goodwill.
Incoming authorities will not have the staff to take over immediately—nor the departmental or committee structures that will be necessary. I share the fears that have been expressed about the potential limbo for matters on which there is a statutory duty to consult. I refer, for example, to community care plans, to amendments to schemes for the local management of schools, and to school admissions.
Is Article 19 sufficient to cover the gap? I should be delighted if it signalled that the Government were open to local authorities having a power of general competence, but I do not think that that is so. Local authorities need specific powers. I, too, am concerned that, taken together, Articles 19 and 21 will not be adequate.
I also share the concerns about the effect on staffing and on individual staff. Although I shall not develop my anxieties about the latter now, perhaps I may endorse what has been said about the human element of the problem. I believe that Staff Commission Circular No. 4 encourages continuing authorities to restructure and to create as many new posts as possible as a way of getting round the distinctions in staffing and the need for staffing for the new authorities. Restructuring and creating new posts seems just the sort of artificiality for which central government criticise local government. I believe that that could be open to challenge in an industrial tribunal. Indeed, more restructuring must mean more redundancies and a higher redundancy bill. I am concerned about the fact that that is the recommended approach. Indeed, the fact that that has been recommended seems to point to an enormous defect in the order and in the procedure.
It has also been suggested that Avon and Somerset Police Authority will be unable in 1995–96 to consider matters relating to the period after April 1996 on the
1332
basis that members who will not be there after 1996 cannot take part in that decision-making process. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point. If that is correct—I hope that it is not—I hope that the Minister can comment on how forward planning can be achieved in such difficult circumstances.
Authorities which presently provide services, including education and social services, appear to have no right to be consulted by the new authorities. No doubt that consultation will take place as a matter of good planning, but perhaps the Minister can assist the House by saying why that has not been included in the drafting.
I appreciate that I have dealt with a number of technical matters, but they are real matters to those who have to implement the order. Much reference has been made in debates on the reorganisation throughout the country to the need for an "early win", as the chairman of the commission referred to it. I notice that the Official Report of another place on this debate referred to an "early wind". The writer had perhaps misheard—or had perhaps put his own cast on the point. I wish the authorities a "fair wind", and I hope that they have a "win" and success. However, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, in having considerable reservations both about the content of, and the omissions from, the order.
4.37 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a proud inhabitant of the city and county of Bristol. I address your Lordships' House in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington.
The Avon (Structural Change) Order which has been placed before your Lordships' House neither recognises the need for a unitary authority that would encompass the whole of the urban area of Bristol nor the desire of many to return to their former counties of Somerset and Gloucester. However, rather than encourage your Lordships to reject the order (because the process has already been painfully drawn out over the past three years to the detriment of those who work in local government as well as the people of Avon) I hope that the House will support the amendment.
I am delighted that so many people have spoken warmly about the councillors and officers of Avon and its local councils. Over the past three years they have worked very well together in trying to plan for the future. They are committed to the good of the people of Avon, despite some of the technical flaws which appear in the order. I should like to share three of those flaws with the House.
We have already heard much about the distinction between continuing and new authorities. There is a commitment on the part of all the local councils and the unions that all staff should be fairly and equally dealt with under a common approach. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to give the House the assurance that the principle of a national detriment compensation scheme for local government staff who lose pay—I

1333
stress "pay", not posts—as a result of the restructuring will be honoured. That is an important point, and many look forward to hearing that assurance.
The House has already heard of the concern over planning which comes under Article 15. The Minister said clearly that the Government have decided that there does not need to be a statutory requirement for joint preparation of structural plans but that the plans are being devolved to the four local authorities. The travel-to-work area for Bristol and its surroundings will cover three unitary authorities. While it is fine to plan together when there is good will, the law is there when the good will is not to be found among the bodies concerned. The law exists to protect the worst situation, not to deal with the best. Although the Minister said that the Government did not believe it necessary, I hope that there may be a rethink in this area.
We have already heard about policing. I am delighted to hear the Minister claim that there will be a co-ordinating body with regard to the fire authorities, because many people are disturbed, at present and under the present order, about whether there will be co-ordination of emergency services. One authority has been promised. We trust that that will be the case and that it will come quickly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the money required to effect the change from one pattern of local government to another. Many people feel that the cost of implementing the changes and the new authorities to provide services to the people of Avon is already underfunded for various reasons, not least the present system of calculating SSA. We hope that the Government will listen to the pleas that have come from local authorities, because we believe that the underfunding is detrimental to the people of Avon and the services which the four unitary authorities are being asked to provide. I hope that the House will support the amendment.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench would have liked to have been able to return to that august department of which he is a distinguished ornament and have said that the order had been welcomed warmly. It would be churlish of me if I did not say at a very early stage in my speech how grateful I am to his right honourable friend who, I recognise, is not the initiator of the commission but just the heir to its recommendations. He drew back from the commission's original idea of making a mess of Somerset. For that, I am genuinely and sincerely grateful. I hope that my noble friend will pass on my cordial thanks to his right honourable friend.
When the commission was first launched I thought what a very good idea it was to go around to find out what people wanted. Of course, I had taken a rather naive position. It appeared later that the Government had a clear idea of what they wanted to do; the commission was not at all slow to pick that up, and thereafter listened with attention to what the district councils had to say but did not do very much to find out what the general public thought about the proposals. So
1334
we had this rather difficult process of reversing the tide which at one time seemed to flow inexorably towards unitary authorities.
I had hoped originally that the whole exercise might produce an opportunity to restore Somerset to that state which it had enjoyed before being rudely dismembered in the early 1970s. Here I have, sadly, to make a confession: although I had no direct responsibility for that decision, nevertheless I had the doubtful privilege at that time of labouring in the DoE, and I am so sorry that I did not then express my distaste for the proposal.
I shall return to the order, which will leave the people of Avon labouring under four separate unitary authorities. I should like to express some doubt about the wisdom of separating so many of the arrangements from what is happening on the ground. To my mind, the value of ceremony is that it is linked with what is done. If we have ceremony which has no basis, it is apt to look foolish. I just wonder whether the Government have been wise in the rather papered-over compromise they have reached.
Joint arrangements for key services is a concept about which it is easy to talk, but, as the right reverend Prelate said —I agree with him entirely—when there is good will and no particular conflict, it is easy but when conflict arises it becomes difficult. The proliferation of boundaries which this arrangement will produce is a potential source of great difficulties. I agreed also with the right reverend Prelate in what he said about the boundaries of Bristol. It is rather odd that a large part of the urban area of the city should be dismembered. It is clear that the Government will have to return to that problem before very long. I must express some surprise that they did not seize the opportunity, take the bull by the horns and deal with it now.
There is then the argument about costs versus savings. Costs are real and immediate. People have to dip into their pockets to meet them. Savings are very much more remote and speculative. It is probably asking too much of my noble friend to make any precise forecast about when the savings might be realised and when the people who now reside in Avon will be the happy recipients of those benefits. It may not be until their grandchildren are affected or even after that. It is a bit remote for people to take present pleasure from.
I appreciate the difficulty my noble friend is in this afternoon. He said that the order would end the uncertainty. Well, maybe. A decision has been made, but it is a rather messy one. As he was more or less bound to, he said that the Government hoped and expected that everyone would now co-operate in a reasonable manner. But that is stretching optimism a bit too far. I am sure that it is within the recollection of all noble Lords that people are not always reasonable, particularly in areas of government. People defend their boundaries with real resolve and determination.
While I hope that everyone will be peaceful and happy under this arrangement, I fear that it is a messy one, of which the benefit, if any, will be long postponed and the enjoyment very small indeed. I shall not detain your Lordships further, but with the air of mild disapproval to which the noble Baroness characteristically and kindly restrained herself, I am

1335
willing to support her amendment. I feel sorry for my noble friend in that he is unable to go back to that awful department clothed in the garlands of a victor.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for speaking in the gap. I did not realise that there would be a Statement and I thought that I should not be back in time for the debate. I shall speak very briefly.
I am not at all clear about the decision with regard to staff and duties which require special knowledge and experience. As I understand it, the unitary authorities will stay in place and the staff will be added to them. Those staff will have to undertake duties which they had not previously carried out.
I wish to speak in particular about social services. It will be impossible for staff without the necessary experience and training to administer the law in the field of social services. What will be the position of members of staff who have devolved upon them duties which they have not previously carried out? Will provision be made for senior posts so that the departments are able to administer the requirements of the Children Act 1989, the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, community care and so on? All that needs training, experience and managerial structure. I am not clear about that and I should be grateful for some help on that matter.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the order and I shall speak also to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Farrington. It is clear that the principle of the orders for unitary authorities enjoys widespread local support, in fact, some of the strongest local support in the country. Some 72 per cent. of the population polled by the Local Government Commission favoured the reorganisation and only 16 per cent. were against it.
The order would ensure that Bristol which (with Norwich) until the Industrial Revolution, was one of the second cities of England, would regain the full competence that it enjoyed from the 14th century until 1974, as would the continuing authority of North West Somerset and the two new merged authorities of Bath and North East Somerset, one of which was Wansdyke and South Gloucestershire, and the other which was Kingswood and North Avon. In other words, of the six district authorities, two remain as is and the other four merge into two pairs of two.
As the Minister said, apart from Bristol, which has become both a county and a city, the local authorities will revert to Somerset and Gloucester for ceremonial purposes. But although those reorganisations enjoy a great deal of public support, some worries which I share have been quite rightly expressed by your Lordships, and I hope that the Minister will address them.
The first of those anxieties is that there is a problem about the continuing authorities. That was raised by my noble friend Lady Farrington. Two authorities are on the same boundaries and they are continuing; two are new. There will be all-out elections for the four authorities in
1336
May 1995—in nine weeks' time—whereupon the continuing and shadow authorities will have the same ability to plan, budget and employ. Nevertheless, Avon's staff have real and justified fears that in the continuing authorities, which have a two months' head start, there will be a presumption in favour of existing staff and that county staff may be disadvantaged. I know that the Minister in the other place expressed the hope that there will be honourable and decent solutions but it may be appropriate to issue more general guidance should that situation occur. It is unfortunate and we all recognise that.
There are two continuing authorities because they remain in the existing boundaries. As the right reverend Prelate said, that is clearly a matter of considerable anxiety in Bristol where existing boundaries appear to wander rather vaguely and absent-mindedly through the middle of people's back gardens.
I appreciate that the neighbouring districts of Kingswood and North Avon have no wish to see Bristol's boundaries enlarged at their expense. I realise also that the Local Government Commission ducked the issue and that the Boundary Commission has the power to follow that up subsequently. But at the very least, I believe that everyone agrees that a minor tidying up would have been sensible. The Secretary of State should have had the courage to do so in the light of local calls not only from the CBI but also from the local Labour Party and, this evening, from the Church.
I am less persuaded than is my noble friend Lady Farrington that there is a problem in relation to the transfer of services. On the contrary, many of us are confident that the districts, whose sizes range from 163,000 to nearly 400,000 people—larger than many existing London boroughs and metropolitan authorities—are entirely competent to perform the range of services. Certainly, the Audit Commission and the Local Government Commission agree with that.
It is appropriate also for the order to refer to statutory functions such as police and fire services. It would be unwise for the order to carry detailed arrangements for other services when the Secretary of State has the power to make subordinate and detailed legislation tailored to the local situation as required by Sections 19 and 22 of the Act. That detail should be dealt with not in the order but by supplementary regulations. That is a sensible way in which to proceed.
The same staff anxieties raised by the Cleveland order have not been allayed in relation to this order. I admit that all the authorities concerned have agreed to avoid compulsory redundancies before transfer and have agreed also to work within the national agreements on salary protection, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate.
It is the case also that the compensation for voluntary severance for those under the age of 50 is less generous than it was in 1986. For the life of me, I do not understand why the Minister has not deemed it worthwhile to smooth what is inevitably a traumatic experience for the dedicated staff of Avon County Council with the more generous terms which were widely and properly applied in 1986.

1337
Finally—and this was a fear expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber—my wider fear is that the reorganisation is taking place against a background not merely of inadequate finance for the structural reorganisation itself but against a background of the most severe financial restraint ever experienced by a local government—a shortfall of £1.5 billion before the pay and price increases of next year. For example, my own authority of Norwich will have lost 40 per cent. of its staff in four years. Some of its services may disappear entirely. Sensible, moderate local authorities across the country propose to go beyond their capping limits with the support in many cases of all three political parties rather than in a year wreck what has been built up over decades. School governors are in revolt across middle England as they sack experienced teachers because they can no longer afford to pay their salaries.
I hope that the Minister appreciates that to cut local authority expenditure on services in real terms at the time at which the reorganisation is taking place is the deepest folly. Severe cuts, the closure of services and compulsory redundancies which authorities like mine may face for the first time in decades will be attributed to reorganisation when instead it is due to the SSA determination and the revenue support settlement.
For local government reorganisation to generate the improvement to local and accountable services, which I believe is needed, requires at least a level playing field as regards finance. By refusing that, the Minister—and he should not take it lightly—is jeopardising his own local government review.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has taken time off to criticise this year's settlement rather than to address her remarks to the changes which are to take place in Avon. I do not criticise her for that; it is another opportunity to make such a criticism. However, I am glad that the noble Baroness began her remarks by saying how much the reorganisation has been supported locally as regards what is happening in Avon. In that, I believe that the noble Baroness encapsulated the feelings of local people; as, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee suggested. I have no query with what the noble Baroness said. No one on this side of the House questions the dedication of the staff or the officers of Avon County Council. But, somehow, Avon as a county—not as a county council—has not won the hearts and minds of people generally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked me a number of questions. I believe that it would be right for me to try to piece together some of the answers for her because I am speaking now in reply to her amendment. The noble Baroness asked for some reassurance on what authorities can and cannot do at various times in the implementation process. I hope that I can provide the noble Baroness with that reassurance.
Before the elections, all authorities can do what they need to do to prepare for reorganisation, but with some responsibilities being reserved until after the elections. As I said earlier in my opening remarks, the essential
1338
distinction is that decisions, including those on appointments, should be made after the elections by authorities with their new electoral mandates. Authorities can consider the options of how they want to deliver their services and the officers that they might need before the elections. Such consideration could involve drawing up a draft job specification. However, we believe that the actual decisions should be left until after the elections.
I believe that is a very sensible division of responsibilities. It allows authorities to get off to a good start, but ensures that councillors elected to a unitary authority decide how the authority is run. That also suggests that all of the authorities elected in May are, to some degree—and, perhaps, a greater degree—new. They will have new councillors who will not necessarily be bound by the decisions of their predecessors. However, I am sure that the co-operation that I mentioned will be in place and that the new councillors will tackle the challenges, as they find them, of a unitary authority with a fresh approach.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked me about specialist staff. I should tell my noble friend that, in fact, we expect that 90 per cent. of the staff will transfer across from Avon County Council to the new unitary authorities. That means that all the front-line service providers, such as the care workers from social services, will transfer by a statutory transfer order. That will ensure that the provision of services will continue. The unitary authorities will have the power to appoint staff, including chief officers, once the elections have been held in May. I believe that my noble friend's concerns about specialist staff are misplaced. Indeed, I am sure that all unitary authorities will be well aware of the statutory requirements that they will have to undertake and that they will ensure that the staff they have are the specialists that they require.
It has been said that, even if the powers are equal, the districts which are combined cannot be expected to co-operate fully and that, as a result, the new authorities are at a practical disadvantage. However, I believe that we have to question that assumption. Is it right? We need to look simply at what is in the interests of the councillors on the districts which are to be combined. Many councillors in those districts will want to be councillors in the new, unitary authorities. They will know that their positions and work in the future will depend very much upon what they do now and that they will be judged by the electorate at the time.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Farrington and Lady Hamwee, also raised the issues regarding the effect of Article 21. We have studied the article most carefully. It is straightforward and simply removes from authorities which are to be abolished any duties which require them to prepare budgets or plans for the years after they are abolished and passes those duties to the successor authorities. Not to make the successor authorities responsible for deciding the way in which they are to deliver services would be indefensible. However, the order does not prevent authorities which are to be abolished from working in those areas; indeed, the duty to co-operate promotes that.

