Sitting of 12 January 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 19 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    MI5
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Director General of MI5 is expected to retire.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): As has always been planned, the Director General of the Security Service is expected to retire in February 1996, when she will have completed four years in the post.
    Mr. Winnick: Are there any grounds for extending her employment in that position? Does the director general of MI5 now accept that when she was in a responsible position in the organisation, but not yet director general, the decision taken under her supervision to target my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and Patricia Hewitt was wholly unjustified? As I understand it, the Government no longer want to justify it.
    Mr. Howard: I have answered the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As to the second part, there is absolutely no substance whatever in his allegation.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that now is not the time to be discussing the retirement of the head of MI5? Will he accept the congratulations of this House on the vigilant work that she and her department have done, with the exposure of an individual who was asked to leave the United Kingdom in the past week and who is a citizen of the Russian Federation?
    Mr. Howard: We have a great deal for which every citizen of this country should be grateful in respect of the work of the Security Service.

    Security Industry
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals for statutory regulation of the security industry.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): We have no plans for statutory regulations, but
    264
    I am looking again at policies in this area and await with interest the outcome of the Home Affairs Select Committee's current inquiry.
    Mr. McCartney: The Minister knows that for the past 10 years I have been involved in a campaign to expose the activities of those in organised crime who have been infiltrating the security industry, particularly in the leisure sector. Organised crime is involved in jobs, prostitution and protection rackets. Was it not extraordinary that just before Christmas Conservative central office, through its security company, recruited one Bob King who had just served 15 years for armed robbery to work as a security guard at central office? Does that not prove that infiltration of the industry has gone right to the top, including the Government?
    Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions of irregularity or criminality, the police are the appropriate body to which to make his complaints. I have given evidence on the security industry before the Select Committee. I repeat that I am looking at policies in this area, and I await with interest the conclusions of the Home Affairs Select Committee.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector has an important part to play in the security industry and is making a major contribution to the fight against crime?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Crime is dealt with by the police in their public role, and the private security industry has a vital and major part to play in all the various sectors—technology, cash in transit, man guarding, and so on. Ordinary citizens, members of the public and local authorities working in partnership with the police and with the private sector also have a key part to play.
    Mr. Trimble: Does the Minister recall that it was because there was evidence that organised crime was penetrating security firms in Northern Ireland that the Government put legislation on the statute book to regulate private security firms there, so there can be no objection in principle to extending that legislation to the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Maclean: I am not suggesting that there is an objection in principle. We must look at the practicalities and try to pinpoint which sectors, if any, of the security industry face problems. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that every facet of the security industry, including locksmiths and those who install alarms or closed circuit television systems—or indeed those who work in other areas of the industry where there has never been the slightest suggestion of irregularities or problems—should have a massive bureaucratic system imposed on them. That is why I am keen to find out whether the Select Committee has delineated any areas where there may be problems. I am also keen to see what options and solutions may be available to deal with perceived problems.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to announce which bids for closed circuit television funding will be supported.
    Mr. Howard: The successful bids for CCTV funding will be announced in March.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the concern of many of my constituents in Erewash that bids from cities for closed circuit television will take preference over bids from towns—a concern emphasised on many recent occasions—which has resulted in funds going to the cities of Nottingham or Derby but not to the Erewash towns of Ilkeston and Long Eaton, which lie in between? Can he assure me that in this instance towns will not play second fiddle yet again to cities?
    Mr. Howard: I can indeed give that assurance and I hope that it will go some way towards alleviating the concerns that my hon. Friend has expressed. I know how resolutely she works for the interests of her constituents. We have made it clear that the needs of smaller communities will be given particular attention as we assess the bids, which will, of course, be dealt with on their merits.
    Mr. McWilliam: Does the Home Secretary accept that the funds available for the scheme—excellent though it is—are massively inadequate in terms of the demand for it? Is he aware that there is great concern among the business community of the Team Valley trading estate in Gateshead that its scheme should go ahead as it will not cost the Government or the local authority any money to run it once it is established?
    Mr. Howard: The private sector, local authorities and other agencies are becoming increasingly aware of the significant benefits that closed circuit television can deliver and are contributing to the costs themselves. It is a very cost-effective way of dealing with crime. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who will know of the great success that has been achieved in the city centre of Newcastle, will be the first to accept that.

    War Crimes Unit
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to close down the war crimes unit at New Scotland Yard.
    Mr. Maclean: This is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The unit is currently funded until 31 March 1995. It is expected that police investigations will be completed by that date.
    Mr. Townsend: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not feel that employing 11 senior and experienced detectives under a chief superintendent at a cost of £5 million to look at alleged crimes in remote corners of eastern Europe more than 50 years ago represents a rather curious set of priorities?
    Mr. Maclean: No, I do not. The House voted overwhelmingly for the action that has been taken. I believe that, where alleged offences are committed, we are under a duty to investigate them and see them through
    266
    to the end. If there is sufficient evidence, the decision will be made by the Attorney-General, assisted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, on whether to prosecute. To put the cost into perspective, some £5.2 million over three years compares with Metropolitan police funding equivalent to some £5 billion over the same period.
    Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for that answer, which I am sure will be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will he kindly tell the House how many cases are currently under investigation, how many cases have reached the Attorney-General and when he expects a decision to be made as to who will be prosecuted?
    Mr. Maclean: Some 369 cases have been investigated by the Metropolitan police war crimes unit. The Crown Prosecution Service has decided not to prosecute in 236 of those cases, 112 people subject to investigation have died and 21 investigations remain with the police. Nine cases are currently with the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether prosecutions should be brought. I am afraid that I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman when a decision will be made on those, nor would he expect me to be able to influence, speed up or delay those decisions in any way.
    Mr. Jessel: Is not the murder of 6 million people a completely different kind of crime from the murder of just 6,000, 600 or 60 people? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the overwhelming majority of the House to which he referred was in the ratio of about four to one?
    Mr. Maclean: If I were one of the 60 or the six I might not necessarily take that view. However, these are more like Second Reading questions which have already been settled. The House decided by an overwhelming majority to set up the war crimes unit and to pass the legislation and we are under a duty to see that through. The task is well on the way to completion and it would be erroneous to abandon it as we approach the final hurdle.