1339
The Government are satisfied that, taken together, the provisions are adequate to enable the ongoing provision of services in the run-up to reorganisation. It is said that the level of service delivery will decline as a result of reorganisation. I believe that that concern was expressed by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and other speakers. We do not accept that dividing a service between four unitary authorities means that the service would be damaged. In the particular case of Avon, as I said, all the authorities involved have already been working very hard on implementation to ensure a smooth transfer of services. As a part of that work, they have been considering a number of services where joint arrangements might be appropriate. As I understand it, such services include the Social Services Court Team, the Child Protection Register, special education and the Central Library. Concern has been expressed in respect of all of those services. I am encouraged that the authorities involved are looking very carefully at the provision of such services. As my noble friend Lord Peyton emphasised, they are key and important services. I believe that the new authorities will undertake them in a sensible way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Peyton, raised the issue of the cost of reorganisation. In the case of Avon, both the Local Government Commission and the districts believe that reorganisation will produce net savings. We believe that the supplementary credit approvals that we shall be making available will enable authorities to meet any net costs which arise in the short term without making any significant impact on the revenue accounts of the new authorities. Therefore, there should be no need for any adjustment to the authorities' SSA grant or capping limits. As for the years after 1995–96, we shall announce the arrangements for transitional costs nearer the time. However, we do not envisage the need for significant changes.
My noble friend Lord Peyton asked me when those savings would be made and whether it would be for the benefit of our grandchildren should Avon produce such savings. It is difficult to forecast exactly when savings will show through. Indeed, much depends on how authorities implement reorganisation. However, the estimates made by the Local Government Commission suggest that costs will be paid off within around five to 10 years and that, after that, net savings should benefit local people year after year. Perhaps I may remind my noble friend that the commission's estimates of ongoing savings are between £5 million and £9 million each year. Of course, they will be continuing savings.
My noble friend and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol also asked about the boundary review of Bristol and whether comment would be made upon the shape of the boundaries. The Local Government Commission considered and rejected proposals to extend the boundary of Bristol. I believe that the Government have made their position on future boundary reviews of Bristol quite clear. The purpose of any future boundary review will only be to correct minor anomalies, although the Government have made
1340
no decision on precise timing. Such a review would not take place until after reorganisation when the unitary authorities will have had time to bed down.
The right reverend Prelate also asked me about the staff who may have to take a drop in salary and whether they would be protected. We recently consulted on a scheme for detriment compensation—that is, compensation for a drop in earnings —for those remaining in local government employment. At present, we are considering the responses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked why the compensation for redundancy is not as good as it was in 1986. All I have to say to her is that times are different. Things are not the same as they were in 1986, and anyway the local authorities are given discretion to pay up to 66 weeks' pay based on age, service and banding to eligible staff below the age of 50. These arrangements are, as I have mentioned to the noble Baroness before, at the maximum 2.7 times more generous than otherwise statutorily provided under employment legislation. I think that many private sector companies would like to be in that rather privileged position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the future planning for the Avon and Somerset police authority. I assure her that there is no question of the police authority as a result of this order being unable to make plans for the time after 1996. It is only after October 1995 that representatives of the new authorities will take over the planning role, but there is nothing to prevent the existing authorities from starting work on that already in the time between the elections and October.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, asked me why successor authorities have a right of access to information but authorities which are being abolished have no equivalent right. All the authorities have to co-operate, and I believe that this will cover most cases, especially when authorities are working together positively, as they are currently in Avon. But there is a more detailed point here. In order to plan properly the authorities which are taking over functions will need access to information which might otherwise be covered by the requirements for data protection. Authorities which are being abolished will not be in the position of needing such information from their successors. Therefore I think that that point is covered by that part of the order.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, also indicated that there was inadequate consultation with the county council. The Government have been accused of giving authorities in Avon an inadequate opportunity to comment on the draft order. This simply is not the case. The Government allowed authorities as long as possible to make comments, and the High Court made it quite clear that sufficient time had been allowed for consultation on these matters. Of course if the orders were not made early enough to allow elections to be arranged for May this year, reorganisation would be delayed for a year. This would prolong the uncertainty, particularly for staff of authorities to be abolished, and especially for Avon County Council. I am sure that noble Lords would not have wished that to happen.

1341
My noble friend Lord Peyton indicated that the Government have taken a wise decision with regard to Somerset. I think also that we have taken a wise decision to accept the recommendations of the Local Government Commission which in this instance has, I believe, listened to the opinion—this was also brought to the fore by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—of local people. The authorities to be put in place instead of Avon County Council are those which will not only provide the services for local people but will also be broadly welcomed.
The people of Avon have indicated that they want change. Throughout the Local Government Commission's consultation process, only about 100 members of the public, businesses and local bodies wrote to the Government out of a population of some 970,000. In all four of the proposed unitary authorities the commission's polls showed more support for the commission's final recommendation than the present two-tier structure. The purpose of the review, which has been stated frequently by the Government, is to secure for each area the structure of local government which is accountable, reflects the identity and confidence of local people and provides services efficiently and cost-effectively to the community.
I hope that during the course of my remarks I have been able to answer most of the questions put to me by noble Lords. Therefore in the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, will feel able to withdraw the amendment which she has tabled. The Government believe, and are confident, that the structure proposed by the commission for Avon, and implemented by this order, will achieve what I have mentioned. I commend the order to the House.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful reply. I hope he will understand that after I have had a chance to read the detail of some of his technical comments in Hansard I may wish to take them up in writing. I thank all those who have taken part in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, spoke with strong local knowledge and that is important when we consider the future of local government. I am also grateful for the support I received from my noble friend Lady Hollis.
I fear I have to disagree with the Minister as regards seeing as separate the funding for local government, because the cost of reorganisation is being met by £50 million being top-sliced from the rest of local government expenditure in England in the current year at a time when local authorities can ill afford to lose that. Therefore there is a concern there. Many points of detail have been raised. Perhaps the most important concern still remains that of the continuing authority and the equal treatment of staff.
As I said, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. I am a new Member of your Lordships' House. I have certainly learnt in the comparatively short time that I have been here how much knowledge
1342
Members of this House bring from their different backgrounds. It is certainly evidenced in the thoughtful and knowledgeable speeches that have been made. I do not believe on this occasion that the case would be put more strongly by carrying this amendment to a Vote. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1995
5.17 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this draft order I wish to speak also to the other four draft orders. These orders build upon the Government's sector-by-sector reform of social security. Our aims are to modernise our welfare state, to make it affordable and to focus help on areas of real need. Once again we will meet our pledges on the level of benefits.
All the main social security benefits will increase fully in line with prices in four weeks' time. As a result of the uprating, retirement pension for a couple will rise by £2 a week. All pensioner couples without other means will be entitled to more than £100 a week. Pensioners will gain over £700 million, long-term sick and disabled people will gain over £400 million and families over £250 million. In total this up-rating of benefits will cost about £1.5 billion. Our policies have continued to protect those most in need by targeting resources on those who need them most. By the Social Security Select Committee's own calculations the safety net of income support is 15 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. The extra help made available to low-income families with children since 1988 is worth £1 billion, and to poorer pensioners £1.2 billion. And since 1979 more than five times as many disabled people receive help with the costs of their care or mobility. That is the measure of our commitment to protecting those most in need. Overall, we are spending £84 billion on social security this year. To pay for it costs every working person £15 per working day.
Spending is forecast to grow by 1.3 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years. After that, growth is expected to resume at an underlying rate of 2.1 per cent. a year up to the end of the century. But even that is significantly lower than the 3.3 per cent. forecast 18 months ago in Growth of Social Security.
By the year 2001 spending on social security is projected to be almost £8 billion less than forecast in Growth of Social Security. Lower unemployment accounts for a quarter of that reduction, as unemployment is less than previously assumed. More than half of the reduction is due to policy changes as reforms take effect.
The need to contain the cost of social security is not unique to the United Kingdom, but many governments are still not looking beyond funding by the state as the solution. Funding by the state means funding by businesses and taxpayers. It damages competitiveness and threatens economic growth. Our approach reduces the burden on taxpayers and protects those most in need while giving more opportunities for individuals to provide for themselves. That is what we are doing in our reforms in relation to pensions, unemployed people, families, lone parents and disabled people.
We are continuing our reform of the sickness and invalidity benefits with two new measures from April. First, the new incapacity benefit will focus on those who are genuinely incapable of work through a more objective test of incapacity. Secondly, one of the orders before the House today will introduce from April a new scheme to give all employers help if a large proportion of their workforce is off sick at any one time. It will be straightforward to operate, will protect cash flow and will continue to give small businesses the lion's share of statutory sick pay reimbursement. The new scheme has been welcomed by the CBI, the Forum of Private Business, the Federation of Small Businesses and the TUC.
One area where spending is still growing fast is housing costs. The cost of support for housing through housing benefit and income support has more than doubled in real terms since 1988–89. It now amounts to £11 billion. It is essential to keep costs under control. Therefore, in November my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced major reforms. They will give private sector tenants more interest in the level of rents, putting unreasonably high rents under pressure. They will give home-owners more comprehensive protection when they have difficulty paying their mortgages. The present arrangements for home-owners are far from satisfactory. Some 150,000 unemployed people cannot get help with their mortgages. In fact, 70 per cent. of all home-owners would not be covered by income support because they have a working partner, savings or some other income.
We have already begun a process of informal consultation with interested parties for our new proposals. Regarding the changes to housing benefits, officials of my department have already met representatives of the local authority associations, the Institute of Rent Officers and several other interested groups. This week we shall formally consult the Social Security Advisory Committee, which we envisage will go out to public consultation. We shall also consult the local authority associations. It is important that their views should be fed into the detail of the policy, including the working up of a system so that prospective tenants will have an idea of how much housing benefit will be payable before they sign a tenancy.
The Social Security Advisory Committee's consultation document on mortgage interest in income support issued on 10th February invites comments from all interested parties. We are also continuing discussions with lenders and insurers to make sure that the interface between state and private provision works well.
Already one in three new mortgage holders takes out insurance. I am sure that the insurance industry will respond with good quality insurance cover. New products are entering the market all the time and there is evidence that competition is driving prices down. Buying such insurance direct now costs an average 4p in every £1 of monthly repayment. I am confident that that will lead to fewer defaults, fewer repossessions and a healthier housing market.
The area of greatest scope for saving has no direct effect on benefit levels. That is why cutting back on fraud remains a priority. Fraud savings are already at a record high. The Benefits Agency identified and stopped fraud worth £654 million in 1993–94. In April it will begin a five-year programme of investment to switch emphasis away from detecting fraud to preventing it happening in the first place.
Most fraud involves false declarations of earnings or circumstances. So the Benefits Agency will be making more checks and more home visits and making better use of information already held on our computer systems to help spot fraudsters. That should deliver substantial savings of more than £2.5 billion over the first three years.
One of our objectives is undoubtedly keeping expenditure under control. Another important objective is to meet concerns about the debilitating effect of dependency on benefit. More and more people are anxious about the prospect of an increasing proportion of people of working age being dependent on the state. Before our reforms the debate was about helping people on benefit. We still aim to do that, but the whole focus of the debate has now moved towards helping people off benefit and into work. The most effective way of raising living standards and the prospects of unemployed people of working age is by helping them to return to work, as we discussed at Question Time this afternoon.
We have been working on that for a number of years. In 1992 we reduced the number of hours required to qualify for family credit from 24 hours a week to 16 hours a week. In 1993 we introduced the family credit helpline so that people could have easy access to information about how family credit and other benefits could make them better off in work. In 1994 we removed one of the major stumbling blocks preventing families returning to work through our help with childcare costs in the in-work benefits. And in April we are making significant enhancements in the disability working allowance to help more disabled people participate in work.
The process of helping people return to work continues with the package which my right honourable friend announced last November. Like the other benefits, family credit will increase in April in line with inflation. For example, the maximum family credit payable to a family with two children aged eight and 13 will rise from £74.05 to £75.40—an increase of £1.35 per week.
But because benefits reduce as earnings rise, someone working 30 hours a week at, say, £4 an hour receives only £3 more than a person working just 16 hours. That is not right. Therefore, from July this year our £10

1345
longer hours premium in family credit and disability working allowance will make full-time work more attractive for those working 30 hours or more a week. Those on housing benefit or council tax benefit will receive the full benefit of the extra £10.
From April 1996 people who take a job after six months unemployment will be able to keep their housing benefit at their existing full rate for an extra four weeks. Local authorities will be encouraged to arrange any continuing in-work housing benefit award within that period.
We also aim to speed up the payment of family credit so that people in work will receive that extra help more quickly.
From October 1996 the tax free back-to-work bonus of up to £1,000 will be a considerable help in smoothing a family's income flow on taking up work. A lump sum of up to £1,000 could potentially be paid on top of the back-to-work bonus.
Encouraging employers to take on more unemployed people is another important aspect of one of the orders before us today. The order encourages employers to take on people who are long-term unemployed, who are normally less skilled. This April employers' contributions will be cut by 0.6 per cent. for all employees earning less than £205 a week. In addition, we are encouraging employers to take on more people who have been unemployed. From April 1996 employers will have a one year holiday from the employer's national insurance contribution for every person they take on who has been unemployed for the previous two years.
Finally, we are introducing a radical innovation in social policy. The majority of the long-term unemployed are childless. From October 1996 we shall be setting up a substantial pilot study in eight locations of an in-work benefit for that group which will run for three years. My right honourable friend Peter Lilley will be publishing a consultation document in the spring.
Our package of incentives will help 750,000 people during the course of a year. We will be adding an extra £300 million in benefits and cutting costs to business by £300 million—in all a £600 million package to help people move from dependency on benefits to control over their own circumstances.
The orders before the House today provide for an up-rating of all major benefits and a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions for the second year running. We have met our pledges to pensioners and families. The orders are another important step to improve the social security system. Our plans include a £600 million package to help people out of dependency into work, sensible reforms to curb the costs of benefits for housing and a far-reaching strategy to prevent fraud. They will increase incomes by opportunity, help and incentives. I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as the Minister said, the up-rating statement is mostly routine. It up-rates in the light of inflation. Last November, when we discussed the issues within the context of the Budget Statement, the House had a fairly major debate on almost all the points raised by the Minister. I do not propose to repeat them tonight. Therefore I shall be brief. However, I wish to pick up two issues raised by the Minister before making the points that I had proposed to make.
First, the Minister spoke more widely than merely on the up-ratings before us. He referred to proposed changes in housing benefit and mortgage benefit which are not specifically the subject of today's orders. Perhaps I may re-emphasise the warning given already in this House and in another place that in terms of housing benefit for private tenants any housing Minister would be able to tell any social security Minister that out there it is a landlord's market regarding rent, and tenants are not in a position to shop around for cheaper property of acceptable quality at an acceptable rent. Therefore the hopes and expectations that the Minister for Social Security apparently applies to this part of his policy—I suspect that the Minister for Housing will agree with me—cannot be met.
The Minister referred to withdrawal of income support for mortgages, with the expectation that for many, if not most, in future that cover will be met by insurance companies. I can only repeat the serious warnings given by that most responsible body, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, that the Government's policy of insisting on insurance and the withdrawal of income support will lead to an increase of between 15,000 and 24,000 repossessions over and beyond the current 50,000 a year. In addition, increasingly those areas in which properties are not easy to sell will become virtually red lined areas, as we saw in the 1970s, for which it will not be possible to attract mortgage or insurance cover. Properties will become virtually unsaleable. The Minister's policies may well create the very "sink tank" estates regarding which his right honourable friend the Minister for Housing has spent so much time and energy and so many resources seeking to overcome. Those of us whose portfolios sometimes range across housing and social security wish that Ministers would talk to one another about what happens when one department exports the costs of its policies to another department and therefore subverts what that department seeks to do.
I had not expected the Minister to range quite so widely on the issue. However, perhaps I may pick up this point. The Minister stated that the Government propose a pilot study to extend family credit to those without families. That proposal is no doubt well intentioned. However, I ask the Minister to be aware of the perverse consequences of such a policy. It is an encouragement to employers everywhere to press wage bills and wages down to whatever level they can get away with, knowing that the Government will subsidise the wage bill for them in the name of family credit, if those people have children, and "non-family credit" if they do not.