    Constitutional Reform
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals his Department has concerning British constitutional reforms.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): We have no current plans for constitutional reform in Great Britain. We believe that our present constitutional arrangements serve their respective purposes well.
    Ms Quin: Does the Minister realise that there is deep public concern about the centralised quango-ridden system operated by the Government, and that by turning their face against any democratic reform the Government will win no friends? Would the Minister care to meet members of the Campaign for a Northern Assembly or members of the North of England Assembly of Local Authorities, both of which believe that regional government will not only be democratic and bring greater subsidiarity, but will help to bring about economic recovery and economic development in regions such as the north?
    Mr. Baker: The Government do not believe that constitutional reforms are either needed or wanted by the majority of the British people. As to the hon. Lady's

    267
    suggestions about regional devolved government, those are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We take a very different view from that which has led to the proposals for regional government being put forward by the Opposition, which are based on the needs of the Labour party and would lead to the devaluation and subversion of the authority of the Palace of Westminster and the break-up of the United Kingdom: as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said—teenage madness.
    Dame Angela Rumbold: Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain already has sufficient in the way of local government and bodies which represent people at local level and that the only constitutional reform that is required in a country of this size—quite small—is to have rather more local local government and not to indulge in regional government and other constitutional reform which would inevitably result in nothing but further expense for the poor British taxpayer?
    Mr. Baker: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The devolution proposals put forward by the Labour party are, in the words of The Guardian, which is no supporter of the Government,
    "an earthquake set to ripple through the land."
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give an assurance that, whatever constitutional positions may be arrived at throughout the United Kingdom, the authority will lie totally within the competence of the House?
    Mr. Baker: I can certainly agree with and give the answer yes to that question.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: If we had devolution in Scotland and Wales, regional assemblies in England and a tax on the monarchy, would that not destroy the United Kingdom as we know it today?
    Mr. Baker: Yes.
    Mr. Salmond: Is not the Prime Minister, in his claim that the Union is the best possible arrangement, beginning to resemble the boy on the burning deck? What evidence does the Minister have for his claim that the majority of people in Scotland do not want constitutional change? Does he understand why there is such substantial irritation in Scotland and Wales with a Prime Minister who claims that this place knows better how to run those nations than the people of Scotland and Wales?
    Mr. Baker: These are matters for Parliament. Scotland is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. I concur with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who described this as a most dangerous proposal and the most dangerous proposition to be put before the British nation.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the committee of the Council of Europe that deals with regional matters, which proposes the establishment of a regional assembly in Strasbourg, agreed on Monday that the current arrangements for the United Kingdom fit well into the pattern of regional government throughout Europe?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Beith: How can the Minister claim that Home Office Ministers are against all constitutional change when the Home Secretary is the biggest constitutional
    268
    innovator around? Was it not he who sought to centralise control of police authorities, but was stopped by the other place? Was it not he who sought central control of the administration of the courts, and is it not he who is trying to rewrite the doctrine of ministerial responsibility so that Ministers are merely accountable—not responsible—for matters for which even "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" states that they are responsible?
    Mr. Baker: My colleagues and I entirely reject that suggestion from a Member of Parliament who proposes a federal union in Europe which would have precisely the opposite effect.
    Mr. Batiste: Is not the real motive of those who argue for regional government in England connected with the fact that they are afraid to face up to the consequences of the West Lothian question? Is that not a very bad reason to mess about with English local government—just to retain extra seats for Scottish Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Opposition Members have given no answer to the West Lothian question either before or now.
    Mr. Straw: May I invite the Minister to agree with the following words? The words
    "decentralisation to the provinces of England would result in local communities recovering a large measure of the responsibilities they have lost in so many spheres."
    were the exact words that the Home Secretary's predecessor, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, used in a Bow Group pamphlet that he wrote recommending elected regional councils. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] It was after he had been chosen as a prospective parliamentary candidate—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are now revealing a further constitutional novelty: nothing that people say before elections should be followed after they have been elected. As a responsible adult and a prospective Conservative candidate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote a pamphlet backing elected regional councils all over England. He was right then, and the Government are wrong now.
    Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously, he will have to do better than dredge up 20-year-old quotations.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of London give thanks every day for the ending some years ago of the unlamented, overspending, bureaucratic, wasteful Greater London council and do not want anything like it again, either in London or in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

    Crime Statistics
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the accuracy of official crime statistics.
    Mr. Maclean: Two forms of official crime statistics are produced: crimes recorded by the police, and crimes measured by the British crime survey. Every effort is made to ensure that both sets of figures are as accurate as possible within their inherent limitations.
    Mr. Williams: What does the Home Office intend to do about the problem which affects efforts to cut crime

    269
    when police officers reclassify burglaries as criminal damage, thefts as lost property and car crime as tampering?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman should not give the impression that there is somehow a deliberate attempt to classify crimes in the wrong way. That is not the case. However, if in its annual round Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary comes across anomalies, it will instruct the force to apply Home Office guidelines, which have not been changed, to try to ensure that all crime is properly classified. If someone comes across a broken window in a garden shed, it must be difficult in practice for officers to know whether that is an attempted break-in, criminal damage or vandalism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not giving the impression that somehow there is deliberate changing of the figures, because there is not.
    Mr. Sykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the so-called blip boy has been sent to a children's home in Scarborough? Is he further aware that North Yorkshire county council's social services department did not find it necessary to inform the police of his placement but instead said that the reason was a lack of secure accommodation? Does my hon. Friend agree that that enforces the need for new secure accommodation units as soon as possible?
    Mr. Maclean: Yes. That is why we are bringing two sets on stream—the proposals for new secure accommodation which we put in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which the Opposition opposed, and more local authority secure accommodation. We need both and it is appropriate to have both.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is the Minister aware of one area in which the explosion of crime has generated false statistics? In some places there has been so much burglary that people can no longer get domestic contents insurance. They therefore do not bother to report burglaries as they know that they will not be resolved anyway. In view of the Chancellor's recent Budget increase in insurance premiums, the misrepresentation of crimes will get worse in future rather than better.
    Mr. Maclean: I do not accept that there is misrepresentation of crime. The trend over the past 10 years has been for people generally to report more and more crimes. In 1981 some 31 per cent. of crimes were reported, according to the British crime survey. By 1991, the figure had risen to 41 per cent.