1347
It is very odd indeed that, on the one hand, we see a series of national insurance measures—statutory sick pay, no doubt maternity pay and the like—which should properly be funded by the taxpayer pushed on to the employer, whereas the one area of responsibility that one might reasonably expect the employer to provide, a decent living wage, is increasingly being sustained by the taxpayer. It is a rather odd and perverse swapping of functions which in our view is folly.
I wish to spend a little more time on an issue which, so far as I am aware, has not been raised in your Lordships' House for some time. I turn my attention not to benefits which have been up-rated but to the string of benefits (so far as I am aware there are at least 30) which have not been up-rated. I ask the Minister to tell the House why that is so. For example, the widow's payment of £1,000, fixed in 1988 and frozen in 1988, would, if it were prices-linked today, be worth nearly £1,400. If it were earnings-linked it would be worth over £1,500. The payment remains at £1,000. Are widows not worth more than that? Do the Government think of them so lightly that they freeze their benefit at 1988 figures?
Let us take the war pensions disregard of £10 which was frozen in April 1990. It would have been worth £12.45 in prices terms and £12.75 in earnings terms today. Does the Minister think so lightly of war pensioners and of the disregard that he freezes the sum at 1990 figures?
Alternatively, let us take a matter that affects many people: the capital limits for a single person on income support or housing benefit for families on family credit. The sums were fixed in 1988 and 1990 respectively at £3,000, which would now be worth £4,000, or, if earnings related, £4,500. Why have the Government frozen those earnings disregards? In the light of the Minister's remarks five minutes ago, they are precisely the bait that would have encouraged so many people back into work because they could have kept more of their earnings.
What about the disregard for those on unemployment benefit? The sum of £2 per day was frozen in 1982; it would have been worth nearly double that sum if it had been prices-linked today. What about the £5 earnings disregard for income support which was frozen in 1988? It would have been worth £6.85 today. The occupational pension limit for unemployment benefit was frozen at £35 by this Government in 1981. If the sum were prices-linked today it would have been worth £72.60, or £95 if earnings-linked.
Are widows, war pensioners and those who are hit by the capital limits so unimportant to the Government that they have frozen those benefits in real cash terms for five or seven years? While forcing more people on to means tested benefit, the Government are freezing the disregards and the capping figures which go with those means-tested benefits so that those means-tested benefits become worth less and less in real terms. Whatever the Minister may say, that policy means a cut in real income to the poorest, for whom every pound counts.
I do not wish to anticipate the debate on the Rowntree Report on widening inequality. We had a trailer today for the debate that we shall have on Wednesday. However, as
1348
a result of government policy, we now see too wide a gap between those on benefit and those in work. In the 1970s it was clear that benefits reduced inequality and to some degree compensated for it. It is also clear that by the mid-1980s, and especially since 1988, benefits have widened the inequality regarding average earnings. The basic pension was a quarter of average earnings; the figure has now drifted down to 17 per cent., and at the end of the century will be 11 per cent., with all the implications which that involves for the elderly.
We accept that average incomes for pensioners, and for the population as a whole, have risen, and that is valuable. However, it remains true that the bottom 10 per cent. has fallen in real terms and that in all groups such as families with children and pensioners inequality has widened within each sector, as well as within society as a whole. That has not only been reinforced by breaking the link with earnings and therefore increasingly ensuring that those on benefits do not enjoy any increase in the prosperity enjoyed by the rest of us—they stay still in real terms. But it has also extended the range of means testing at the expense of contributory non-means-tested benefit.
The Minister referred to the incapacity benefit and the jobseeker's allowance. The consequence of the measures is that under the Tory Government we have been warping a welfare state into perverse policies which no one can believe are sensible. I give an obvious example. If a husband is in full-time work and his wife is in part-time work and the husband loses his job, then after six months the Jobseekers Bill comes into play and he will be on a means-tested benefit. For every £1 that his wife earns in her part-time job, he will lose £1. He will then stop work and they will move from a work-rich to a work-poor household in which they are both fully dependent on all the other benefits: housing benefit, council tax benefit and the like. In order to spring out of that dependence on benefits, both will have to find work but are unlikely to do so. In other words, for the short-term gain of moving away from contributory to means-tested benefits, the Government have locked family after family into a dependence on benefits from which they can never break free. That is perverse, stupid and folly; it is unkind and indecent.
What saddens me is that since the war and under Beveridge and Nye Bevan, the welfare state and the social security system were designed to reduce poverty and inequality, and to offer a springboard of opportunity. For 35 years, until the early 1980s, the social security system helped do precisely that. As a result of the folly and shortsightedness of the Government's policies, accentuated since 1988 and now with a further rash of perverse social security measures, instead of becoming part of the solution, social security has, to use a cliché, become part of the problem. Almost every new legislative proposal of the Government on social security will make the problem worse. We must rebuild an intelligent welfare state. We have given up the hope that the Conservative Government may do so; we look forward to our opportunity to do so in due course.
5.42 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, without dissenting from anything that the noble Baroness said—and I shall agree in due course with a substantial part of it—I wish nevertheless to take the opportunity to congratulate the Department of Social Security. This year's up-rating statement is a landmark in ways which we have not entirely perceived. During the past three years, the budget of the Department of Social Security has been under intense pressure, for reasons which we understand. I would not say that there have been no cuts in that time. Under the next government—of whatever complexion—the system may need up to 20 stitches. I believe that the savings through the Incapacity Bill will be illusory, as those from the Child Support Act have been. Nevertheless, the system will not need to be taken into intensive care; it is still working.
Under that pressure, the order marks a quite remarkable recognition which is now a consensus of three parties, or at least two-and-a-half. The consensus is that although the social security budget is clearly alarmingly high—and there is no dissenting from that—substantial savings will not be achieved simply by cuts in social security spending because the people concerned do not cease to exist if they lose benefits.
The Minister stressed the drain on competitiveness of the expenditure. I do not dissent from that. He may have read the article by Gavyn Davis in the Independent, calculating the amount the country spends on what he called "defensive expenditure": burglar alarms, locks, security cameras, insurance. He put that figure at £16 billion and rising. That is also a drain on our competitiveness and we would not advance the country if we went from one drain on our competitiveness to another.
The up-rating marks a recognition that the sums cannot be substantially reduced; the cost to the country cannot be substantially reduced simply by cutting social security. It means that in addition to the humanitarian and economic arguments for significant reductions in unemployment, it has also become an urgent fiscal necessity. That is a conclusion of quite profound importance.
I noticed that at Question Time today the Minister was enjoying himself, congratulating himself on reductions in unemployment. We all share his pleasure in that. He was disappointed that that was not met with more enthusiasm in the House but I must ask him to tell us what he regards as an unacceptable level of unemployment. I did not say "achievable", I said, "unacceptable", because there must be a good deal of new thinking on that before we get anywhere.
On the details of the order, I entirely share what the noble Baroness said about capital limits. I wished to bring up the capital limits imposed this year on the cost of funerals under the Social Fund. I know that the Minister has already given me a Written Answer, but I ask him now seriously to consider up-rating that benefit in the next statement. If we achieve no progress on that front, I shall seriously consider putting down a Motion
1350
to resolve, which I may push to a Division. I hope that the noble Baroness's party will put its votes where its mouth is.
I am also distressed that there is no change in the policy on the differential between income support limits for older people of £28 and the lower age income support level of £36.80 for those under 18. They are not adequate for any purposes. That is not subsistence; it is pocket money. Since we have heard so many justifications, I ask the Minister what is this week's justification.
I also support the questions which the noble Baroness asked about the housing benefit. I shall listen with great interest to those answers, as I shall to the answers to the questions about home ownership. I remind the Minister that insurance is a private sector business; its purpose is to make a profit. In deciding which risks it accepts, it must necessarily take that into account. So those people who will need support most are those to whom insurance will give the least support. If the Secretary of State for Employment is right—as he may well be—that we are moving to a situation where people will change jobs more frequently and more jobs will be part-time, there will be time between jobs. That is a series of changes which would put on our insurance industry a burden which I do not believe it fair to ask the industry to undertake. We do not want more insurance or banking failures, least of all today. So when the Minister says that he is entering into consultation, I hope that by "consultation", he really means just that and will not merely ask how to do it, but will ask interested parties whether he should be doing it at all. I hope that the answers will be listened to.
Fraud is always a standby of the Department of Social Security when it is in trouble with the Treasury. Everybody is against fraud. But I sometimes wonder whether we are in a situation where, if fraud does not exist, it is necessary to invent it. In that context I ask the Minister if he will give the House an undertaking that he will not rely on performance targets for detection of fraud. Relying on performance targets risks generating a situation in which we assume that the fraud must be there and go on looking for it until we can claim to have found it. In that situation there may be some obstruction to the doing of justice. It should be entered into with care.
On national insurance, I welcome the changes that the Minister reannounced. I wonder why he has not further raised the lower earnings limit. Also, since he has ranged into these matters, I ask him again a question that I put to him on the up-rating Statement; namely, whether he can tell us what progress is being made with the jobfinder's grant. It is an imaginative idea and one that interests me. But I cannot discover in how many cases it has been made available; how big a pilot scheme is in operation; and what the results of that pilot scheme may be. If the Minister does not have that information to hand, I should be grateful if he could write to me.
I want to make one small point on the separate order up-rating contributions for share fishermen. Share fishermen are subject to what is known as a tie-up period of eight days, during which they are not allowed to fish. Normally, if you received no income during

1351
eight days, you might hope for unemployment pay during the week. But the trouble is that the tie-up period is normally divided between two different weeks. In the past the department has taken the line that there is no week during which they are wholly unemployed, and therefore they do not receive any unemployment benefit. My honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood has argued many times that that appears to him to be inequitable. I agree with him. I hope that the Government will give just a little more consideration to the matter.
Finally, I turn to the new statutory sick pay scheme. I thank the Minister and the department for accepting an amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, to which I had my name. They have listened, and they have been persuaded, and I am glad that they have. But there is still one flaw in the scheme. I thought that the Minister slightly cut a corner by claiming the support of the Forum for Private Business. There is still one point that intensely concerns the Forum for Private Business. There is of course a limit on this. The new formula comes into operation when firms are facing a liability for statutory sick pay which exceeds 13 per cent. of their liability for national insurance contributions payments. The question that is being asked by the Forum for Private Business is whether that limit can be changed without primary legislation. It says that if the answer is no, it is happy with the scheme as it is. But if the answer is yes, it is not happy and would have preferred the other scheme. I gave the Minister notice of that question and I look forward to his answer.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I must begin with two confessions. First, I must declare an interest: as a retirement pensioner, I shall benefit in a modest degree from the improvement that this order makes in the retirement pension. Secondly, as some noble Lords may recall, I was Minister for (as it was known at that time) Pensions and National Insurance. I was responsible for social security for over six and a half years. In fact, I believe that it was for a longer period than any other Minister who has held the post. I therefore have a great deal of what might be called professional sympathy with my noble friend the Minister in dealing with these proposals.
In my time as a Minister, the up-ratings that we made were generally done by primary legislation—that is to say, by a Bill. They were contentious measures. Inevitably, the Opposition did then as they have done now: while welcoming the improvements, they asked for more. Equally, as the Minister has had to do today, I had to reject the proposals to improve the benefits to a greater extent than I was improving them. However, I can look back on the whole history of social security with a good deal of happiness, since benefits have steadily gone on improving—both in the actual quantum of benefit paid (in major benefits) and also with the adjustments and minor improvements which successive Ministers have made.
I know that the noble Lord opposite has criticised one or two points on this particular order. I shall not get in the way of my noble friend the Minister by trying to answer those points. It is his job to answer them. I know from my experience in office that nothing is more
1352
infuriating than sitting there listening to somebody else trying to answer criticisms of your proposals, not getting the answers quite right and queering the pitch all round. I note that the noble Baroness understands that situation.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Do not believe that for a moment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Therefore I shall leave the points of criticism which she made—she always makes them very effectively, if she will allow me to say so—to be dealt with entirely by my noble friend the Minister in his reply.
I welcome the proposals of this order as a whole. They continue the steady improvement in benefits that we have seen over the years; they support a scheme which is of very great importance to a very large number of our fellow countrymen; and they do it on the whole in a highly intelligent way. I would not presume to say that I agree with every word of every detailed proposal. You have to have studied very closely the workings of the scheme to be able to form an intelligent view on the details of its administration. But broadly, this order gives good improvement to quite a number of our fellow countrymen, and maintains a scheme that is of vital importance to a very large number of them.
I was interested to hear what my noble friend said about fraud. He stated a very precise figure: £654 million was the figure he quoted. I do not know how it has been possible to work out that figure, since the essence of fraud is that it consists of transactions which are in greater or lesser degree conceivable. My noble friend may be able to tell the House how he arrived at the figure. I know it is substantial: it always has been, and to some extent I think it always will be. But it is the duty of a Minister and the Government to combat it; it is very wrong that money which gives such valuable help to so many people should go astray, even in much smaller amounts than £654 million.
I was also very interested in my noble friend's statement that it is the object of his policy to encourage employers, and to encourage workers to go back to work, and not to work the social security system so that it carries an inducement to remain unemployed. He stated that, on the contrary, the scheme is designed to encourage the restoration of employment in two ways: by giving, as this order does, some inducement to employers to take on additional labour—which is an enormously valuable thing—and by offering an inducement to those who are unemployed to make every effort to obtain work. I am sure that that is right. It is no doubt as a result of this policy that we are able to point today to a reduction in unemployment of half a million over the past year. This is a very real achievement by the Government of which they are entitled to be proud. I hope and believe that maintenance of this policy will continue this effect. This order is one of the most important matters with which your Lordships' House has to deal. It affects a very large number of our fellow citizens. It operates a system which, for all its sometimes rather trying complexity, is carefully worked out, with improvements made by successive Ministers over the years. It is a system of which we in this country have every reason to be proud.

1353
I hope that your Lordships will approve this order and send it forward as a means of relieving hardship and providing help to those who need it most in an intelligent way. It is a most important measure, and I wish it well.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall try to reply to a short but interesting debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for his support. I am relieved that we do not have to do this every year by primary legislation. To do so may take us a little longer than it will take us this afternoon. I also suspect that it is an indication of the increasing complexity of the social security system since my noble friend was responsible for it. I shall try to deal as quickly as I can—and, dare I say, in no particular order —with the various points that have been raised.
I begin with the in-work benefit measure and the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the progress of the jobfinder's grant. If he does not mind, perhaps I may write to him about that particular matter. As far as the new in-work benefit measure is concerned, we intend to pilot it in order to test the effectiveness of different approaches. Such an in-work benefit may cost a great deal of money. Obviously, before it moves to national coverage it is important to ensure that it does what we want it to do. At one stage in her speech the noble Baroness referred to unforeseen consequences. One thing that is true about social security is that sometimes we amend something for the best of all possible reasons only to find that it has a negative consequence which is much more damaging than has been envisaged. It seems to me that that is one of the problems we face in attempting to fine tune a complex system.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, returned to the question of 18 to 24 year-olds. With some trepidation, I give my answer. No doubt he will compare the text with previous answers that have been given. My only hope is that he does not have with him the previous answer papers so he can interrupt me to tell me that what I say is different from previous answers. In all seriousness, the lower rate of benefit for single 18 to 24 year-olds helps to reflect the lower earning potential of this group compared with older single people. We feel that it is reasonable to give them a lower rate in order to preserve their incentive actively to seek and retain the kind of work that may be available to them in their age group.
The question about share fishermen is more complex. As the noble Earl perhaps knows, European Community quotas and the Sea Fish Conservation Act may result in share fishermen having to make claims for benefit simply because of the way that the Act operates. Share fishermen are able to claim family credit and income support in the same way as other self-employed people if their income is that low. In addition, the share fishermen's Class 2 contribution, which I believe the order before us is about, uniquely enables them to claim unemployment benefit although they are counted as self-employed. Because unemployment benefit is a daily benefit, share fishermen may be entitled to it for any
1354
day that they are unable to work, subject to the normal rules which are to do with weekly earnings. If there is anything further that I can add I will certainly put it in writing to the noble Earl. However, it is a complex issue. I am not even sure—this is an awful admission to make to the House —exactly where we are at the moment in relation to tie-up days in the fishing industry.
The noble Earl asked me about the SSP percentage threshold scheme. A change to the percentage can be made only by affirmative regulations. The power to do that is to be found in Section 159A of the social security Act. That is no different from changes to the present small employers scheme.
The noble Earl also asked me about funeral payments. I believe that he put down a marker as to his behaviour, good or bad, on future occasions depending on whether my behaviour was good or bad in his light. The current proposal to introduce a limit of £875 towards the cost of a social fund funeral are being considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. My right honourable friend Peter Lilley, myself and my colleagues will carefully consider any recommendations that that committee chooses to make once its report is received. I shall bear in mind the point that the noble Earl makes about uprating.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, discussed two related issues which I will take together since they both refer to housing. I believe that the noble Baroness implied that the private rented sector was not a tenant's market and therefore a tenant would not be in a position to bargain down rents. I believe that to be a pessimistic view. To relate housing benefit, as we intend to do, to the generality of local rents should mean better targeting of taxpayers' money. Tenants will have an incentive to find cheaper accommodation, or at least not to accept accommodation which is much more expensive than they would ever be able to afford if they were not on housing benefit, and accommodation that many other people in work and not on benefit would not be able to afford. It makes for that pressure. It also makes for pressure on the landlord. Some landlords will undoubtedly have looked at the potential for housing benefit delivering up to them whatever rents they have agreed to set and tenants have agreed to accept. We believe that bearing down on rents which are markedly higher than the generality of local rents will be an incentive to both tenant and landlord to reduce the very considerable increase in cost in this particular part of housing benefit.
As far as income support mortgage interest (ISMI) is concerned, I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness had to say. Everybody seems to forget, including regrettably the Council of Mortgage Lenders, that if an individual is on income support for nine months, at that stage income support mortgage interest help from the taxpayer will come in again. We are saying that for the first nine months people ought to insure themselves against any eventuality, such as unemployment, occurring in that period. I have said on a number of occasions—I make no excuse for saying it again—that the present system helps only those who are on income support. There are still people who find themselves unemployed and without recourse to income

1355
support. Because their spouses work, or they have capital above the limit, or they have some other income, they are not eligible. Obviously, they are not protected by income support mortgage interest. Currently, 150,000 unemployed home owners do not qualify. If one looks at the whole field of home owners, something like two-thirds would not qualify for income support.
Is suggesting that perhaps insurance might be a good idea such a terribly wrong thing? After all, everybody who buys a house is rightly expected by the building society to take out insurance against something happening to the house itself. Is it not wise to suggest that people should take out an insurance which will help them in much more difficult circumstances than does the current income support mortgage interest if something happens to them?
Another question that I hear being asked is whether such insurance policies exist. For example, Abbey National has indicated that somewhere in the region of 40 per cent. of new borrowers take out an insurance. That was before we announced the changes that we would make. The Association of British Insurers has confirmed that something like one third of all new borrowers take out insurance.
There is evidence of new insurance packages coming into the market place. As I said, a direct one—not through a building society—from a reputable company offers payments as low as £4 per £100. The cost of insurance to the average borrower based on that policy would be something like £12 per month. As I said, that would give people wider cover than is available under income support.
As I equally said and underline, we are covering the first nine months and very many people who become unemployed—in fact the majority of them—get back into work within that period. The taxpayer will cover for those people who go beyond the nine months and obviously have used up their insurance entitlement.
With regard to fraud, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked me how we worked out the figure of £654 million. That is the amount of fraud that the Benefits Agency identified last year and stopped. He is quite right that no estimate can be given—other than a guestimate—of the total extent of fraud; but on last year's figures that is the kind of level which the Benefits Agency managed to stop.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me about targets. We are asking the Benefits Agency to shift the emphasise from detection and investigation, which is what it has been doing to date, toward prevention and deterrence. He will appreciate that prevention and deterrence are much more difficult to quantify except that we shall not detect the same level of fraud as we do at the moment. There are a number of schemes, including the link-up with the Post Office, where payment will be made by what we believe will be a much more secure and efficient system.
I was asked why the lower earnings limit for national insurance had not been increased further. The lower earnings limit for national insurance is linked in law to the rate of the basic retirement pension. It is set at the level of the basic pension, rounded down to the nearest
1356
whole £1. From April the rate of the basic pension will be £58.85. The lower earnings limit therefore is £58. That is the logic behind that measure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spent some time in her contribution reading out some payments which have not been up-rated since various periods in this Government's term of office. Those are not by any means the major components of the benefits systems. All the main benefits to widows, war pensioners, people on income support, and so on, have been up-rated. Frankly, if the benefits that the noble Baroness read out so dramatically to us had been up-rated, I am sorry to tell your Lordships that it would not have made a great deal of difference to the amount received by most recipients. We believe that by targeting the increase on the major benefits, we are targeting it on the people who need help.
I heard the noble Baroness say that she looked forward to having the opportunity to improve the welfare state. I noticed at one stage in her speech that she mentioned breaking the links with earnings, which is a recurrent theme. That is fine, but the noble Baroness should be aware that this year, for example, whereas the benefit up-rating has cost £1.5 billion with linkage to prices, linked to earnings it would cost £3.3 billion. Over the period when the link has been prices and not earnings, the amount of additional money—if I heard aright and a promise was given to up-rate according to earnings—would have been £9.7 billion.
Those of your Lordships who have been keeping track of all those figures—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. I quoted from the Rowntree Report—without trying to anticipate Wednesday's debate—and showed that that report made very clear that the result of breaking the link between benefit levels and earnings and relating benefits only to prices was to exclude those on benefits from any increase in prosperity. That is an issue to which we must return. As the Rowntree Report said, that produces a dispossessed and marginalised underclass, the existence of which the Minister himself deplored earlier this afternoon.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No doubt, my Lords, we shall return on Wednesday to the underclass.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that since the noble Baroness's party has no spending plans, it was a purely academic statement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I get help from anywhere I can on these difficult matters. The noble Baroness interrupted me almost, dare I say it, at the wrong moment. In fact, she underlined my point. It is all very well to come to the House today, or indeed on Wednesday, and complain about these matters. I have attempted to give the noble Baroness some figures. Let me ask her a question. She has between now and Wednesday to find out the answer. Are we getting a spending pledge from the party opposite that when it comes into office it will restore that link, given the kind of costs that I have just outlined? It will be interesting to see how the debate develops on Wednesday.

1357
I believe it is essential that, as a civilised society, we try to make sure that those people who are most in need are helped by us—that is to say, by the taxpayer via us. The taxpayer thoroughly approves of that. But we also have a responsibility to make sure that the total costs imposed on the taxpayer by the social security system are kept within reason. I believe that this order and the other orders will do just that. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1995
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1995
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1995
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold Order 1995
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Joint Account Holders) Bill
6.18 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
1358
The Bill has come to us from another place, where it started life as a Ten-Minute Rule Bill introduced by my former colleague, Douglas French, the Member of Parliament for Gloucester. Subsequently, it was nodded through its Second Reading and remaining stages on Friday 10th February without objection—a very clear indication of its widespread all-party support.
Your Lordships will recall that a similar Bill was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and given its First Reading on Wednesday, 11th January. Let me say at once how grateful I am to the noble Lord for his help and co-operation. He and Douglas French should share the plaudits from all those who will benefit from this legislation. I should declare an interest as a non-executive director of a building society, although neither I nor any member of my family has any financial interest in this matter.
The Bill seeks to remedy an unfortunate quirk in the law which I believe first came to light some six years ago after the Abbey National Building Society decided to convert to plc status. It has been highlighted again as a result of the proposed take-over of the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society by Lloyds Bank. I should explain that the Building Societies Act 1986 empowers building societies to pay a bonus to investing members in the circumstances of a take-over, like that of the Cheltenham & Gloucester by Lloyds Bank, or a merger like that proposed between the Halifax and Leeds Permanent building societies, provided that certain conditions are met. Let me make it abundantly clear that I express no views on the merits or demerits of the C&G take-over by Lloyds or the Halifax and Leeds Permanent merger. I am dealing only with the conditions in which bonus distributions of cash or shares can be made. Those conditions restrict bonus distributions to sole account holders or to the first-named person of a joint account provided they have invested continuously for at least two years.
Let me say at once that the two-year loyalty requirement is generally accepted as sensible and reasonable. It is the restriction to the first-named of joint accounts which gives rise to serious anomalies which are generally seen as unreasonable and unfair. For example, widows who were the second-named in joint accounts with their husbands and whose husbands died during the qualifying two-year period are excluded from bonus payments. Under existing rules, in such cases the bonus cannot be paid to the widow whether her husband's name was simply deleted from the joint account or the balance in that account was transferred to a new account in her name after her husband's death. I do not believe that Parliament intended such unfairness; and this legislation is intended to put matters right.
Somewhat similar anomalies can affect newly-marrieds. For example, if the wife on marriage chooses to redesignate her building society investment account jointly in the names of her husband and herself, she would lose the rights accruing to her before marriage when the account was in her own name. Somewhat similar difficulties can arise when marriages are dissolved or when accounts are split for tax reasons.

1359
Regrettably, there are other anomalies implicit in the rather complicated provisions of the 1986 Act affecting bonus payments and the related subject of voting rights. But I must make it absolutely clear, as did Douglas French in another place, that this Bill is not a comprehensive measure. It does not attempt to tackle every related problem, and it does not deal with any matters affecting voting rights. The Bill has a limited objective as set out in its Long Title and I hope that that will be accepted when we come to consider the detailed provisions of the Bill in Committee and at Report. Indeed, I fear that if the scope of the Bill were to be widened, it may well be counter-productive as such an amended Bill could run into severe difficulties when it returned to another place. No doubt powerful arguments can, and perhaps will, be deployed to include other desirable objectives in the Bill. But in my view such actions will put at risk the survival of the Bill when it is returned to another place for consideration of Lords amendments.
Both Douglas French and I are grateful for the encouragement and help given and promised by Treasury Ministers and by the Building Societies Commission. As a former Treasury Minister myself, I know how difficult it is to draft new clauses or amendments which meet the high and exacting standards set by parliamentary counsel. I appreciate that considerable redrafting will be required in order to achieve the clear and limited but well worthwhile objectives I have detailed and in support of which the Bill was given what I might describe as fast-track approval in another place. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will, with the assistance of parliamentary counsel, table appropriate amendments for consideration in Committee so that those agreed objectives can be met.
Let me end by stressing that the Bill does not extend or confer rights to those who may benefit. It is a permissive measure. It is not mandatory and the decisions about who should or should not receive bonus distributions of cash or shares will be made by the building society concerned. The Bill seeks to redress specific and genuine grievances, particularly for the group of widows affected, and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hayhoe.)
6.26 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest in that I hold a savings account with the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society, as does my wife, though I am bound to say that I see no personal advantage through the passage of the Bill either to myself or to my wife.
I give the Bill my full support and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, for his clear exposition of what the Bill is and is not concerned with. As he said, it deals with one of a number of anomalies or injustices created or continued by the Building Societies Act 1986. I regret that, despite a great deal of urging, the Government did not feel it possible to bring about the
1360
changes in their own right; they left it to a Private Member's Bill to correct what is clearly a glaring injustice.
I hold a letter sent by the Treasury to one of the many people who wrote to me. It is dated December 1994 and signed by a civil servant rather than by a Minister. It states that the Government have decided that the controls on takeovers imposed by Parliament in 1986 are to remain in place. Therefore, somewhere between last December and today, the Government have had a most welcome change of heart.
Perhaps I can say in passing that I am not sure whether or not investors and borrowers as a whole will be better off if banks continue to take over building societies. That is not the subject of today's debate. But, while supporting the Bill, we should not necessarily say that the continued takeover of building societies by banks, and therefore as it were the diminution of building societies as borrowers and lenders, is a good thing.
A number of injustices exist, of which I shall mention three. The first is the subject of the Bill; namely, the position regarding the second-named account holder in the case of a joint account, whether as a result of death, marriage or for any other reason. The second anomaly is one that nobody can do much about—and perhaps should not do much about—and concerns the two-year qualifying period. There must be a qualifying period. However, enormous hardship is caused when somebody misses the qualifying period by perhaps one or two days and is therefore deprived of the benefit which would otherwise accrue to them.
For the reasons expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, one does not want to overload the Bill with further changes. But, again, the third anomaly is one for which I can see no justification. It concerns the situation where individuals switch their account with a specific building society from one type of account to another at the suggestion of the building society because the building society says that the customer will gain more interest. They then lose out in terms of the benefit because they no longer qualify under the legislation. The Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society wrote in those terms to all people holding specific accounts. I certainly received such a letter and the reason I did not respond was simply inertia; I am now the beneficiary of that inertia. I regret that some people who acted diligently and sensibly in what seemed to be their own interests lost out. It is not an anomaly that we can put right on this occasion, but it is one which is hard to justify.
As soon as I had the privilege of taking my seat in this House last October I set about preparing a Bill, or having a Bill prepared, and I introduced it in early January. Although I was particularly concerned by the Cheltenham & Gloucester situation, my Bill is also relevant to the situation of other building societies. The same is true of the Bill now before the House. I wrote to the Government at the time asking them for their support. However, the postal system must be even worse than I thought it was because I certainly had no answer to my letter of early January as to whether the Government would be willing to support my Bill. It

1361
might have saved a lot of time had I received a reply because until today I was not sure of the Government's position. But the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, has made it clear that the Government support the Bill. A few days after I introduced my Bill in another place a Bill was introduced by Douglas French. That Bill is before us today.
As soon as I introduced my Bill I received an astonishingly large number of letters from all over the country. It is quite amazing how the press coverage and an item on the radio provoked such a large number of letters. Some gave direct support to the proposition contained in my Bill and in the Bill before us and others said that the Bills are fine but drew attention to the anomalies which I have already mentioned. I am grateful to the many people who took the trouble to write to me to express their views. I am also impressed by the enormous strength of feeling that can be seen in those letters. That strength of feeling is right because people, many of whom I am sure are not well off, will suffer an injustice unless the Bill goes through, although others will still suffer injustices which I fear the Bill cannot put right. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, that it is not possible in a Private Member's Bill to rectify all these anomalies. If we try, we run the risk that when the Bill goes back to another place it will die a death, and we shall have achieved nothing at all. It is painful to have to write to people to say that to them, but it is the truth.
Perhaps I may say in passing that it makes me wonder what was going on when Parliament passed the Building Societies Act 1986. Our much-vaunted scrutiny of legislation in both places seems to have been a little amiss then. However, I have not read the Hansard reports of the proceedings on the Bill to see whether the issues about which we are talking today were debated at the time.
It is welcome that the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society has announced that Lloyds Bank has set aside the sum of £10 million to be made available to the second named account holders—I hope it means all second named account holders and not just widows—provided that the legislation goes through Parliament by 1st August this year. That means that the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society will not wish to delay a ballot of its members, which has to take place by 31st March. I have had a letter from the chief executive of the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society indicating why it would be technically very difficult indeed for that building society to delay yet again its proposed deadline for the ballot. I believe that there is some strength in that argument.
I shall shortly withdraw my own Bill, but before I reach that point perhaps I may say that I am slightly puzzled on one point. I have been asked on a number of occasions why, if my Bill is intended to achieve the same aim as the Bill under discussion, my Bill is so much easier to understand than the other Bill. That is no credit to me whatever. Perhaps I may give my thanks to the Public Bill Office in this House for the help it has been to me and for the fact that it has drafted my Bill in such a way that it is extremely simple to understand.
1362
The other Bill is jolly difficult to understand. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain whether there is anything in his Bill which is different from what is in my Bill. Otherwise, simplicity of English is something that is always thought desirable in these matters.
I need to explain to the people who have written to me why I am withdrawing my Bill. I have not sought to gain any party political advantage out of what I have done and I was slightly taken aback not only by the Government's failure to reply to my letters but also by one or two of the events surrounding the fact that there were two Bills rather than one. However, it would be churlish of me to go into that at great length. I merely assume that the Government preferred a Bill to go through both Houses in the name of Conservative Members rather than in the name of someone who is a member of the Labour Party.
Having said that, I wish to give my full support to the Bill. I urge its quick and sensible passage through this House in order that it can become law as quickly as possible. It is highly desirable in the interests of the many second named account holders who would otherwise suffer an injustice which they ought not to suffer.
6.35 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I am only the understudy in this respect and I have not yet learnt all the lines. I should like, however, to put the support for this Bill on an all-party basis. I thank Mr. French and the noble Lords, Lord Hayhoe and Lord Dubs, for the work which all three of them have done on the subject. The Bill clearly remedies a mischief. When I consider why that mischief is perceived in 1995 and was not perceived in 1986 I think it may have something to do with the fact that the old-fashioned concept of the head of the household now looks a little more out of date than it did then. We on these Benches are happy to welcome that change.
We shall be happy to support amendments which are designed to improve the drafting of the Bill. We have heard what the noble Lords, Lord Hayhoe and Lord Dubs, have said about widening the scope of the Bill. That clearly depends on the possibility of getting the Bill through. On that point, I hope that the Minister may be in a position to give us some further guidance as we proceed. With those few remarks, and the wholehearted support of these Benches for the Bill, I am happy to support it.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I felt that I could not let this evening pass without adding my few words to the passage of the Bill. I do so because for very many years—noble Lords will know that I have been widowed twice—I have been involved with the National Association of Widows. I was president and then chairman and now I am a trustee of the association. It is a large organisation, which tries to help those who have lost their partners in life. Around 500 women are widowed every day and there are more than 3 million

1363
widows in the country. We try to help them by giving them shoulders to cry on, by giving them advice and by giving them other things to do with their lives.
One of the overriding problems which most of the widows in the country still face is a shortage of money. A great deal of money is no longer there because their husband is no longer contributing or earning any money. We do not give money to widows—we leave that to the state in its wisdom —but the passage of the Bill will be of enormous help to a great number of widows who have with their partners put money into the building societies. Why this change was not made many years ago I have failed to find out, but, as they say, better late than never.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, the principle of the Bill is welcomed by many people throughout the country. I congratulate the noble Lord on thinking of his Bill at the same time as the Government thought of theirs. I am afraid that I do not know whose came first. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, the all-party nature of the Bill will make it a great success throughout the country. I am sure that it will be warmly welcomed. I welcome it on behalf of those who are left, the widows. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Hayhoe for tabling his Bill and for introducing it so ably tonight. I welcome the Bill on behalf of all the widows and, indeed, on behalf of anybody who will be helped by it. I wish it a swift passage through the House.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am happy to join in the pleasing unanimity which has been expressed by those on all sides of the House in welcoming this throughly sensible measure, which clears up an obvious anomaly in the law. We on these Benches are delighted to support the Bill, not least because its essence was contained in the Bill of my noble friend Lord Dubs. The noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, paid a most warm and kind tribute to the part played in the legislation by my noble friend Lord Dubs.
It would be inappropriate to pass from that point without telling a little of the intriguing story of what actually happened. My noble friend's Bill was introduced in this House on 11th January. Mr. French's Ten-Minute Rule Bill appeared about a week later, Mr. French having switched his topic 48 hours before he was due to introduce his Bill. My noble friend was told that the Second Reading of his Bill could not take place until this coming Wednesday because no Minister was available to deal with it. I have had the opportunity of enjoying the company of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on numerous occasions over the past seven weeks, and I am surprised that he was not available to deal with my noble friend's Bill earlier than today.
However, enough of that carping—we are all delighted that Mr. French's Bill, which has been introduced in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, is before us today. As I understand it, the scope has been extended a little from my noble friend's Bill to include problems of divorce, marriage and the other ways in which joint ownership or joint account holding can occur.
1364
The anomaly that we are considering raises the interesting and important question of whether the anomaly occurs elsewhere. Clearly, a building society, as a mutual society, has a rather peculiar relationship between depositors and owners. But what of other mutual societies? Should the legislation be drawn more widely than to cover building societies alone? Given the fact that a significant number of other anomalies are associated with joint account holders, will the Government be bringing forward legislation in due course—perhaps soon—to deal with the wide range of anomalies that were pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe? It seems appropriate that such legislation should be introduced, even if not as an amendment to this Bill. If the Bill is to have a speedy passage, surely a new Bill should be brought forward to deal with those numerous anomalies which have emerged since 1986.
However, there is perhaps one point which should be considered in the context of this Bill. I refer to the extraordinary anomaly that was pointed out by my noble friend of the loss of bonuses or benefits when switching between accounts with the same building society. It is extraordinary that someone who holds an account with a building society and who simply moves between different categories of account should thereby lose the advantages associated with bonuses on mergers or purchases.
It would be appropriate for the Government to introduce a short Bill or an amendment to deal with that matter in short order. If the Government do not do so, perhaps the best thing would be for my noble friend Lord Dubs to introduce another Bill to deal with that anomaly, because we know that the Government will then produce a Bill out of the hat in very short order. Having said that, we are delighted to support this enormously successful measure.
6.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, I start with a small apology to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I am in the rather strange position of being in agreement with what the noble Lord said. The alarm bells sometimes start to ring when I am in agreement with the noble Lord. I start with an apology that his noble friend Lord Dubs was unable to get in touch with me any earlier. However, I have to stress that I have certain other responsibilities within the Government which often have to come before occasions in this House. Perhaps I may also offer an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the fact that his letter of sometime in early January—I am not sure that I caught the date—has not yet been answered. I shall certainly chase that up with my right honourable and honourable friends in the Treasury to ensure that the noble Lord receives an answer in due course.
Perhaps I may also make one small point in response to the point that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made. We have no desperate desire to ensure that such Private Member's Bills are dealt with by my honourable friends in another place or by my noble friends in this House. In fact, I can cite an instance of a Bill in which I had some interest in my previous