    Prisons (Satellite Television)
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the availability of satellite television in prisons.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Most prisons have access to satellite television, which is controlled. However, the costs are met by prisoners themselves and not by taxpayers.
    Mr. Marshall: First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to the Privy Council? As most people do not have satellite television in their homes, will my right hon. Friend suggest to the lily-livered liberals
    270
    within the prison establishment that prisoners should not enjoy in individual cells facilities that they would not enjoy in their homes?
    Mr. Forsyth: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. In-cell provision of satellite television is limited to two prisons. I am sure that my hon. Friend will support the reforms that are to be introduced to ensure that privileges, of which access to television is one, are earned within the prison system. We hope to be able to announce those reforms shortly.
    Mr. Tipping: Has not the availability of personal possessions in Whitemoor and Parkhurst prisons led to the situation where cells cannot be effectively searched? Is it not the Home Secretary's own policies which are causing problems in our prisons?
    Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman ought to know, the matter of the issue and quantity of possessions in cells was one of the topics that emerged from the Woodcock report. That follows the review of privileges which has been conducted within the Prison Service. I agree that it is important that prisoners' possessions should be limited to ensure that there is effective searching and I look forward to support from Opposition Members in ensuring that that policy is enforced.

    Criminal Justice
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
    Mr. Howard: We have received about 2,000 letters from hon. Members, most of them covering representations from constituents, and about 2,500 letters from members of the public.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation have warmly welcomed many provisions in the Act, including those to widen the DNA base and change the so-called rule of silence? Does he agree that politicians who opposed the measures in the House have proved that they are not only totally soft on crime but that, despite all the trendy sound bites, the modern Labour party still much prefers to protect the criminal rather than to prevent crime?
    Mr. Howard: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will be seen as a landmark in criminal justice legislation. It will mark a great advance, first, in helping the police to prevent crime, to bring criminals to justice and to get them convicted before the courts, and secondly, in providing the courts with the power to pass appropriate sentences.
    If Labour Members believe that they have fooled a single citizen in this country by abstaining on Second Reading of the Bill but opposing the most important measures in Standing Committee and in the other place, they are grossly deluding themselves.
    Mr. Cohen: When will the Home Secretary get the police to use the Act against people who demonstrate against cruelty to animals?
    Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not get the police to use the provisions of the Act against

    271
    anybody. The police decide what use they make of the powers given to them under the legislation and I have every confidence that they will use their discretion wisely.

    Crime
    Mr. Waller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on current trends in the levels of (a) car-related crime and (b) burglary.
    Mr. Howard: In the 12 months to June 1994, the number of notifiable offences of vehicle crime recorded by the police in England and Wales fell by 9 per cent. Offences of burglary fell by 8 per cent. over the same period.
    Mr. Waller: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there has been a substantial improvement in the level of theft of and from vehicles as a result of the initiatives taken by motor manufacturers in fitting much better security devices? As there is clearly a better trend in the level of property-related crime throughout the country, especially in west Yorkshire, should not we congratulate the police and others responsible for that, rather than assuming that there is an inevitable rise in crime of all types?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. Both the vehicle manufacturers and, in particular, the police deserve our congratulations on the steps that they have taken to reduce car-related crime. It demonstrates that the new methods being employed by the police through more effective targeting can have significant success in tackling crime and bringing under control some of the increases of recent years.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Home Secretary agree that as those who perpetrate crimes go to our five-star, drug-ridden prisons, where they spend their time eating lobster thermidor or using their escape kits to fashion master keys for use in escape, that makes the right hon. and learned Gentleman appear to be soft on criminals? Should not he reverse his decision under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act savagely to rob the victims of crime of the compensation that they deserve? He is soft on criminals and hard on victims of crime.
    Mr. Howard: I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support for the proposals that I shall announce shortly to ensure that what have come to be regarded as entitlements in our prisons are no longer regarded as such and that privileges will have to be earned by good behaviour and can be withdrawn for misbehaviour. I look forward to his total support for those measures.
    Mr. Congdon: I welcome the figures given by my right hon. and learned Friend in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), but does he agree that it is important to keep up the fight against such crime? In the light of recent events, does he further agree that it is important to ensure that prison continues to act as a deterrent? Therefore, is not it important to ensure that lax prison regimes are ruled out?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Although the reductions that I have announced are welcome—and we must congratulate the police and others concerned who have played their part in bringing them
    272
    about—the figures are still far too high. We must never cease in our efforts to do all that we can to help the police to tackle crime even more effectively in future.
    Mr. Michael: Does not the Secretary of State realise that people throughout the country are stunned by his complacency over burglary and car crime? Why is he ignoring the facts in the British crime survey, which shows that 6 per cent. of households were burgled in 1993, that 20 per cent. of households had their vehicles broken into during 1993, and that people's experience of crime is rising two and a half times as fast as the recorded crime figures? As the increase in the experience of crime is far higher than the increase in the recorded crime figures, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my previous answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), he might have had the wit to rephrase his question. Of course I accept that crime remains far too high and that we must never cease in our efforts to give the police the tools that they need to tackle it. That is why it is so absurd for the hon. Gentleman to rise at the Dispatch Box and ask such questions when he in Standing Committee, and his party in the House of Lords, opposed tooth and nail the measures that we have put into the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which will enable the police to act effectively.

    Police Pay
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of police pay in real terms (a) at present and (b) in 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclean: The minimum salary for a new recruit to the police service in 1979 was £4,086, while the minimum now is £13,992. In real terms, police pay has increased since 1979 by 46 per cent.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does not it confirm that we are the party of law and order, which is in stark contrast to the lot opposite, who criticise the police and support rent-a-mob, rent-a-crowd and black flag on television? They oppose every piece of legislation that goes through this place. Is not it a fact that we are the party of law and order and that they are the party of no-hopers and law breakers?
    Mr. Maclean: The House would not expect me to match the excellent rhetoric of my hon. Friend, so perhaps I could rely on a few statistics. If it is legitimate for the shadow Home Secretary to quote from a Tory candidate's leaflet of 1958, perhaps I can quote from 1978, the last year of a Labour Government, when Lord Callaghan—who I understand was a former police adviser—was Prime Minister. In the last year of that Labour Government, 5,000 police officers resigned in disgust at the way that they were treated by the Labour Government. The first move of the incoming Tory Government was to recruit 7,500 police officers to bring us up to establishment and to recruit another 8,000 over and above that to give us today's number of police officers.
    Mr. Pike: What is Lancashire to do with the number of police and with police pay now that it has been told that the decimal point in the figure for its forthcoming

    273
    budget was in the wrong place and that the cut was not £200,000 but £2 million? What impact will that have on policing and police pay in Lancashire next year?
    Mr. Maclean: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary secured an excellent deal for the police service in the public expenditure survey round. At a time when there had to be, and rightly so, tight constraint on Government expenditure, we achieved a settlement for the police of 3 per cent. under the formula that is distributed around the country. If there are any errors in the calculations, each and every force can, of course, bring them to the attention of myself or the Department of the Environment during the consultation period.
    Mr. Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that the determination of police pay using the mechanism of the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom has served the country and the police very well? Can he assure the House that the Government's policy is that the PNB will continue to do its good work?
    Mr. Maclean: Absolutely.