1365
department, the Department of Employment, which was introduced by Mr. Keith Vaz, one of the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place. That Bill was taken through this House as a Private Member's Bill by my noble friend Lady Miller who was then on the Back Benches, but has since, happily, joined us on the Front Bench.
Perhaps I may say on behalf of Her Majesty's Government how much we welcome this Bill which was so persuasively introduced by my noble friend. I should like to pay tribute also to my honourable friend the Member for Gloucester for taking the Bill so quickly through all its stages in another place. I dare say that many of us wish that we could take Bills so quickly through all their stages in this House as well. I am confident that the Bill can complete its remaining stages as speedily as possible, and certainly by the end of July, and so benefit the many widowed joint account holders in the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society.
My noble friend and others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, have pointed out other anomalies in building societies legislation and have asked whether we could deal with those matters. As the House will be aware, the Treasury has carried out a review of the Building Societies Act 1986. The results of the second, and final, stage were announced by my honourable friend the Minister of State on Friday of last week. The Government are to change substantially the approach to building societies' powers, moving from the current prescriptive framework to a more flexible structure. This will enable societies to pursue their core business more efficiently, and to provide competition across a wider range of financial services. At the same time, the Government are bringing forward a 15-point package of measures designed to make societies more accountable, by improving the information given to members, and increasing the transparency with which societies conduct their business.
I can give the assurance that we shall bring forward legislation to amend the Building Societies Act as and when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. In the meantime, we shall continue to implement by secondary legislation the various changes which were announced by my honourable friend when he made his statement on the first stage of the review last July, when he made it clear that the Government do not plan to remove the stringent controls on building society conversions and takeovers. The "two-year rule", which outlaws cash payments to recently joined members of a society which converts or is taken over, is designed to stop destabilising flows of funds between societies on the basis of market rumours. We believe that this rule and the high turnout and voting thresholds which must be achieved for a conversion or takeover proposal to succeed are essential protections for the building society sector.
Nonetheless the Government have sympathy for those members of the Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society who were caught by the two-year rule because of the way in which it interacted with the rules on joint account holders. Many of those, as my noble friend made clear in his introduction, were women who had
1366
been recently widowed. Although they had been members of the C&G for many years, they had held their savings in joint accounts, of which their late husbands were the first named holders. On inheriting those accounts, in relation to the rules governing cash distributions, the widows are treated in the same way as new members of the society. That means that most of those inheriting accounts after the end of 1992 are ineligible for a cash bonus as part of the takeover bid by Lloyds Bank.
As I have indicated, the Government recognised the concern of the investors who found themselves in that unfortunate position. It would not have been appropriate for us to bring forward piecemeal changes to the legislation, especially when a comprehensive review of the Act was under way. But we welcomed the introduction by my honourable friend in another place of a Bill to allow second named account holders to benefit from a cash distribution, provided that they had been shareholders for at least the required two-year period. It is an excellent example of a useful and constructive Private Member's initiative, and the Government will do all they can to ensure that the Bill is enacted in time to help C&G investors. In that connection, I commend also the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who attempted to tackle the issue of joint account holders' rights by introducing similar legislation, although drafted differently.
The Government support fully the aim of the Bill to secure the rights of second named building society account holders. We believe that, as well as helping widows who have inherited joint accounts, it should allow others who are, or have been, joint holders, but who have been members for at least two years, to be eligible for any distribution if their society converts or is taken over. My noble friend gave the example of a woman who has held a share account for a number of years. If she marries and puts her money into a joint account with her new husband, and his is the first name on the account, then she would lose her entitlement to a distribution. We believe that in future she should not so lose her entitlement. The Government are looking carefully at the wording of the Bill and will bring forward amendments in Committee.
My noble friend suggested that I might bring forward those amendments with some assistance from parliamentary counsel. I can assure my noble friend that I shall need considerable assistance from parliamentary counsel in drafting those amendments, but I am sure that they will advise me appropriately. I shall bring forward amendments in Committee to ensure that the Bill achieves its purpose of extending as far as possible the rights of second named holders, provided that they are consistent with the structure and the spirit of the Building Societies Act.
Again, I repeat the warnings made by my noble friend about making fundamental amendments to the Bill and the danger that that might mean losing the Bill in another place. I am advised that that would be the case if we were to deal with the anomalies relating to those switching accounts within the same building society, pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. That is not something which we can deal with in this Bill as drafted.

1367
The Bill has been welcomed on all sides of the House. It will correct an unintended anomaly in the Building Societies Act and allow thousands of widows, who would otherwise lose out, to benefit if the members of the Cheltenham & Gloucester approve Lloyds Bank's takeover bid. It will provide reassurance for joint account holders in the Halifax and Leeds building societies, who may be concerned about whether they will qualify for any benefits which may be offered if the planned merger and conversion of their societies goes ahead. I commend the Bill to the House.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I, my honourable friend Douglas French, and those who will benefit when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, are to all who contributed to this short debate, and for the welcome support which has come from all parts of the House. Harmony reigns. It would be wrong of me to say another word since I might disturb that harmony. So I merely commend the Bill to the House with the hope that it will be given an unopposed Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Building Societies (Joint Accounts) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg rose to move that the Bill be withdrawn.
Moved, That the Bill be withdrawn.—(Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
6.55 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Bill is based upon the report (Corn 112) of the Scottish Law Commission on Requirements of Writing and the draft Bill in Appendix A. That report was produced after consultation with the CBI, the Scottish Law Society and other bodies. The Scottish Law Commission's recommendations commanded general agreement and the Bill has the support of the Law Society of Scotland.
The purposes of this Bill are essentially simple. There are five purposes: namely, first, to set out where writing is required for the constitution of certain obligations; secondly, to provide how such documents may be validly executed—i.e., simply by subscription; thirdly, to provide how a document may be subscribed or signed; fourthly, to provide how such documents may be made probative so that they are presumed to have been subscribed by the granter; and, fifthly, to repeal the old Scottish statutes and the common law which relate to these matters.
1368
The effect of the Bill will be radically to simplify the law of Scotland relating to these matters. It will replace the old Scottish authentication statutes which were first enacted in the middle of the 16th century and the whole corpus of often confusing and conflicting case law which has surrounded them.
It may be helpful if I gave a brief description of what each clause provides. Clause 1 sets out the basic principle that, subject to certain exceptions and to any other enactment, writing is not required for the constitution of any obligation. The exceptions are that writing is still required, first, for the constitution of contracts or other obligations relating to an interest in land (for example, missives); a gratuitous unilateral obligation (except an obligation undertaken in the course of business); and a trust whereby a person declares himself to be the sole trustee of his property; secondly, the creation, transfer, variation or extinction of an interest in land (otherwise than by a court decree, enactment or rule of law)—for example, a conveyance; and, thirdly, the making of any will.
The principle is that in those cases—which would include the purchase or sale of a house, (the most important transaction most people make), agreeing to provide, for example, a large sum of money as a gift for the restoration of, say, a church roof, or declaring that one's own property is held in trust for a favourite grandchild—there is a strong case for a rule which gives a person or the parties time to reflect upon all the implications of the action he is, or they are, contemplating, and perhaps obtain legal advice before being committed.
Clause 2 provides that, where writing is required, the document is validly executed if it is simply subscribed—that is, signed at the end of the last page—by the granter. That replaces the present law, which is that a document must be attested, holograph or adopted as holograph. Noble Lords may be interested in an example of the kind of unfortunate result to which the existing law can lead. Mr. Able, owning a shop, writes out a letter for Mr. Baker to sign for the purchase of that shop. Mr. Baker signs that letter and returns it. Mr. Able then writes a letter of acceptance and delivers it to Mr. Baker. Thus there is a subscribed offer from Mr. Baker and a subscribed acceptance from Mr. Able. Mr. Able then changes his mind and Mr. Baker sues. The court dismisses the action on the ground that the offer Mr. Baker had signed, which was provided for him by Mr. Able, was neither holograph nor attested.
Clause 3 provides how such documents may be presumed to have been subscribed by the granter—that is, made probative. Generally speaking, the document must bear to have been subscribed by the granter and to have been signed by one witness, whose name and address is given. In the case of a will, however, it must also be signed by the granter on every sheet. These new rules greatly simplify and clarify the present law.
I think that I should mention at this stage that the provisions of Clause 3 are modified by Schedule 2 in the case where the granter is a legal person, such as a company, local authority or other body corporate. In the case of a company, it is, for example, provided that, in addition to the Clause 3 arrangements, the present

1369
statutory requirements for making documents executed by companies probative—signature by two directors, a director or secretary or two authorised persons, without any requirements for witnessing—will remain in place. I understand that that is at the special request of the CBI and the Law Society of Scotland.
Clause 4 enables a court to endorse a document with a certificate that it was subscribed by the granter and the place and date of subscription, if it is satisfied by extrinsic evidence as to those matters. That will be of considerable benefit in cases where a document has not been witnessed, or has been witnessed imperfectly, and will allow its status to be established once and for all.
Clause 5 relates to alterations made to documents, whether made before or after subscription. It sets out the requirements which must be observed if the alteration is to have legal effect. It sets out the conditions which must be satisfied if the alteration is to be presumed to have been made before the documents were subscribed.
Schedule 1 makes provision similar to Clauses 3 and 4 in relation to alterations made to a document after it has been subscribed.
Clause 6 provides that, as at present, only documents which are presumed to have been subscribed by the granter can be recorded in the Register of Sasines or registered in the Books of Council and Session or in the sheriff court books; for example, bills of exchange.
Clause 7 makes provision as to how a document is to be subscribed. Generally speaking, a document is subscribed if it is signed by the person at the end of the last page. It makes provision as to what constitutes a signature, and your Lordships will be pleased to note that existing rules of law relating to subscription or signing of documents by members of the Royal Family, by Peers or by the wives or eldest sons of Peers, are preserved. Those provisions relate to the signature of an individual natural person. Schedule 2 sets out special rules relating to the subscription and signature by legal persons, such as partnerships, companies, local authorities and other bodies corporate and Ministers.
Clause 8 makes provision as to how any annexation to a document should be incorporated in a document. Generally speaking, it is sufficient if the annexation is referred to in the document and identified on its face as being the annexation which is referred to in the document, without the annexation having to be signed or subscribed. However, where the document relates to land and the annexation describes or shows all or any part of the land to which the document relates, the annexation must be signed on each page if it is a plan, drawing or photograph and on the last page if it is an inventory or schedule or other writings.
Clause 9 makes provision for the subscription of any document on behalf of a blind granter or a granter who is unable to write, which must be subscribed by a relevant person, who is described in subsection (6). The third schedule to the Bill lays down the conditions for a document to be formally valid, where it has been subscribed on behalf of a blind person or a person unable to write mostly by making the necessary alterations to Clauses 3, 4 and Schedule 1, including any alteration as described in that schedule.
1370
Clause 10 empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe model forms for testing clauses, drafts of which are shown in Appendix B to the report (Com. 112).
Clause 11 abolishes the common law rules restricting proof of certain matters to proof by writ or by reference to oath and the common law rules requiring certain contracts and obligations to be in writing. Again, your Lordships may be interested in an example of the kind of injustice which can occur if courts are restricted to writ or oath in the evidence which they can take into account in coming to a decision on whether an obligation exists. A builder is sued by a firm of plasterers for payment of sums allegedly still due under a contract to do plasterwork. He says the sums have been paid and produces parole evidence to that effect. He cannot, however, produce any writ of the pursuer, so the decision goes against him. The judge says that he would probably have decided the other way if it had been open to him to proceed upon the parole evidence.
Clause 12 is the interpretation clause. Clause 13 preserves the right of Her Majesty to authenticate any document by superscription or a document relating to her private estates in accordance with the Crown Private Estates Act 1862. It also preserves certain other Crown writs. Subject to that, however, the Bill will bind the Crown.
Clauses 14 and Schedules 4 and 5 contain minor and consequential amendments, repeals and transitional provisions, and savings.
Clause 15 provides that the Bill should come into force at the end of a period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed. It also provides that the Bill extends to Scotland only. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
7.10 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on having the courage to take on the Bill and present it to your Lordships' House. The legislation now before us is long overdue, arising as it does, and as the noble Earl said, from a Scottish Law Commission report of July 1988. We are now five years away from that report and we have discussed more than once in this Chamber the difficulty in getting Law Commission reports put into legislation, not only in Scotland but also in England.
The Long Title of the Bill says that it is:
"An Act to reform the law of Scotland with regard to the requirement of writing for certain matters and the formal validity of contractual and other documents … to abolish any rule of law restricting the proof of any matter to writ or oath and to abolish the procedure of reference to oath; and for connected purposes".
The antiquity of the Scottish law as it stood before the Bill was introduced and before the Scottish Law Commission decided to have a look at it—perhaps, having been asked to do so—is reflected in Schedule 5 to the Bill. We find that five Acts of Parliament are now abolished in their entirety, starting in the year 1540 and ending in the year 1696. Therefore, it has taken us some time to get reformation of the law in that particular field.

1371
I believe that it would be wrong for your Lordships' House to consider the Bill without congratulating the Scottish Law Commission on dealing with the matter which concerns a highly complicated and technical area of the law and without recognising that the commission has dealt with the legislation with its usual thoroughness and clarity. The commission has demonstrated an ability to reshape the law for use in modern times.
As the noble Earl said in his introduction, we are dealing with an area of law which has given rise to much litigation over the years, some of which, to the layman, appearing particularly stupid, while appearing to lawyers to be particularly remunerative. With the support of this side of the House and with the Bill being perhaps slightly amended —but we shall see how things go—I hope that such silly court proceedings, if I can put it that way, will be bypassed once the Bill has seen its way through your Lordships' House and the other place. I suppose in these modern sleaze-times I should declare an interest because I am a lawyer. Therefore, I am arguing against myself. I hope that the Bill will reduce the necessity of my appearance in any court in Scotland once the Bill has been enacted.
The Bill reflects the commission's practical approach and, in the form in which it has been presented to the House, has not attracted much criticism. However, as a word of warning, perhaps I may say that, although the legislation has emerged from a report of the Scottish Law Commission and despite its present form, that does not mean that we should go all the way, shake hands with ourselves and say, "This is a magnificent piece of legislation". I say that because no piece of legislation is magnificent; indeed, every piece needs to be closely scrutinised. The present Bill is no exception. At the end of the day, it is possible that we may not have a Committee stage in this Chamber. We do not know about that because the Bill has only just been presented to the House. However, it must still be carefully scrutinised.
I should tell the Government that reservations have been expressed to me—but I am also expressing my own view because I can see where the argument arises—about the application of Clause 8(2). That reads:
"Where a document relates to land and an annexation to it describes or shows all or any part of the land to which the document relates, the annexation shall be regarded as incorporated in the document"—
and strange words are introduced at this point—
"if and only if—

(a) it is referred to in the document; and

(b) it is identified on its face as being the annexation referred to in the document; and

(c) it is signed on—

(i) each page, where it is a plan, drawing, photograph or other representation; or

(ii) the last page, where it is an inventory, appendix, schedule or other writing".

That is a good example of how complex is the area within which the Scottish Law Commission was working.
I know that Clause 8(2) limits documents relating to land. However, if one turns back to Clause 1(2), where we have the basis of the Bill which deals with an interest in land, there is some confusion—at least, certainly in
1372
my mind; but my mind is no great mind, and no doubt the Government's mind is greater. In Clause 1(2) we have a definition of an interest in land, but in Clause 8(2) there is no such definition regarding land. Similarly, there is no definition of land in Clause 12, so far as I can see, for the purposes of Clause 8(2).
Therefore, although I may be talking in circles or riddles, whatever the appropriate phrase may be, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, who knows the problems that such matters in relation to land give to the courts, might have a look at Clauses 1(2) and 8(2) to see whether they can be linked up in some way. Indeed, I wonder whether Clause 8(2) is at all necessary. As has been suggested, it may be that the requirements of Clause 8(2) should only be retained for documents which have to be registered in the Register of Sasines or the Land Register of Scotland, whatever the case may be.
In reverse, perhaps I may briefly refer to certain matters. As we are dealing with the Bill's Second Reading this evening, I shall not go into the minutiae involved. I refer to Clause 7(3) which says:
"Where there is more than one granter, the requirement under subsection (1) above of signing at the end of the last page of a document shall be regarded as complied with if at least one granter signs at the end of the last page and any other granter signs on an additional page".
For the life of me, I cannot understand what that is about. I can see litigation arising out of that subsection until the cows come home. I always understood—perhaps wrongly —that the essence of a document granting something is that everyone involved concurs to the granting of whatever it may be. Although I have not had time to consider the matter in great detail, it seems to me that Clause 7(3) leaves the door open to a challenge being made at some stage in a document where only one granter has signed and then the other granter, who has not signed, comes in and challenges the document.
For my own part, the essence of a document granting something is that, if someone comes along as an outsider to see what has been granted and to look at the document, especially if it is registered in the Register of Sasines or whatever, the granting parties should be seen on the face of the document. As it stands, it looks as if Clause 7(3) could do with a little rewording. However, I raise that only in passing so that the Government and those responsible for drafting the Bill can perhaps reconsider the matter between now and the next stage. Of course, there is no question of it being a political issue. We are here to try to modernise the law in a particularly difficult area.
I turn now to Clause 9 which deals with:
"Subscription on behalf of a blind granter or a granter unable to write".
I should like to raise one issue regarding subsection (6); namely, the question of who is a relevant person. My reading of that—this is only my reading, and I speak for myself—is that the definition of the person who can be a relevant person is too restrictive. It states in the Bill,
"In this Act 'relevant person' means".
"Means" is a restrictive word. In other words, it excludes anyone else. The Bill further states,

1373
"a solicitor who has in force a practising certificate as defined … an advocate, a justice of the peace or a sheriff clerk".
The Bill continues,
"in relation to the execution of documents outwith Scotland, includes".
Therefore we have a distinction, if I can put it that way. As regards Scotland, there is a restrictive view of who a relevant person is, whereas south of the Border the measure states only that the person we are discussing includes certain people. That means it can be a person within the definition. As regards the definition of a relevant person, why should a general practitioner not be a relevant person, as much as a justice of the peace or a sheriff clerk? Let us take the case of a blind person or a person who cannot write. Why should not such a person go along to his doctor, whom he may have known over the years, and say, "I want to do this, but I want you to make sure that it is done properly. Will you look after me while this procedure is going on and deal with the provisions of Clause 9"? I raise this point as a matter of interest rather than as a criticism.
As the noble Earl said, Clause 11 abolishes proof by writ or by reference to oath. That measure will be welcomed unanimously throughout the legal profession because in my experience of that profession on the few occasions that the provision arose it was an area of law where eventually no one knew what they were talking about. With respect, I suggest that not even the judges knew what they were talking about in this regard. Therefore Clause 11 is a happy clause, and I am very grateful for it because the measure could not be dealt with with any degree of certainty and confidence by the judges.
I have raised the initial matters that have struck me as I have read this measure recently. I now refer to the subscription of companies which is dealt with at Schedule 2, and in particular at paragraph 1 to Schedule 3. I understand that those involved in company business have not raised any great objection to this measure. However, having read it, I have some reservations about how it can be interpreted. Paragraph 3(5) at line 19 on page 17 of the Bill states where,
"a document bears to have been subscribed on behalf of a company by a director, or by the secretary, of the company or by a person bearing to have been authorised to subscribe the document on its behalf…shall be presumed to have been subscribed by the company".
That matter arises throughout the Bill and I do not wish to refer to all the various places where it arises. But how does an outsider know, looking at company accounts and seeing a signature on the company accounts, that the person who has been authorised by the company is a person who has been authorised by the company? I would suggest that as regards any document which bears to be signed by a person authorised by the company, there should be attached a document which states that Joe Smith or Jimmy Brown—I suppose these days we should refer to Jessie Brown as well —is authorised to sign on behalf of the company, with a certificate signed by the company secretary and a director stating that these are the people who are authorised to sign any document on behalf of the company.
1374
We all know what companies get up to—bogus companies and all the rest of it—and there is little protection for the public as regards company fraud. It appears to me that where people are allowed simply to say that a document bears to have been authorised by them to subscribe on behalf of the company, that opens dangerous doors where the public could be ripped off. I hope that consideration will be given to the matter of building into the Bill a double check. I hope I may suggest one such check which is that no document—I say No with a capital "N" and a capital "O"—should be deemed to be a legal document unless it is signed by the secretary of the company, who obviously will be in the company's books, and one other person whether he be another director, or a person who appears as authorised on a list. That would give some inbuilt check as regards the activities of companies as we all know that one can go to Companies House and obtain details of a company off the shelf and do all the things that people can do with companies. The public have little protection in this regard, but at least the check I have mentioned might provide a certain built in protection for the person who wants to know with whom he is dealing.
For example, if I wish to build a house, I can obtain the name of a company which builds houses. It is of no use to me to have a document signed as a matter of contract which bears to have been signed by a person authorised to subscribe the document on behalf of the company unless I know that the company has authorised that. I may be omitting something here because the Scottish Law Commission document is lengthy. I have tried my best to catch up with it in the time available, and I have looked at the Bill; but I believe there are problems here. The problem is compounded by sub-paragraph (1C) to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 on page 17 of the Bill.
Once the document is signed, one would think that was the end of the story. However, the sub-paragraph states:
"A presumption under subsection (1) or (1A) above as to subscription of a document does not include a presumption—

(a) that a person bearing to subscribe the document as a director or the secretary of the company was such director or secretary; or

(b) that a person subscribing the document on behalf of the company bearing to have been authorised to do so was authorised to do so".