    Victim Compensation
    Mr. Khabra: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on compensation to victims of violent crimes.
    Mr. Howard: The Government are committed to providing generous compensation to the innocent victims of violent crime as a mark of society's sympathy for such victims. It is a measure of this country's generosity that we pay out more in compensation than the United States and far more than all other European countries put together.
    Mr. Khabra: Will the Home Secretary admit that police officers, firefighters and ordinary people who are victims of the most horrendous injuries will lose out if his changes go ahead? Does he realise that some of them will have their level of compensation cut from £250,000 to a few thousand pounds, proving that the Home Secretary is not interested in the victims of crime?
    Mr. Howard: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures since, under the tariff scheme that we propose, 60 per cent. of victims will receive at least as much or more money than under the old scheme.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the generous package provided in the United Kingdom is only one aspect of dealing with violent crime? When one is addressing the problems of violent crime, it is important that the forces of law see that their actions are being upheld in this place and elsewhere and that the perpetrators of violent crime are dealt with in a determined fashion.
    Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The best thing that we can do is to give the police the effective help that they need to bring to justice those who perpetrate violent crimes. I am determined to do all I can to achieve that end. The police take their duties in these matters extremely seriously and it is up to the House and the nation to give them their support in the sort of partnership for which I have called.
    Mr. Straw: Since it is now crystal clear that Ministers were planning these wholly unjustified cuts in
    274
    compensation for victims of crimes of violence well before the last election and that Ministers agreed the cuts within weeks after the 1992 election, why did the Secretary of State's party not mention a word about the cuts in its 1992 manifesto, but instead, in its 1992 campaign guide, congratulated the Government on the continuance of the old and much more generous scheme? Is not this yet another example of the way in which the British people were grievously misled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues at the last election?
    Mr. Howard: As I have made clear, our record in these matters is absolutely outstanding. The hon. Gentleman conceded in his question that no decisions had been taken at the time of the last general election, so he destroyed by his question the very premise on which it was based.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it has always been a fundamental principle of the benefit system in this country that only the poorest should be recompensed? Therefore, would not it seem sensible to recognise that the criminal injuries compensation scheme is wrong to compensate those on substantially higher than average earnings?
    Mr. Howard: It was necessary to reform the scheme for reasons which have been explained comprehensively to the House and to do so in ways which have been approved by the House on more than one occasion.

    Wheel Clamping
    Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made to bring forward proposals regarding wheel clamping.
    Mr. Maclean: We are considering what action it might be appropriate to take. We will make an announcement when our proposals are ready.
    Mr. Spellar: Does the Minister accept that that is a ludicrously inadequate answer? Does he recollect that the Home Office consultation on wheel clamping ended in May 1993? When will he do something about it and rid the country of the menace of the cowboy clampers?
    Mr. Maclean: I also recollect that there was no clear consensus about what the future proposals should be. It is not good enough for the hon. Gentleman to accuse me of being late in bringing forward proposals when there is no agreement about what, if anything, should be done.
    Mr. Alexander: Regardless of that, is not it a fact that there are far too many instances of extortion and placing people, particularly women, in fear as a result of the activities of these clampers? Surely we must take some action to give people greater reassurance should their cars be clamped by one of these cowboys.
    Mr. Maclean: There is also a balance to be struck. We need to protect the legitimate interests of organisations such as hospitals and casualty departments which are sometimes affected by silly and indiscriminate parking. Of course, we must also protect the vulnerable and those who may be wrongly clamped but, as I said, I shall introduce proposals when I have come to firm conclusions on the right way ahead.