Looking at that from the layman's point of view, where are we? We get a document duly subscribed by a director, a secretary or a person bearing to have been authorised by the company to subscribe on its behalf. One looks at the document and one says, "That is fine". But then one says, "Wait a minute. The fellow who signed that is not presumed to be the person bearing to subscribe the document as a director or secretary, or having authorisation to do so". I suggest that in this particular area some tightening up needs to be done. However, I may be missing the point here. These are the matters that I wish to raise at this stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House.
In conclusion, I say that the Bill is welcome but, as I said at the beginning, that does not mean that it should not be closely looked at before it leaves the revising Chamber of your Lordships' House. In the time between now and the Committee stage, I and my noble friends

1375
on this side of your Lordships' House will have time to receive any representations which anyone or any body affected by the Bill would care to present to us. If at the end of the day the practitioners think the Bill is all right, the answer may be, "That is all right". But it is not all right because we and your Lordships' House still have a duty in this regard. We have the reputation of not necessarily taking outside views to be the correct views. We will look at this measure again.
If at the end of the day the Bill marries the modernisation of the law with its practical application, it may go through without any attempt being made to amend it at Committee stage. I hope that the Government and the Law Commission will look at the matters I have raised in the best spirit of your Lordships' House in the time available between now and Committee stage.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I have nothing else to say.
7.29 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, on his introduction of the Bill, which aims to regularise and modernise the way in which legal documents are prepared in Scotland.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, the Bill has an antiquarian flavour to it, as it repeals or varies no fewer than seven Acts of the Scottish Parliament and also modifies a further 36 Acts, including the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 which so recently passed through this House.
I note that the Bill has its genesis in the Scottish Law Commission. I hope that it will enable Scottish lawyers to feel more confident about the number of safeguards that they need to build into every legal document. Over the past 20 years or so I have noticed that the documents required for conveyancing have increased in length from a single page to four pages as extra conditions have been built in to the offer and acceptance. Perhaps that meets genuine difficulties, or is it perhaps the result of easy electronic insertion by the word processor?
The Bill states how documents, appendices, alterations and subsequent additions are to be dealt with. This codifying should establish a new standard for Scottish lawyers to work to. The Bill seems to be sufficiently comprehensive. I note that it details how individuals, partnerships, companies, local authorities, corporate bodies, Ministers of the Crown and government agents will subscribe legal documents in their own distinct way.
The Bill establishes that property and land transactions, obligations, self-imposed trusts and wills must be written down in appropriate form. It goes on to require a single witness to substantiate that the subscriber genuinely signed the document. That seems to abolish the traditional need for two witnesses.
I believe that the Bill abolishes the need for the statement "adopted as holograph" to be written above the subscription on typed documents. Every encouragement should be given to dissuade people from using manuscript documentation.
1376
Legal documents will require to be signed only on the last page rather than on every page, which could lead to considerable saving in a long and complex document. However, I am glad that wills and other testamentary writings will require a signature on every page. Noble Lords will be aware that getting some people to make a will can be difficult enough. It is therefore sound that in Clause 3(10) there is no prescribed need for wills to be witnessed.
The Bill lays down the registration procedures for legal documents and also deals with false witness and false subscription. I note that it also permits the Lord Lyon King of Arms to continue to allow people to adopt territorial descriptions and use them in signature.
I question the provision in Clause 7(6) which allows for titled people to continue to avoid signing their full name. The usual form for Peers and others to sign with their surname only may not be helpful unless there is clarification within the document as to exactly who they are. I speak as a fourteenth and sixteenth Earl. There are a great many Mar, Kellie, and Mar and Kellie signatures in history.
Clause 11 sets out to abolish proof by writ or by reference to oath. I wonder whether that will deny the possibility of justice to a person who, for example, has loaned money on an IOU basis and whose debtor refuses to pay up. Would not the lack of a legal document, duly subscribed and witnessed, put that situation outwith the jurisdiction of civil proceedings?
Finally, I turn to a matter which relates to a fact that I should have declared earlier. I am not a lawyer but a social worker. Clause 9 lays down the format for the subscription of documents by blind people and by people who cannot write. I wonder whether the clause could be broadened to include people who cannot read, who are dyslexic or who are semi-literate and can understand the practical issue but cannot understand the complex language used in the document. I am also surprised that the task of explaining and subscribing on behalf of such people may be undertaken by a Justice of the Peace who, though honourable, is unlikely to be legally trained.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has introduced a Bill which will be helpful to almost everyone in Scotland, and to solicitors and advocates in particular. Scots law is much respected. This Bill clarifies and modernises its documentary procedures.
7.36 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Balfour on his clear and thorough explanation of what is admittedly a very technical legal measure. He may have a glittering career in future as a professor of Scots law or conveyancing.
Although its terms are technical, the Bill represents a radical simplification of the law in this area. It should therefore be welcomed in all parts of your Lordships' House. It will certainly be welcomed by anyone who has had the painful duty of studying this particular area of Scots law.

1377
The Scottish Law Commission has taken the view for many years that there was a need for substantial reform and modernisation of the old laws requiring writing for certain legal purposes. The Bill has been long in preparation, as has been noted. The commission first consulted on the issue in 1977. I should like to join in the tributes that have been paid to members of the commission, past and present, for their work on the report. I mention in particular the former chairman, the distinguished judge the late Lord Maxwell. I should also like to thank the present members for their continued assistance and support in updating and, in some aspects, modifying some of the original proposals.
My noble friend explained that the old Scots statutes and all the common law rules relating to writings will be swept away by Clause 11 of the Bill. I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that the position of people who are IOU creditors will not be made worse, but will be improved.
In the face of those abstruse rules, Clause 1 establishes a very limited list of obligations, contracts and trusts for which writing is required. A document will be formally valid if it is subscribed by its granter. On the other hand, the document will be probative if the granter's signature is witnessed by one witness. As we have heard, the Bill provides for the execution of documents by companies and other corporate bodies, by government Ministers and local authorities.
As my noble friend made clear, methods by which Peers sign documents at present will continue alongside the arrangements set up by the Bill. There is nothing to prevent Peers using another form if they wish. I am not aware of any problems which have been caused by the kind of signature which Peers are used to adopting.
I turn briefly to some of the specific matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. He drew attention to the definition of "land" in Clause 8(2). That is a general reference to documents of any kind which relate to land. In the absence of a definition of "land" in the Bill, one can find such a definition in Schedule 1(5) of the interpretation Act. However, more generally, Clause 8 refers to the actual land rather than the interest in land. The need for Clause 8(2) arises from a specific request by the Law Society and the Keeper of Registers. It is designed to make absolutely clear what is required in the case of annexations in relation to land.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, also referred to Clause 7(3). As the noble Lord will be aware, sometimes one finds that a document finishes at the bottom of a page and there is therefore room for only one signature at the bottom of the page. The purpose of that provision is to allow for other granters to sign on another page rather than having to cram them in at the bottom of the page.
The noble Lord raised points in relation to Clause 9(6), regarding the definition of "relevant person". He pointed out that the provision is wider outside Scotland. The reason is that the provision is designed to include outside Scotland people who have an equivalent qualification by way of being a notary public, or other persons. If one were to limit the provision entirely to people with the kinds of qualification referred to in the
1378
first part of the subsection, it would be difficult for someone in, for example, France, to find a person who fell within that definition.
As to whether or not others should be included, the list may be restrictive, but it is certainly wider than the existing list which at present includes only solicitors, notaries public and Church of Scotland ministers. Therefore there is a widening of the provision. However, in such an important matter one would not wish to widen it too far. The commission has obviously considered the matter with some care.
On the question regarding whether the provision should include people who cannot read, as the noble Earl will realise, we are concerned with people who cannot subscribe —that is to say, those who cannot actually write for one reason or another. It is the physical act of writing with which we are concerned. That is why one has this specific machinery, limited in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, raised the issue of subscription by companies. In the Bill, as with all provisions for probative documents, one is dealing with a presumption. Where one has a document which bears to have been signed by two persons who have been authorised to subscribe the document on the company's behalf, the document may be presumed to have been granted by the company. Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord that we already find in existing law at Section 72 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990 reference to two persons authorised to subscribe the document on behalf of the company. Therefore one is incorporating in the Bill a provision which already exists and has proved to work satisfactorily. It is as a result of representations from the business community that the final form of the provision relating to documents being subscribed on behalf of a company has been reached. In that situation the business community has been concerned, among other things, to deal with the possibility of fraud, and is satisfied that the matter is properly dealt with.
Reference was made to the fact that there is no presumption that the person who signed is a director. I believe that that is correct. Again, the matter has been inserted as a result of requests from the Law Society. If one simply had the situation where someone bore to sign as a director it would be wrong if there were a presumption thereby that he was a director. That would only arise if the matter were challenged. If it were challenged on the basis that the person was not a director, it seems to me that it is correct, as the clause envisages, that at that stage the question as to whether or not the person was a director at the time should be settled on the basis of normal rules of evidence rather than by virtue of any presumption. The point is that so long as the document bears to be signed by persons as directors, it attracts a presumption—it is a rebuttable presumption but nonetheless a presumption—of probativity.
Noble Lords will have seen a letter from the Law Society of Scotland saying that there is nothing in the Bill to cause undue concern. I think that that is a cautious conveyancer's way of expressing approval. The measure has the support of the CBI (Scotland) as well

1379
as the Scottish Law Commission. The provisions contained in the Bill are almost exclusively technical and therefore are not, I believe, controversial in nature, in a party political sense or otherwise. There are no political or European implications and the Bill will not lead to an increase in public expenditure. On the contrary, its provisions should lead to savings in time and money being achieved by companies, firms of solicitors and other bodies—perhaps to the detriment of the legal profession's fees, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said.
It is a much needed and long overdue simplification and clarification of the law of Scotland relating to legal writings which will be welcomed by Scots lawyers and by the business community. I am therefore happy indeed to commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask for clarification. I was fascinated by his last point regarding the signature of a director if the writer were found not to be a director at the time. Does that mean that if a firm signed a bill, one needs somehow to establish at the time the person signed that he was a director. If he were not a director, would the firm have no liability whatever? It is a small point. However, listening with a fair amount of attention and fascination, it struck me as a slight weakness in the Bill.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may say this. The simple fact is that if a person were not a director and signs, the document is not being granted by the company. It would be wrong for the company to be so bound. If the document bears to have been granted as a director, it is presumed to have been granted on behalf of the company. However, if the person were not in fact a director, then the matter can be challenged. I believe that that must be right because if he were not a director it would be quite wrong for the company to be bound. The company cannot be bound by people with no authority to sign on its behalf.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. However, I may have paid my money by that time, in order to buy something from a company which did not exist—perhaps to build a house. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will consider the issue again. It may be that his explanation has satisfied some; I do not know. However, I am not desperately satisfied with the explanation at present.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I am glad that he was able to answer some of the technical questions on which I might have slipped up.
I wish to make one remark to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. My full name is the Earl of Balfour and Viscount Traprain. If one also has a few other titles, the signature might cover three or four pages on the document. On occasions like that, thank God our signature is just a single word. I would not wish to change that provision.
1380
We must note with some sadness the repealing through this Bill of the old Scottish authentification statutes and various deeds Acts going back to 1540. They cannot be read and applied literally as modern statutes should be. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, because it is important that if the Bill is enacted there should be no doubt or misunderstanding.
The only other point about the old deeds is that some which are at present still in force must at best be doubtful and at worst pernicious. The Bill will be a delight to students and practitioners in Scots law and I hope that it passes through both Houses and remains for many years on the statute book. I commend the Bill.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Channel 4: Funding Formula
7.51 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton The Earl of Stockton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to abolish the Channel 4 funding formula which was intended as a "safety net" but has resulted in Channel 4 subsidising ITV companies to the extent of £57 million in respect of 1994 alone.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, to put the Question into its context, perhaps I may respectfully remind your Lordships of the statutory framework surrounding Channel 4. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, if Channel 4's revenue falls below 14 per cent. of the joint advertising and sponsorship revenues of ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, the ITV companies would be required to support Channel 4. When Channel 4's revenue exceeds 14 per cent., then 50 per cent. of the so-called excess is paid to ITV; 25 per cent. goes to a statutory Channel 4 reserve fund and only the remaining 25 per cent. can be spent on Channel 4's own programmes. The statutory reserve already stands at £45 million and this fund would have to be exhausted, as well as Channel 4 falling below the 14 per cent., before ITV was asked for a penny. It seems to me that a compulsory insurance premium of £60 million a year is a trifle excessive.
Parliament intended the funding formula to be a safety net for Channel 4 and not a subsidy to ITV. The Member for Witney, my right honourable friend Douglas Hurd, who was then Home Secretary, announced the formula on 13th June 1989, although Channel 4 had not been consulted and the formula was entirely different from that which had been proposed by Channel 4 and endorsed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place in February that year. It has also been endorsed by Ministers involved in the 1990 Act.
Let us therefore look briefly at the record of Channel 4 and also, because it is relevant, that of the ITV companies since the Broadcasting Act 1990 enshrined those policies in legislation. Channel 4 has lived up to its remit as an innovative and original company on the cultural and broadcasting scene in this country and, indeed, worldwide. The ITC is fully satisfied that Channel 4 is fulfilling its distinctive remit. It is worth