    Cannabis
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the legalisation of cannabis.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: In the past year, the Home Office has received about 100 representations calling for the legalisation of cannabis.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the fight against drugs remains at the heart of the Government's crime prevention programme? Does he agree that to legalise cannabis, which the Liberal Democrats voted to support, would seriously undermine that campaign? Will he confirm that he has no intention of adopting such a policy?
    Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. Only the Liberal party could associate itself with something as stupid as the legalisation of cannabis. To do so would send the wrong message to the country about our determination to fight drugs. That determination is clearly underlined in the Green Paper which sets out a strategy to tackle this scourge, which affects every section of every community.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the Prime Minister aware that his firm stance on the integrity of the United Kingdom is widely appreciated? Does he agree that if English Members of Parliament were unable to vote on Scottish issues, our constituents would want to know why Scottish Members of Parliament could vote on English matters which affect them?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a question that has been raised in the House on many occasions when devolution has been discussed in the past. There has never been a satisfactory answer to that question and, indeed, there is no satisfactory answer to it. If certain matters were devolved to a Parliament in any part of the kingdom and that Parliament were to have exclusive responsibility for them, then Members of Parliament from that part of the United Kingdom could not vote in this House on those issues affecting other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Blair: If devolution is such a dangerous proposal, why did the right hon. Gentleman and his party stand on such a policy in the 1974 election?
    The Prime Minister: Our party does not stand on such a policy. It is dangerous and, as I have indicated, I believe that the nature of devolution, with a tax-raising Assembly, will play Scot against Scot, Scot against Briton in other parts of the United Kingdom; leave Scotland as the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom and leave Scotland losing inward investment—and Wales, too, were
    276
    it to have such an Assembly; and were Scottish Members of Parliament given the right to deal with, for example, education and health in Scotland, it would not be proper for Scottish Members of Parliament to come to this House and vote on education and health in so far as England and other parts of the United Kingdom are concerned.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister says that he did not stand on such a policy. Let me read from the Conservative party manifesto of 1974. This is what the manifesto said—[interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Would the right hon. Gentleman paraphrase, please, and not quote directly?
    Mr. Blair: That manifesto said that "devolution is our policy" and that it was the opposite of centralism. It said that it would free Scotland from the rigours of centralisation and went on to say that it was the opposite also of separatism. If it was right in 1974, surely after this passage of time it is right now.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is being very defensive—and with good reason. He should look more carefully at those proposals. He will find that there was no proposal for taxation-raising powers for that Assembly and no executive power for that Assembly. He might also be aware, in terms of this Government, that I was not even in the House then. Every single aspect of what he now proposes will lead inexorably to circumstances in which the United Kingdom itself might break up. He can have an absolute guarantee that the Government will oppose his proposals lock, stock and barrel from this day forward.
    Mr. Blair: What is more, it was actually called in this manifesto a "Scottish Assembly". Is not the truth that the Prime Minister's anger is synthetic and that after 15 years of Conservative Government, 15 years of centralisation and the quango state and 15 years of anything and everything being run by unaccountable bodies stuffed with Tory placemen, it is time to bring government closer to the people it serves?
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, whose latest sound bite is the quango state—
    Mr. Blair: It is.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that it is his latest sound bite; indeed, it is. When he uttered it first last week, in the same paragraph he proposed extra quangos. Labour's so-called "quango count" includes grant-maintained schools and self-governing hospitals. In any event, the number of non-departmental governing bodies that the right hon. Gentleman calls quangos has fallen by 35 per cent. during the passage of this Government.
    The right hon. Gentleman seeks to hide the fact that he cannot answer any of the questions on devolution that we have put to him. He cannot explain why the Scots should be more highly taxed than anybody else. He cannot answer the West Lothian question. Indeed, he does not even understand what the West Lothian question is. Until he can find credible answers to that, it is no good his going back a quarter of a century and digging up, in a

    277
    mistaken way, old policies. He knows that he is wrong. He is on the defensive and he cannot win this argument for his policies are damaging to the United Kingdom.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: If my right hon. Friend heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) rabbiting on the "Today" programme this morning about regional government for England, did it occur to him that it might be time for the House to have another look at the unfair electoral quota system which results in serious under-representation of the English electorate?
    The Prime Minister: I did not have the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) on the "Today" programme or, indeed, to his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) who, I believe, was on morning television on the same subject. I did read the transcripts and I noticed that the hon. Gentlemen were unable to answer any of the questions that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has found himself unable to answer. What is undoubtedly the case is that if there were regional Parliaments with policies devolved to them, there would be bound to be an effect, unless the constitution was gerrymandered, on the number of Members of Parliament in this House from the parts of the United Kingdom that had such a Parliament with devolved tax-raising powers. That is the game that the right hon. Gentleman is playing and he is doing it because he is running scared of the Scottish Nationalists.
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Kirkwood: With the Prime Minister, quite rightly, being convinced of the merits of the concept of subsidiarity in the context of the European Union and of Northern Ireland, why does he set his face against using the self-same principles for the governance of Scotland when, in the 1992 general election in Scotland, 75 per cent. of the electorate voted for parties favouring a system of greater legislative control over Scotland's own affairs?
    The Prime Minister: The difference between the United Kingdom and Europe is that the United Kingdom is a single national institution—a national state. Europe and the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] Europe is not a national state. We are a single Government entity; we have been since 1707. I will not set us on a path where that may be broken up. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that that would be in the interests of Scotland, I suggest that he examines the matter more carefully, for he will find that it is not in the interests of Scotland and not in the interests of the individual Scot.
    Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time during his busy day to contemplate the identifiable Government expenditure on the different individuals within the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which in England is £3,290 per head and in Scotland 20 per cent.
    278
    higher at £3,968? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Labour party proposals for devolution were to be carried through, it would inevitably lead to a questioning of that subsidy, which is well understood at the moment? Therefore, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), the Leader of the Opposition, is right when he accuses some Labour politicians of infantile incompetence, but wrong when he restricts his comments to Members of the European Parliament.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a sound and important point. We are a single United Kingdom. I wish us to remain as a single United Kingdom so that we may direct our public expenditure across a single United Kingdom to the areas that most need it. That is what we have traditionally done. That is what I wish us to continue to seek to do. What concerns me is that for party political reasons a proposal is now being put forward by the Labour party which will unsettle those traditional arrangements and set one part of the United Kingdom against another.
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Gerrard: Does the Prime Minister recall that just over a year ago the Minister for Transport in London promised that the travelcard would be protected not only in name and form but in price in real terms? With people in London facing fare rises this week of up to 11 per cent. and the cost of travelcards going up by two or three times the rate of inflation, how does the Prime Minister justify that promise being broken?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should have a look at the policies on transport right across London, including the travelcard. He will find that the Government have a better record for keeping their promises on transport and other matters than any previous Government. I suggest that he looks right across the range at those promises that have been kept and the improvement in transport facilities that are available. What will damage transport facilities is—
    Mr. Tony Banks: Privatisation.
    The Prime Minister: Not privatisation, as the hon. Gentleman says. That has been the cry on every single privatisation that we have had and every single privatisation has improved the service.
    Mr. Booth: Is the Prime Minister aware that for every £1 spent on private schools coming through charitable status, £1.30 is given out through bursaries and scholarships by those schools? So, the Labour party's exercise is a vindictive, cynical manoeuvre.
    The Prime Minister: Well, I do not have the slightest difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend about that. Labour Members talk about choice and diversity. They