1381
noting that the only note of criticism in 1994 was that Channel 4 was just under the recommended 50 per cent. of British and European production —a direct result, I suggest, of the channel's lack of funds to invest in programmes, especially original drama.
Channel 4 has shown that its income is unlikely to fall below the 14 per cent. threshold during the present licence period. That view is endorsed by all major independent studies, including Zenith Media, the leading advertising media analysts. Channel 4 has proved that the remit set down by Parliament is viable in an increasingly competitive market.
A fortnight ago, Channel 4 handed over a cheque to the ITV companies for £57 million. For 1993, the cheque was £38 million. Yet the ITV companies' own forecasts were that the figure would be no more than £100 million over the entire 10-year span of the licence. Compare that estimate with payments to date of £95 million over just two years and I think your Lordships will agree that Channel 4 has exceeded expectations. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, will point out to your Lordships that the ITV company with which he is connected—Meridian—when calculating its bid, got it right and that it is entitled to its money.
The Chairman of Channel 4, Sir Michael Bishop, has given an undertaking in writing to my right honourable friend in another place, the Member for Loughborough and the Secretary of State for National Heritage, that, if the funding formula is abolished, Channel 4 will recompense bilaterally any ITV company that can demonstrate to the ITC that it has not already received the income it projected that it would receive from Channel 4 during the period from 1993 to the first review date in 1997.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will be able, in replying to the Question, to justify the changes in the regulatory framework that have been allowed to the ITV companies since the passage of the 1990 Act. Not only has the ITC allowed the programme requirements to be relaxed—in particular to sustain GMTV—but the Government have changed the rule on ownership that has allowed Meridian to take over Anglia, Carlton to take over Central and Granada to subsume LWT. That is a significant rationalisation of the ITV companies, with commensurate cost savings that, in the case of Carlton alone, are estimated to amount to £100 million. In 1992 there were 13 advertising sales points; now, there are only five.
It is also worth noting that it is only since January 1993 that Channel 4 has been selling its own air time. Prior to that, it was handled by the ITV companies. The success of that can be seen by the recently announced figure of a total advertising and sponsorship revenue for 1994 of £393.9 million—an increase of 19.3 per cent. over 1993. Over the same period, ITV revenue grew by 8 per cent. but profits increased spectacularly by 194 per cent. in the case of the old Carlton and by 763 per cent. in the case of the merged Carlton/Central; by 100 per cent. in the case of Granada/LWT; by 83 per cent. for Channel and by 162 per cent. for HTV. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, will be able to give us a comparable figure for Meridian/Anglia.
1382
However, all those dry and dusty numbers in millions of pounds are not what concerns the viewing public. Channel 4 has a splendid record not only in television but also in the film industry. It would be only a mild exaggeration to say that Channel 4 is the major, indeed nearly the only player in the financing of the British film industry. I am sure that many of your Lordships have seen or heard of films such as: "The Crying Game", "Howards End", "Riff Raff", "Shallow Grave", "Four Weddings and a Funeral", and "The Madness of King George". In respect of the latter I feel I must declare an interest. Last Friday I was privileged to see that film (which has been nominated for three Oscars) at Channel 4 itself, thus enjoying a benefit of £7.50 had I seen it in the West End or £3.50 had I waited until it arrived at my local flea-pit. Incidentally, it is worth noting that in 1993 Channel 4 films won more Oscar nominations than those of any other company, except Warner Brothers and in 1994 more than three of the major Hollywood studios put together.
Your Lordships will realise that "The Madness of King George" is an adaptation of the extremely successful play, "The Madness of George III", but, in order not to confuse the American cinema-going public, largely nurtured on sequels at present, the name was changed lest they might think that they had missed out on the "Madness of George" One and Two! If the depiction in the film of the proceedings in another place is accurate, noble Lords will find that not much has changed over the past two centuries.
Channel 4's television record is as impressive and, beyond mentioning drama series such as "The Rector's Wife" and "GBH" or the multicultural films such as "Bandit Queen", documentaries like "Beyond the Clouds", entertainment such as "After Dark" and "Drop the Dead Donkey" and Channel 4 racing, I believe its output speaks for itself. As an educational publisher, I can attest to the quality of its schools' programming.
If the subsidy to the ITV companies were removed—and in my view it was only ever imposed in some kind of quest for a spurious symmetry—the company would then be in a position to increase considerably its investment in both film and programmes, perhaps by the order of as much as £10 million to £12 million in the case of film and a larger amount in the case of programming, especially in original drama.
It is axiomatic in the industry that the best way of building viewer loyalty is through original drama, which is, of course, also the most expensive part of the schedule. In order to be effective, all art must be dangerous. Originality in any art form involves taking risks. I am sure that Channel 4's drama will continue to outrage some as it engages many. I am sorry to see that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing is not in his place, for I know that he has strong views on what is and what is not suitable for our television screens.
I should like also to ask my noble friend whether he has any plans to introduce legislation to regulate the digitisation of the terrestrial broadcast spectra. Channel 4 has set the pace. It has the first all-digital studio and broadcasting capability in the country and already transmits test simulcasts in the format. British television was always held to be the best in the world, but only

1383
because it was the most original and innovative. The best way to protect the most original of our broadcasters is to remove from them this unnecessary burden and allow them to do more and more of the good work that they have proved they can do.
It is insane to allow a minority channel to subsidise its richer competition, which already has over two and a half times as much to spend on programmes, although that is lower than was promised in its original licence applications. Let both Channel 4 and ITV thrive through the fruits of their labours. Channel 4's ability in the future to sustain its remit is best secured through allowing it to invest in programming now. Channel 4 blazed a trail with its use of independent production companies and helped to break restrictive practices in the industry. It has an excellent record in exporting programmes. Are this Government really going to tell the House that they are in the business of penalising success?
8.1 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, once again we are discussing at root the disastrous effects of the appalling 1990 Broadcasting Act. This bizarre funding formula is only one part of the 1990 lunacy which has done so much damage to British television. But it is typical of the whole shambles. For it is bizarre —as the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, pointed out—for a minority channel to have to subsidise bigger and richer competitors on such a scale. It is intolerable that huge funds are being transferred away from making programmes to the bottom line and indeed to the directors' pockets in bigger companies.
I have no need and do not propose to repeat all of Channel 4's arguments. The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, did that well; and they have already been expounded with what might be called loud resonance by Mr. Grade. I am sure that they may be repeated again by noble Lords this evening. I simply say that Sir Michael Bishop's letter to the Secretary of State on 7th February is a devastating critique of the funding formula. But the letter has, in my view, not been answered and is indeed unanswerable. Despite that, ITV has made a few sensible points in response and I look forward to my noble friend making more.
It is true that ITV companies carry burdens. Channel 4 does not. It pays a levy to the Treasury and dividends to shareholders. Channel 4's advertising success is at ITV's cost. Therefore, stopping the subsidy would leave ITV even less funding to make its own programmes.
I am not impressed by one argument in the ITV briefing. It argues that:
"When their bids were made, the ITV companies expected"—
and the word "expected" is underlined—
"to receive money from Channel 4",
by this subsidy; and that these expected revenues,
"represent a significant part of the revenues on which their bids were made".
That is quite strange. We understood that this funding formula was two-way—that it was a safety net to Channel 4. How could it be a safety net for Channel 4 if the ITV companies all expected it always to subsidise
1384
them and factored that into their bidding budgets? I might ask: what will happen if the situation is reversed and it becomes a safety net? How will some of those companies pay if in their budgeting they have depended on being paid? I am not impressed by that argument.
Nor does it impress me, or worry me, that Mr. Grade and Channel 4 have previously supported the funding formula. The fact that they previously supported "a bad case does not preclude them from finally seeing the light and now saying that it is a bad case. It certainly does not make it a good case. So I hope that we shall not hear too much of that argument.
We wait with interest to hear the Government's defence of the indefensible status quo in this situation. Certainly nothing that the Secretary of State has said so far—I must say that it is a commendable aspect of the Secretary of State that in the whole national heritage field he says very little—is convincing. The argument of no statutory time, which we assume, can be used against any change to any bad legislation. It has not deterred the Government from amending frequently their bad legislation on education and local government. Anyway, they have already found time, as the noble Lord said in opening—though admittedly by order —to amend the 1990 provisions to allow takeovers and to reduce the number of advertising sales houses. So there is no problem of principle or precedent here, just of practicality and priorities.
The Secretary of State's argument that there is still a continuing risk to Channel 4 without the safety net is hypothetical. Anyway, as was pointed out, statutory reserves of nearly £40 million already seem to cover that risk.
The argument that has been suggested that ITV deserves a return for setting up Channel 4 is clearly irrelevant. ITV did not set it up or have anything to do with its recent success. Nor are there any contracts to be broken between Channel 4 and ITV or the Government. The funding formula was established without consultation with Channel 4 and against the advice of the then Select Committee, simply by power of Parliament. It can be changed by the same process.
The arguments for doing so are in principle—I stress "in principle"—decisive. The one serious argument against on the Government's side is the practical one. This formula, although imposed, was part of what might be called the known rules of the game at the time. They can be revised anyway not far ahead, in 1997. It could be said that to take parliamentary time for primary legislation before then might not on balance be worth it.
I say to the Minister that I shall listen sympathetically to that argument, as to all practical arguments of the Government. If he puts that argument, I will listen sympathetically on three conditions: first, that he will admit that the 1990 Act—I mean admit in public, here in this Chamber—was an appalling mistake which nobody now supports; secondly, that he will apologise for it; and thirdly, that he will promise vigorously to examine the possibility of immediate compromise short of primary legislation.
One example is that he will promise to look at Channel 4's offer, which seems fair, and that on termination ITV will be relieved of its hypothetical

1385
obligation to Channel 4 and that all ITV companies will receive the full income for which they have budgeted for 1993 to 1997. Another example is that he will support and encourage any consensual compromise brokered by the ITC. It may be that a ceiling for Channel 4 payments will be included in a compromise. If I understand the formula correctly, at present it appears not to be a level playing field. The ITV safety net is limited to a maximum of 2 per cent., but the Channel 4 subsidy is open-ended. Therefore, there is scope for a consensual compromise. It should contain a guarantee that Channel 4 will spend the benefits of not having to subsidise on such a massive scale the rest of the ITV sector on programme-making and film production, not for instance on larger cigars for Mr. Grade.
This raises the very important question of investment in British film making which is closely related to the issues we are discussing tonight. The present silly funding formula transfers money from Channel 4, which appears to have a good record in joint film productions, to other ITV companies such as Carlton which I suspect have a more disappointing film production record. First, I ask the Minister how much Channel 4, Carlton, other ITV companies and indeed the BBC invest in film production. Secondly, will he ensure that any compromise that may be brokered—and we urge him to broker a compromise—involves a commitment to greater investment in the British film industry?
We are not here tonight to speak for or against one side or another. I confess that certain aspects of Channel 4 worry me, since some of its so-called minority programmes seem to appeal to what I consider to be undesirable minorities. However, it is always rescued by the excellence of its racing and music coverage. Our main concern is to rescue British television and films from the appalling consequences of the 1990 Act. That system, with its minimum quality requirements and open financial bidding, has failed, as we always said it would. It has failed both on quality and financially, as this debate shows, and will continue to show. In the longer term we need new criteria, with high quality requirements and a fair pricing formula subordinate to that. In the shorter term I shall be interested to see whether the Minister tonight has any proposal to get out of the mess which we are clearly in.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, for introducing the debate. Very properly, he declared an interest. I gather that he received some modest hospitality from Channel 4 at the preview of a film. I have a much more serious declaration of interest. I am a member of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life and therefore I must be very careful. I declare my interest as a former chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority who played some part in the original establishment of the Channel 4/ITV relationship. I also ought to declare an interest as a
1386
very modest pensioner in the defunct IBA. Finally, I declare a family interest. A daughter has been a senior executive of Channel 4 and has rather vigorously lobbied some of us. However, she left Channel 4 a few days ago to return to the BBC. I do not know what is to be made of this tangle of interests, but I hope that your Lordships' House will accept that I speak for myself and my party from this Bench.
Speaking as a former chairman of the IBA, I find it sad that there should be a slightly bitter multi-million pound quarrel between ITV and Channel 4. I am bound to say that in my days at the IBA the relationship between Channel 4 and the ITV companies was never an easy one. For all my skills as chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the relationship between Channel 4 and the IBA was not always a harmonious one, but I believe that that was in the nature of constructive tensions in these situations. Today, it is undoubtedly very much worse and to the detriment of British broadcasting.
It is clear that the deeply flawed provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 have created a situation that is unsustainable beyond 1997 and ought to be corrected before that stage is reached. Frankly, I find it puzzling that the present Secretary of State—of whom many of us had high hopes—should so resolutely have decided to do nothing about this. It is all the more puzzling because Channel 4 was a very great achievement of a Conservative Administration, in particular that of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when he was Home Secretary. I believe that it is an achievement of which a Conservative Administration is entitled to be proud. To create an innovative, distinctive public service channel catering for minorities and entirely commercially funded is a remarkable achievement. Those interested in broadcasting quality and administration throughout the world are full of admiration for the creation by Britain of Channel 4.
I concede to the Minister who is to reply that the idea of having a safety net of IT revenue to preserve Channel 4's remit in the new situation after the 1990 Act if advertising failed was well motivated. But what we face is a familiar story of government politics in recent years. The noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, wanted privatisation. There was resistance to that within the administration. They ended up with a compromise which turned out to be a cock-up. The present formula is grotesquely unbalanced, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, pointed out. If things went wrong for Channel 4 there was a downside limit of 2 per cent. of ITV revenue as their legal obligation to help. If things went well for Channel 4 there was no upside limit to the subsidy that Channel 4 would have to give ITV. It was and is open-ended. That is unacceptable. It is something to which the Government should face up and do something about.
In practice, things have gone very well for Channel 4 because of its own efforts. The programmes are popular with their special audiences, if sometimes that proves infuriating to those with more conventional tastes. They have achieved a satisfactory market share.

1387
Its new advertising department has sold that market share brilliantly. I tell the Minister that some of the bad feelings between ITV and Channel 4, which have not been helped by the personalities on either side, have arisen because Channel 4's marketing flair has reflected badly on the previous skills of ITV when they sold Channel 4's advertising. I well remember, when I was chairman, the arguments when ITV denied that it was not making the most of its opportunities to sell the advertising time on Channel 4. It cannot be right, because of a flawed formula, that Channel 4, which is a non-profit making public service corporation, set up by the present government, this year should subsidise the shareholders of ITV companies to the tune of £57 million.
Now that I am detached from all the arguments of the past, my benchmark in these matters is the interests of the viewers. The formula simply means that Channel 4 is deprived of that money for making programmes—including the films for which it has become famous and with which it has made an immense contribution to the British film industry—without any assurance that it will go on ITV programming rather than to ITV shareholders.
What are the arguments on the other side? I do not wish to rehearse what the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, said very fully about some of these matters, nor the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The most persuasive argument adduced is what might be called the insurance argument. It is an argument that, although Channel 4 was not party to the original formula in the 1990 Bill as it went through Parliament—it was imposed upon it—nevertheless, it was an insurance policy against things going badly for it. One does not cancel an insurance policy even though things go well. That has always seemed to me to be the most persuasive of the practical arguments. But in all the circumstances, it is not a very realistic argument. No one who pays for an insurance policy would enter into an open-ended commitment to an uncertain increase in the insurance policy in circumstances where, as experience showed, we had less and less need for it. I feel that the Government need to look at the weakness of the arguments for facing up to making a change.
There is a final argument put by the Government; namely, that one cannot move the goal posts of the Broadcasting Act before the review of the Act, which is set for 1997, and in any case, there is no time for broadcasting legislation before then. But, as the noble Earl, said, the goal posts were moved. It was not done in a very dramatic way; they were moved within the terms of the Act because there was provision for orders in council. Nevertheless, the goal posts were undoubtedly moved with the major series of mergers that were allowed. I do not argue against that; but it took place. Equally, changes of a major character in the marketing arrangements were allowed to take place.
I simply fail to understand why the goal posts can be moved by the Government under pressure from the ITV companies in the merger field, taking advantage of the order in council procedure, and why they have
1388
steadfastly set their face against moving the goal posts to deal with what is a blatantly unfair system as it has presently worked out in the light of experience in terms of the revenues of Channel 4 and ITV.
Then there is the argument of not having time for new legislation. I want to try to smoke out the Minister, if I may, on this particular point on a wider front than simply Channel 4. The Government are now engaged in making new proposals for the new BBC Charter, Licence and Agreement. They have published a White Paper. On this side of the House we are glad that the licence funding of the BBC has been preserved. But in that White Paper there is provision for legislation. In order to merge the Broadcasting Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council there has to be legislation.
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, will say from his point of view, but I well remember a speech that he made in your Lordships' House with which I greatly agreed. Before the Government moved the goal posts by allowing the kind of mergers in which the noble Lord's company has participated, he argued that the whole matter, including any plans that he had, should be put on the back burner until the Government's plans for the future of the BBC came before your Lordships' House and Parliament and that then there should be a comprehensive review of broadcasting policy to take Britain into the next century.
That is the opportunity that will lie before the Government later this year. There is no reason why, in the 1995–96 Session, there should not be a new broadcasting Bill. First, it would put right the glaring anomaly and inequity that exist with regard to Channel 4 funding. In addition, it would deal with all the other matters that arise in achieving a decent British broadcasting policy for the 21st century. It would involve, for example, the whole issue of cross-media ownership and looking at the other flaws in the present Broadcasting Act. It would also involve the very serious matter to which the Government should be giving attention; namely, doing something about the monopoly considerations of allowing non-domestic satellite broadcasters not only to be major new broadcasters on the British scene—it is right that they should be so—but also to be the toll keepers and gate keepers of the encryption systems that control whether other people can enter into that area. Some very big issues lie ahead. The new BBC Charter and Agreement and the associated legislation is an opportunity for the Government to put those things right.
I hope that the Minister will use his influence to urge the Secretary of State for National Heritage to throw off his diffidence—if that is what is affecting him, but I simply do not know—and show the necessary ambition and imagination in taking the opportunity in the next Parliamentary Session to put

1389
British broadcasting on the right basis to face up to all the competitive considerations of global broadcasting in the next century.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, as the co-vice chairman of the All-Party Media Group, I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, for raising this Unstarred Question tonight and giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate, although much of what I have to say has already been said.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that Channel 4 has become a victim of its own success. For 10 years it remained a station catering for minority tastes and interests not covered by ITV. For that, it received 17 per cent. of the terrestrial qualifying revenue, which was reduced to 14 per cent. under the Broadcasting Act 1990. We have already heard how the revenue above the basic 14 per cent. is split. Channel 4 can lay claim to only 25 per cent. of its profit for its current expenditure.
Since 1993, with the ability to control its own advertising revenue, Channel 4 has gradually become more commercial in its own right and inadvertently finds itself in competition with Channel 3 rather than just complementing it. That success is causing Channel 4 to feel aggrieved. The sums of money (representing 50 per cent.) are very great and there is no reason to expect in the future that the amounts will decrease unless Channel 4, which is a public broadcaster having no shareholders, so chooses.
I kept all the notes supplied with the 1990 Broadcasting Bill. It is quite clear that the channel has come a long way from the one envisaged in that Act. The surplus that now arises reflects the aggressive and commercial way in which Channel 4 schedules its programmes and the fact that it is much easier for Channel 4 to sell its air time because it does so nationally and in macro-regions, whereas ITV has to do it on a purely regional basis. It makes its money by scheduling American imports, "Countdown" and "Brookside" in prime slots. I do not necessarily think that that is wrong, though there is some of Channel 4's scheduling that I do not like and would like to see less of. On the other hand, there is much that I admire. Channel 4's news programme at 7 o'clock is excellent and quite often better balanced than the news on other channels.
I must praise Channel 4 for its commitment to film making. It makes every effort to fund or part invest in the British film industry. It has subtly moved into the commercial sector while at the same time continuing to support new talent. The film, "The Madness of King George" is a brave move into the international market. Nigel Hawthorne and others have already been nominated for Oscars. It is Channel 4 at its best.
Returning to the issue of the 50 per cent. subsidy to ITV, is there not a case to be made, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, for placing a cash ceiling on the amount paid rather than a percentage which
1390
varies? Better still, why not pay that ceiling amount into the ITV network centre to fund more Channel 4 and ITV original films and drama? Failing that, why not freeze the statutory reserve fund? It already stands at £47 million and is more than enough to see Channel 4 through to the next century.
I doubt that there is a risk of the ITV companies having to bail out Channel 4. It has proved, now that it is in control of its own revenue, that it is able to honour its obligations, and putting the extra 25 per cent. back into circulation would allow for more production. We are on the verge of digital television and, if that is to succeed, more material will be needed. I certainly do not wish to flick through repeats on each programme simultaneously. And, without wishing to appear mischievous, perhaps I may ask the Minister what would happen to Channel 4 were it to be privatised. Will the Government's Department of National Heritage consider bringing forward the review? After all, 1997 is a long way off and there is sufficient evidence to consider amending the funding formula now.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I must declare a number of interests, though not quite the myriad declared by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. First and foremost, I am the managing director of MAI and we control two companies—as the noble Earl pointed out—Meridian and Anglia. My second interest is that I am a great supporter and admirer of Channel 4 and all its works.
I fear that I shall disappoint a number of noble Lords. First, the noble Earl asked whether I would give a forecast of profits for Meridian. I am afraid I cannot do that for that would make him an insider. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Donoughue suggested that I should not refer to the compelling case put forward by Channel 4 to the National Heritage Committee. I shall disappoint him on that because it is the most cogent and coherent case for the current arrangements. I hope that I shall not disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, because I shall remain consistent with the call I made two years ago for a comprehensive review. It is time for a comprehensive review of the financial arrangements—and we are talking only of one of the financial arrangements; there are many others with which your Lordships are familiar which operate within the commercial television sector and which have been somewhat overtaken by events.
Let us go back in time. Five years ago, when this matter was being discussed, it was a "Brave New World" with Channel 4 obtaining its freedom to sell; its future was unpredictable. The legislation brought in proposals to ensure that the methods of reconstituting Channel 4 and of tendering for the ITV licences would not destroy the existing strengths and character of the respective channels. The Channel 4/ITV funding formula was one of a number of elements introduced to make the ITV tendering process viable and to remove the threat of financial instability undermining the Channel 4 and the ITV system.