    279
    talk about the crusade for education. Their crusade seems to be to take away choice from as many people as they possibly can.
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Prime Minister have another go at trying to justify his ridiculous claim that the idea of a Scottish Parliament is a form of dangerous teenage madness? Bearing in mind that the idea of a Scottish Parliament has been supported, even by prominent 'Tories, such as former Prime Ministers Douglas-Home and Heath, and by the current Secretaries of State for Defence and for Scotland, what is the Prime Minister going to do about those dangerous teenage madmen?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman needs to engage in some grown-up politics. He may, for example, ask his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) whether he would agree with his remarks. The answer to his question is the one that I gave a few moments ago. There was not a proposition for a tax-raising Parliament with Executive powers, dividing responsibilities and tax-raising authority between different parts of the United Kingdom.
    280
    The Labour party's proposition will put Scotland significantly backwards in its economic prosperity; will lose inward investment to Scotland; will increase taxation in Scotland; and will set Scots against other parts of the United Kingdom and some Scots against other Scots. That is not a wise proposition. It is, as I have said, very unwise.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Birmingham council women's unit has been wasting £300,000 per annum of ratepayers' money and that the head of that department has been suspended for many months on full pay of £44,000 per annum while she wasted a further £250,000 on an ill-judged housing scheme? As she has now been offered £11,000 to leave the council and to go away and keep quiet, does my right hon. Friend feel that that is a matter for the Audit Commission to consider in the light of its recent report?
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of that particular matter. As the Opposition so often talk about waste in local government and elsewhere, they might conceivably have raised it. I saw the Audit Commission report which made the point that too often local government services are provided by a dramatically over-staffed service indeed. It seems to me that too often local government cuts services instead of staff and then takes the easy option of blaming the Government for underfunding it when it has cut those services. The Audit Commission report makes that clear and I am delighted that it does so.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week, and any further information that he can give us about future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam Speaker, the business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 16 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
TUESDAY 17 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 18 JANUARY—Opposition day (1st allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on through-ticketing under rail privatisation followed by a debate on access by Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels to British waters on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 19 JANUARY—Motion on the Legal Aid Advisory Committee (Dissolution) Order.
Motion on the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) (No 2) scheme and motion relating to the Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations.
FRIDAY 20 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
It may also be helpful to the House if I indicate—emphasising that it can be only on a provisional basis and could be subject to change—that the business currently planned for the following week is consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill on Monday 23 January and Wednesday 25 January, with Second Reading of the Disability Discrimination Bill, which is being published today, on Tuesday 24 January. I am not yet in a position, even provisionally, to indicate the business for Thursday 26 January.
I can also tell the House that, following its approval of the motions that I proposed on 19 December, I will be tabling later today a motion providing that the House will not sit on the following Fridays: 10 March, 12 May, 19 May, 26 May, 16 June, 23 June, 7 July and 21 July. As an additional bonus, I can also say that I do not at present expect the House to sit on any Friday in August.
In the shorter term, it will also be for the convenience of the House to learn that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the Easter recess will be from 7 April until 18 April and since 26 May is to be a non-sitting Friday, the House will rise for the Whitsun recess on 25 May and return on 6 June.
I understand that you, Madam Speaker, will be making a statement after business questions about the detailed arrangements for Wednesday morning sittings. The first such sitting will take place on 25 January.
Lastly, the House, particularly those who may serve on the Finance Bill Standing Committee, may like to know that, following discussion and agreement through the usual channels, it will be proposed that the Standing Committee, which has always hitherto sat in the afternoon and evening, and indeed often well into the night, should sit in the morning and afternoon. The spirit of Jopling appears to be spreading.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that important statement. As he says, the spirit of Jopling will benefit all hon. Members in due course. In particular, I
282
thank him for his information about non-sitting Fridays and the recess dates. I understand why the business for the week after next could be given only a provisional basis, but I am sure that it will benefit the House if the Leader of the House continues to give us notice of that kind. Opposition Members accept that that can be done only on such a provisional basis.
As the House has now decided to experiment with and modernise our procedures—we have heard of the benefits of that this afternoon—will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the accountability of Government to Parliament, especially in view of the vast expansion of enabling legislation in recent years?
Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a debate on one important aspect of the loss of accountability—how the Government can sell off Railtrack, which is worth up to £6 billion of public assets, and which is expected by the public as well as experts to be an unmitigated disaster, without initiating a full debate on that issue in this House? The Leader of the House will be aware that the Opposition have facilitated a debate on Wednesday on one aspect of rail privatisation that is causing great concern—through ticketing. If selling off Railtrack is such a good idea, will the Leader of House guarantee, in Government time, a debate on that issue?
Mr. Newton: I thank the hon. Lady for her generous remarks about the additional bits of my statement. I note what she said, and I am grateful for her recognition of the necessary provisionality. I shall not always be able to be as forthcoming as I have been today, but the very fact that I have been forthcoming today is an earnest of good intentions and my continued willingness to use best endeavours to help the House.
As for the rest of the hon. Lady's questions, at present I certainly have no plans for a debate along the lines that she has suggested. Indeed, I was not entirely sure of the boundaries of the proposed accountability debate. I remind the hon. Lady that Ministers, as the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear in recent weeks, remain accountable to Parliament for the performance of the agencies which are within the responsibility of their Departments.
As for Railtrack, the reason that there will not be a debate of the kind that the hon. Lady suggested is that Parliament passed legislation which did not require such a debate.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the economic aspects of constitutional change and examine ownership of industry within the United Kingdom, particularly as we can now, apparently, write to Inverkeithing, the address of the shadow Chancellor, for advice on that ownership?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly consider the scope for such a debate, but some fairly extensive exchanges about it—I acknowledge, not amounting to a debate—have taken place in the past few minutes. I am sure that there will be further opportunities to advert to those matters.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I add my warm welcome to the progress that the Leader of the House has made in implementing the Jopling proposals? It is a credit to him. The House will find that benefits will flow. Since, following the question of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and

283
if Prime Minister's Question Time today is anything to go by, constitutional reform in relation to devolution is now very much on the public agenda, put there by no less a person than his own Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House recognise that by staging a debate in Government time?
Mr. Newton: Obviously I would always consider such points. Indeed, in the light of the increasing evidence, in exchanges in the House and on radio and television and elsewhere, of the inability of those on the Opposition Front Bench to answer any of the questions that arise from the proposals that they are allegedly floating, there could be merit in such a debate.
Mr. David Martin: Did my right hon. Friend note the significant statement on legal aid made yesterday by the Lord Chancellor, and if so, did he note the promise that a Green Paper is to be issued on the subject? Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to ensure that that happens as soon as possible, accompanied by a statement in the House by a Minister, so that we can raise the question of the continuing injustice to civil litigants who win against legally aided clients yet do not receive their full costs?
Mr. Newton: I know that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is anxious to publish his Green Paper as soon as possible, and I shall communicate to him my hon. Friend's request that he should do so. The question of a statement can more appropriately be considered nearer the time.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why will we discuss the Government's wholly inadequate Bill on discrimination against disabled people on 24 January, although the White Paper was published only this morning and the Bill itself will be published later, when a private Member's Bill—the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has in the past had almost unanimous support in the House—is not to be discussed until 10 February? That Bill has tremendous support in both Houses of Parliament. Should we not have an opportunity to discuss the major piece of legislation first, rather than the inadequate Government shadow?
Mr. Newton: I propose that the House should debate the Disability Discrimination Bill on 24 January because it is now ready—it is being published today—and it represents the Government's view of the best way to make sensible, practical and realistic progress towards an aim that we all share. We want to get on with that as soon as possible. As for the White Paper and a statement, some weeks ago my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People made a substantial statement covering all those matters, which will be fully fleshed out in the White Paper.
Mrs. Marion Roe: In connection with the debate later today on child care facilities in the House, in which many of us will be unable to participate because of previous engagements, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many Members on both sides of the House believe that, in the best interests of the child, the most appropriate nursery is one near that child's home and not in the House of Commons, where facilities would not be suitable—
Madam Speaker: Order. Those are matters for debate later. The House has been anxiously awaiting the debate
284
for some time, and we are grateful to the Leader of the House for arranging it today, but I cannot allow Members to debate it at this stage, during business questions.
Mr. Newton: May I simply say, in the spirit in which I am sure my hon. Friend intended her question to be taken, that I shall be here to listen to the debate, and I note that, unfortunately, she cannot attend. I was aware that she was not very keen on the proposals, and I shall certainly take note of the way in which she phrased her question.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Why are we not being allowed to see the Government's Bill on discrimination against disabled people until 4.30 pm today, when its contents are already being widely discussed outside this House? By 4.30, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, most Members will have left for their constituencies until next Monday. Why could we not have had the Bill at 3.30 pm, and was the right hon. Gentleman consulted about the timing of its arrival in the Vote Office?
Mr. Newton: I am sorry, I think that I misheard one word in what the right hon. Gentleman said—I thought that he said "insulting".
Mr. Morris: No—"consulting".
Mr. Newton: At any rate, so far as I am aware, the arrangements for publishing the Bill are entirely consistent with the normal arrangements for publishing such Bills. Frankly, I do not think it unreasonable to expect Members of Parliament to be here at 4.30 on a Thursday afternoon to attend to matters in which they are interested.
Sir Teddy Taylor: May we have a debate next week on the tragic situation in Sweden, whose currency collapsed yesterday and whose Government have today been forced to slash welfare spending, to force up taxation dramatically and to increase interest rates by 7 per cent.? Would it not be helpful for the House to find out why things are so different in nearby Norway, where the currency is strong and the economic indicators are better than ever?
Mr. Newton: In the same spirit with which I approached yesterday's debate, I shall respond to my hon. Essex Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) by saying that I take note of his question.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: In view of the Government's repeated commitments from 1989 onwards to the total modernisation of the Kent coastal railway services; and given the decision by the British Railways Board on Monday not to go ahead with any further modernisation after the first tranche of 64 out of 600 trains that had been promised, will the Leader of the House guarantee that the House will have an opportunity to discuss the consequences, both for Kent commuters and for the 750 people who work at the Asea Brown Boveri carriage works in my constituency and who will be out of a job, leaving the country unable to buy these trains in future unless it does so from abroad?
Mr. Newton: The fact is that British Rail has concluded that there was not a commercial case for new trains for the Kent coast before March 1999. Quite apart from the hon. Gentleman's views, I am well aware that

285
many of my hon. Friends from Kent do not agree with BR's judgment. The fact is, however, that procurement decisions are for BR. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads is, or was—I am not sure which—this afternoon meeting the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). I am sure that they will have an opportunity to express their views at that meeting.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Can my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the serious problem of overcrowding in offices in Scotland—particularly at 25 Church street, Inverkeithing? Is it not intolerable that the people who are seeking to force the leader of the Labour party to ditch his plans to reform clause IV should have to share offices with the shadow Chancellor? Cannot something be done about it?
Mr. Newton: I am happy to say that I have no responsibility for the allocation of space in Labour party offices in Scotland. I can say only that it was at the very least an interesting missive which was sent from that office to The Guardian.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 351?
[That this House congratulates all those who have been peacefully protesting about the export of livestock for slaughter from Shoreham; believes that the Government has failed lamentably to end this disgusting trade, or to secure acceptable journey times; condemns the Minister of Agriculture for allowing calves from his own farm to end up in veal crates and believes him to be entirely discredited in respect of farm animal welfare; demands that the Government bans the export of calves destined for veal crates and the import of veal produce in crates; and, if necessary, defends such action in the European Court under the terms of Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome.]
It concerns the exporting of live calves. Is it not nonsense that veal crates should be banned in this country, yet veal calves are exported and the veal is reimported? If we can achieve an opt-out on something like the social chapter, which large numbers of people in this country wanted, why cannot we get an opt-out on the export of veal calves?
Mr. Newton: I always well understand why the hon. Gentleman asks his questions about animal welfare, but he is asking for an opt-out from existing law, not from prospective law, which is what we were talking about with the social chapter. I believe that the Government have often been advised that we have no legal power to ban the export of animals, as the hon. Gentleman requests, or to ban the imports of veal, as he requests. We shall work very hard in Europe for the protection and standards that we exercise in this country and which have led to veal crates being banned here.
Mr. John Greenway: Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend said in answer to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley), can he not understand that Members on both sides of the House are deeply anxious about the future of the ABB carriage works in York and
286
about the carriage works in Derby? Should not someone be answerable to this House for decisions taken by a public industry?
British Rail has published no figures on which its decision was based; it did not even have the courtesy or the good grace to put the figures to Transport Ministers or to the Treasury, to check whether there was a business case, under the private finance initiative, for financing these much needed trains for the south-east railway. Should we not have a statement in the House next week, so that we can put these questions to Ministers on behalf of our constituents?
Mr. Newton: I know that my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot add to what I said to the hon. Member for York. I know too that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity, if he has not already had it, to make his points direct to the Minister.
I cannot this afternoon promise a debate in Government time, but perhaps, when you, Madam Speaker, announce the arrangements for Wednesday morning debates, my hon. Friend may wish to consider seeking an opportunity on one of those occasions.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Leader of the House assure us that the Disability Discrimination Bill, which is to be presented today, will include Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that I raised that question at the time of the Minister's statement; or will we be left to continue to support the private Member's Bill that will give further rights to disabled people in the whole of the nation?
Mr. Newton: I am certainly aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. He will be aware from earlier exchanges that the Bill will be published shortly, and that will give him the answer to his question.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on the Liberal-proposed MPs charter, so that we can benefit from the advice of the leader of the Liberal Democrats on an acceptable level of attendance in the voting Lobby?
Mr. Newton: That is a very tempting suggestion.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Can we have a statement on the arrangements for Ministers meeting people from outside the House of Commons? If the Leader of the House were to meet Mr. Ian Greer and discuss a matter of public policy, and I were to table a question asking the Leader of the House whether he had met Mr. Greer, would he answer me on the basis that it had been a formal meeting, or would he refuse to answer in so far as it may have been an informal meeting? What is the distinction between formal and informal meetings where they take place between Ministers and lobbying companies?
Mr. Newton: I really do not think that I should try to answer a question like that on a hypothetical basis without knowing what the subject is, the meeting or anything else. The last occasion on which I recall meeting Mr. Ian Greer—although I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's question is not particularly directed at me—was passing him in a corridor at the Conservative party conference, when we exchanged some brief words. [Interruption.] No,