1391
The Minister at the time, Mr. Mellor, said that the aim was to provide for the separation of Channel 4 from IBA control and also to give it guarantees of income. The aim of the Bill was to ensure that the income of Channel 4 Television Corporation could be reasonably predicted. Should the income fall below what was prescribed, there was provision for a top-up; if it was above, a clawback. The Minister also went on to say that the provisions had been painfully negotiated with Channel 3, Channel 4 and S4C. The absence of amendments to the clause suggested that a provision had been arrived at to which all could set their hands.
That was the position that arose out of the 1990 Broadcasting Act and it is the case that the ITV companies have to abide by—they have no other alternative—the rules set out in the Act.
What was the attitude of Channel 4? The document to which I referred earlier was an extremely good and detailed report submitted to the National Heritage Select Committee in October 1993 (it confirms what the Minister said in the other place):
"Despite the fact that the 'insurance policy' of the 1990 Broadcasting Act is proving to be very expensive, the Channel 4 Board still believes it is worthwhile…The Board concluded at the Bill stage of the 1990 Act that it would not lobby against the formula for reasons which still hold good today…in advance of any experience of directly selling out airtime we appreciated the uncertainty of the transition and our obligation to protect the long term downside risk in order to guarantee the remit. Equally the Board took the view that there was real value to Channel 4 in the Act's provisions, not least for viewers, because they included the cross promotion benefit and meant that Channels 3 and 4 could be encouraged to run as complementary services".
That was October 1993 and a very full endorsement of the current arrangements.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl would give way. Can he say who was chairing the Channel 4 board at that point, in contrast perhaps to who is chairing it now?
Lord Hollick: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that. The paper was submitted by Channel 4, and those called by the committee for interrogation included the present chief executive of Channel 4.
In a little more detail, the paper went on to say,
"in our submissions to the Home Office we said that 15 per cent of [terrestrial qualifying revenue] was the minimum level of revenue we needed to maintain our programme spending, fulfil the remit and meet the extra financial obligations which the Act imposed".
I believe that this is the heart of the matter. Channel 4 is on the record as saying that 15 per cent.—because of the rather complicated way that it works in terms of spending money, that means 18 per cent. of total advertising revenue, TQR as defined—would be enough for them to meet their remit, a remit which we all applaud and which is a great success. Therefore, at 15 per cent., they are able to deliver the programming that they are required to deliver.
Finally, this splendid document says,
"There is, anyway, provision for a review of the Channel 4 funding formula built into the Act in 1997. We would urge that the Select Committee and the Government await that time before seeking to reach any firm conclusions".
1392
That was Channel 4's position as of October 1993, and that position obtained until the spring of 1994. We then all saw, heard and experienced a considerable, powerful and eloquent campaign. The document sets out clearly what the position was with Channel 4, why it went along with the 1990 Broadcasting Act, the merits of the situation and also, in this final comment, it essentially said that under this arrangement it would be able to meet its remit and that if it did not work out satisfactorily we could wait until 1997. That is the Channel 4 position.
What is the position of the ITV companies? As I said earlier, when the ITV companies were considering the position of bidding for their licences, they had no alternative but to take into account the rules that were very clearly set out. The rules were set out not only in the legislation but also in the invitation to apply, which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will know is a detailed document setting out many conditions and assumptions. One of them was that we had to take into account Channel 4. We also had to take into account Channel 5. The Channel 4 funding formula was included in the invitation to apply.
The invitation to apply specifically said that no amendment would be made before the 1997 review date. Applicants for ITV licences were therefore required to submit confidential business plans and to take the formula into account in presenting financial projections of income, expenditure and operating profit for the first 10 years of the licence. On the basis of those confidential plans the ITC had to satisfy itself that the applicant could sustain the proposed service throughout the 10-year period. The existence of the formula —this was crucial for ITV companies not least those like Meridian which were coming into the industry for the first time—had the effect of smoothing the effects of change—we are going through a period of great change—in the share of revenue between the ITV companies and Channel 4. It therefore had the effect, crucially, of reducing the sensitivity of revenue projections in the confidential business plan and of reducing one element of commercial risk in tendering for an ITV licence.
The noble Earl, Lord Stockton, will recall that he moved the amendment which removed one of the great problems and headaches from the tendering process; namely, inflation. It was a late amendment. This was all done with the intent to smooth that process in order to make it more predictable. So far as Meridian was concerned, the Broadcasting Act enabled Channel 4 to sell its own advertising for the first time. As the noble Earl has said, Meridian anticipated quite accurately that under this arrangement Channel 4 would compete more effectively for advertising revenue because its performance to date understated that potential. Meridian therefore projected a positive flow of revenue from Channel 4 to Meridian throughout its licence period. The existence of the formula supported by primary legislation was an important factor in setting the level of the bid. We made a bid. We signed up for a licence on the basis of the conditions that were in the legislation and the

1393
conditions that were in the invitation to apply. We have signed up for a bargain and we accept that in 1997 this will come up for review.
The Government's response to this campaign has been to say that we must stick by the legislation and by the rules because to do otherwise would effectively amount, so far as ITV is concerned, to breach of contract. However, the letter from Stephen Dorrell to the chairman of Channel 4, Sir Michael Bishop, has within it the seeds of a possible way forward. He said:
"There will be a number of developments over the next few months which will bear on the issue, including the outcome of our current review of media ownership, and any decision ought properly to reflect the wider elements in the picture".
I say "Hear, hear" to that. The letter goes on:
"You will also I am sure appreciate that any change in the formula would not be looked at in isolation, and would necessarily involve a review of where the money would go, as well as an examination of who should bear the revenue risk of Channel 4 and how they should be remunerated".
In other words, one cannot take this one part of the legislation, this one part of the complex financial arrangements within commercial broadcasting, by itself; one has to look at all the other arrangements.
The other arrangements are quite important. I shall name three. First, there are the infamous cash bids, where we have a completely uneven terrain, with some people paying as little as £1,000 and some people paying as much as £45 million. Those bids come up for review in 1998, the year after the Channel 4 formula. There is a possibility there of taking these things together, but perhaps earlier. The small company subsidy is an important part of the landscape within ITV. The smaller companies are subsidised by the larger companies such as Meridian and Anglia so far as concerns the budget for network programming. They simply do not have the revenue base to pay their full share. Similarly, on transmission costs, we need only one transmitter for London—Crystal Palace. In the West Country there are several hundred transmitters because of the terrain. The arrangements within ITV, which I fully support, are that the larger companies pay a greater share.
Those are three examples of what I would call the fairly complex financial arrangements. To suggest that one of them —the Channel 4/Channel 3 arrangement—should be looked at in isolation is the wrong way forward. What we need to see is a complete review of all of these arrangements. I have considerable sympathy for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, that if the Government had a mind to they would be able to find time to tackle these matters in a comprehensive way. Whatever the merits of the argument back in 1990, things have moved on since then. We have a very competitive world. We have some competitors—I am thinking of those in Sky—who pay very little for their right to broadcast. I shall not dwell on it, but ITV is expected to pay £4 billion over the 10-year period of its licences into the Treasury's coffers.
I should like to see a comprehensive review and I should like to see it being done quite quickly. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that my
1394
interpretation of the letter is correct and that he has it in mind that there is a linkage between these matters and that cross-media ownership is being reviewed. We are due to hear shortly. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the date when we shall hear it. Perhaps he can also tell us whether it will be possible to take these two issues together so that we can have a thoroughgoing review of these financial arrangements, something which I have called for on a number of occasions.
8.47 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stockton for initiating this debate on a topic which is clearly of some interest to a number of your Lordships who have spoken this evening. All sides of the argument have been very well put, particularly by my noble friend Lord Stockton. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and to a degree by the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, put the ITV case, if I may say so, very clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, attacked the 1990 Act. He was not as clear as I thought he might have been on his party's view on the subject. He said—I thought it was intriguing—that he did not like the idea of the pockets of his noble friend Lord Hollick being lined. I shall have to leave that debate to the two of them.
The noble Lord also said that he would listen carefully if I admitted various things which he then went on to list. I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord at the outset by saying that I shall not admit any of the things which he suggested. Far from it: I shall actually say how successful the Broadcasting Act 1990 was.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am glad to see that your Lordships are fully in agreement with that sentiment.
There has been a great deal of interest and debate in the press about the effects of the Channel 4 funding arrangements. There has been much speculation on how the money which Channel 4 has paid to the Independent Television Commission for distribution to the Channel 3 companies might otherwise be spent on programming. Channel 4 itself has mounted a vigorous campaign, including expensive advertisements in the national press.
I therefore welcome the opportunity to restate the Government's intention and commitment to ensure the survival of Channel 4 and to preserve its special programming remit. I should say straight away to the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, that we have absolutely no plans to privatise Channel 4.
Channel 4, which began transmissions in November 1982, has been a remarkable success. The aim of the Broadcasting Act 1990 in respect of Channel 4 was fully to sustain the unique programming remit of the channel. The Act accordingly requires Channel 4 to

1395
cater for tastes and interests not served by ITV and to encourage innovation and experimentation in the form and content of its programmes. It should also maintain a distinctive character of its own.
Prior to the Broadcasting Act, Channel 4 was a subsidiary of the ITC's predecessor, the Independent Broadcasting Authority. It received income from the ITV in the form of a fourth channel subscription from each of the ITV contractors. The subscription was 17 per cent. of the net advertising revenue of the ITV contractors from the previous year. Channel 4 received not less than 80 per cent. of this subscription, the rest going to fund S4C services. In return, the ITV companies sold Channel 4 airtime and collected the advertising revenue.
As your Lordships will remember, under the Broadcasting Act, Channel 4 became an independent organisation, a public corporation, subject to ITC licensing, but with the freedom to raise funds through advertising. However, to avoid Channel 4 being wholly dependent on this source of revenue, the Act provided a financial safety net which would act as safeguard against any erosion of the channel's remit.
Under the 1990 Act, Channel 4's prescribed minimum income for any year is set out at 14 per cent. of the total television advertising and sponsorship revenues received by all Channel 3 licensees: Channel 4, channel 5 and S4C. Any Channel 4 income above the threshold of 14 per cent. of national television revenues is divided according to a formula set out in Section 27 of the Act; 50 per cent. is distributed to the Channel 3 companies, 25 per cent. is placed in a Channel 4 reserve fund and 25 per cent. is retained by Channel 4 to meet current expenditure.
In the event of Channel 4's income falling below the 14 per cent. threshold, the difference is made up by drawing on the reserve fund and from a levy of up to 2 per cent. of total television revenues imposed on the Channel 3 licensees. The threshold figure may be amended by order but not until 1998. I have to tell your Lordships that during the passage of that legislation there was consultation with Channel 4 and others about its funding and that the Government took the views expressed into account.
In its first year of operation under the new arrangements, Channel 4 increased its share of viewers and proved to be extremely successful in attracting advertising. The result was that under the safety net arrangements it was required by the ITC to pay £38.2 million—that is to say, its income was 18.2 per cent. of total television revenues—to the commission for distribution to the Channel 3 companies. Following a further successful year, Channel 4 has this year been required to pay £57.3 million—its income was 19.8 per cent. of total television revenues to the commission.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Channel 4 has complained and has asked the Government to abolish the funding formula. This would require primary legislation. Channel 4 has argued that it has always been unhappy with the safety net arrangements and that the money
1396
which is going to the ITV companies would be better spent on high quality, British-made programmes, rather than going to the ITV companies' shareholders.
However, as many of your Lordships have said, this is not an issue which can be looked at in isolation. Others have a close interest. The ITV companies also have strong views, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hollick. They argue that the Channel 4 payments were an integral part of their business plans and the basis for their cash bids. If the Government changed the funding arrangements before 1997, it would invalidate the basis on which they had been asked to make their bids.
The Government have considered the arguments very carefully. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage met the chairman and chief executive of Channel 4 and the chairman of the ITV Association. He also had discussions with Sir George Russell, the chairman of the ITC.
We have concluded that to amend the formula through primary legislation at present would be wrong; that the burden of proof on those who propose to change the framework with primary legislation within which the Channel 3 licences were awarded is very heavy; and that the Government do not believe that those lobbying for change have demonstrated sufficient justification for changing the provisions of the 1990 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that the Government have changed some of the provisions of the Act. That is absolutely right. I believe that bidders for the ITV licences will recognise that changes can be made under secondary legislation or by the ITC in the exercise of its discretion. However, they are entitled to expect that the framework of primary legislation under which they operate will not be changed during the currency of their licences except in ways that were clearly envisaged by Parliament in the 1990 Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that the Government need legislation for other things. We need legislation to allow BBC commercial services to be licensed by the ITC and to merge the BCC and the BSC. Again, that matter was discussed in the White Paper. However, taking the noble Lord's point, the earliest that the law could be amended would be 1995–96, so any change would not come into effect until 1997. Under the Act the Government can look at the formula by the end of that year in secondary legislation.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point. I accept the argument as far as he has put it, but if we wait until the 1997 review, any legislative change following it will not take place until 1997–98 or even 1998–99. The gap of years is of critical importance to our argument about the balance of the way in which the resources go into programming.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's argument. However, the gap would be one year, as I sought to explain to the noble Lord.

1397
We shall look carefully at what has been said on this argument. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, pointed out that the opinions that have been expressed by Channel 4 are somewhat inconsistent. As the noble Lord said, it was only in October 1993 in a memorandum to the National Heritage Select Committee, which was investigating the future of the BBC, that it was stated that Channel 4's board would not lobby against the formula for reasons which still hold good today. It has given evidence to that effect. However, as the noble Lord also said, Channel 4 has changed its mind.
The provisions of the 1990 Act are there to ensure that Channel 4 survives in the long term. We appreciate that in the short term it is galling for Channel 4 not to be able to retain all the proceeds of its undoubted success. But it was expected at the time of the passage of the Broadcasting Bill that Channel 4 would make a surplus in the first few years but
1398
that its prospects would decline towards the end of the 1990s in the face of increased competition from cable and satellite channels.
Forecasts can, of course, change and I can assure your Lordships that we will keep the effect of the safety net arrangements under review. There are, however, practical restraints on changing the present arrangements. As I have said, changes to the formula would require primary legislation and there is, we consider, no question of bringing forward a government Bill to deal with this issue alone, given the many pressures on parliamentary time. Any changes would have to be made in the context of wider broadcasting legislation.

Accommodation Level Crossings Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at nine o'clock.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Peru: Cease-Fire
  Peru: Cease-Fire
  Burma: British Week
  Burma: British Week
  Iraq: Human Rights Violations
  Iraq: Human Rights Violations
  Kosovo: Human Right Violations
  Kosovo: Human Right Violations
  Age of Criminal Responsibility
  Age of Criminal Responsibility
  Treaty on European Union: Protocols
  Treaty on European Union: Protocols
  Japanese Companies Operating in the UK: Corporation Tax
  Japanese Companies Operating in the UK: Corporation Tax
  European Commission: Tax Arrangements
  European Commission: Tax Arrangements
  Consumer Credit Deregulation
  Consumer Credit Deregulation
  European Fast Reactor Project
  European Fast Reactor Project
  MOX Fuel
  MOX Fuel
  AT&T: Public Telecommunications Operator Licence
  AT&T: Public Telecommunications Operator Licence
  Land Mines
  Land Mines
  Fishing Vessel Decommissioning and Access to Irish Box
  Fishing Vessel Decommissioning and Access to Irish Box
  Housing Act 1985, s.73 Grants
  Housing Act 1985, s.73 Grants
  Freshwater Quality: Royal Commission Report
  Freshwater Quality: Royal Commission Report