287
we certainly did not. As far as I am concerned, the answer that I would give to such a question would depend on all the circumstances involved.
Mr. Tony Banks: It was a brown envelope job.
Mr. Newton: It was not.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on drug use in council housing? Does he realise that many local authorities continue to provide council housing for known drug dealers? Is he aware that the residents of the Queen's Park estate in my constituency are fed up with drug pushers in council flats who continue to sell LSD and crack cocaine to children as young as 11? Is it not time that Blackpool's Labour-controlled council was forced to stop sheltering criminals?
Mr. Newton: I would certainly hope that anybody concerned with the sort of problem that my hon. Friend described would look carefully at how they could deal with it, reduce it and, I hope, prevent it. As chairman of the group that produced the White Paper "Tackling Drugs Together", I hope that they would find the Government's proposals for strategy in that area helpful in achieving that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask a question of which I gave notice to the right hon. Gentleman's office and to the Foreign Secretary's private secretary? In the light of the report of Claude Cheysson, which was broadcast at five minutes to eight this morning outlining the starvation situation in Iraq, and in which he gave his expert opinion as a former French Foreign Minister and European Commissioner—that, far from sapping the strength of Saddam Hussein, sanctions had rallied the Iraqi people to Saddam Hussein as nothing else—and in view of the report of Riad El Taher outlining the medical situation in Iraq, which is in the possession of the Foreign Office, could we have a debate on what amounts to the manipulation of the United Nations by the United States and Britain, and on the continuation of these counter-productive, indeed wicked, sanctions?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows not only that I have considerable respect for the integrity of his position, even when I do not agree with it, but that we have great sympathy with the Iraqi people, and therefore recognise his concern for them. But the fact is that it is Saddam Hussein, not the United Nations, who is responsible for their suffering. We deplore the Iraqi regime for its failure to implement United Nations Security Council resolutions 706 and 712, which would allow Iraq to sell up to £1.6 billion of oil in return for humanitarian supplies. Since April 1991, Britain has contributed more than £66 million of aid to Iraq.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend consider holding an urgent debate on the implications for the workings of the House arising from the failure, according to the Official Report, of three Scottish Members of the shadow Cabinet—the hon. Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—to vote for the Opposition's amendment to the Government's motion on the Committee of Selection, despite the fact that they were available 15 minutes later to vote against the Government's motion? When the
288
Leader of the Opposition tables an amendment on behalf of the shadow Cabinet and three senior members of it fail to turn up to vote for it, surely that raises questions about how the House operates.
Mr. Newton: I can only suppose that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was perhaps somewhere writing another advertisement for The Guardian.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I listened carefully to the Leader of the House when he announced that Parliament would not be sitting for eight Fridays, and that we will have 11 days off for Easter and another 12 days off for Whitsuntide. Would it not be easier for him to come to the House and tell us which days we will be sitting?
Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that there should be a statement for those people outside this place who would like to have a four-day week? If we introduced a four-day week for the real wealth creators, the workers who provide goods and services, we could probably mop up those 4 million people who are unemployed. It is the unemployed we should be concerned about, not having days off in here.
Mr. Newton: I shall not go over all the ground again, but I do just wish, as I suspect virtually everybody else in the House does, that the hon. Gentleman would at least recognise that the suggestion that this is a four-day week is utterly ludicrous. What Members of Parliament wish to be doing is working in their constituencies in conjunction with their duties in the House.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Will my right hon. Friend invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an early statement next week on the anomalies and uncertainties in the Value Added Tax (Transport) Order 1994 which were so glaringly exposed last night, not least by the inability of the Paymaster General to tell me whether children travelling on the Ruislip lido railway would be subject to VAT at the standard rate, a rate which, under European Union rules, cannot be reduced below 15 per cent.?
In that statement, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Chancellor promises the House that never again will Her Majesty's Government move an increase of VAT from zero rate to standard rate without primary legislation?
Mr. Newton: I was not myself able to be present except briefly during the debate last night but, as my hon. Friend has said, the matter was extensively debated then. I shall not seek this afternoon to add to what was said then, but I shall certainly bring my hon. Friend's point to the attention of the Paymaster General and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people in London are thoroughly fed up with a health service that cannot deliver, a transport service that is expensive and serious housing shortages? The one place that could be a centre for regional government in London, county hall, is a centre of a huge controversy and inquiry about sleaze and corruption. Is it not time to have a debate about the nature

289
of local government in London and the need for the capital city to have an elected authority like every other capital city in the world?
Mr. Newton: We do from time to time have debates on London, although I have no immediate plans to arrange one, but I shall bear the request in mind. However, in saying that, I should make it clear that I do not for one minute accept the hon. Gentleman's description of circumstances in London, whether on health, transport or anything else.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on early-day motion 43?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to end the chaos and uncertainty currently surrounding the export of live animals by introducing regulations to require animals exported for food to be slaughtered in this country prior to their export.]
It has been signed by 75 Members from both sides of the House, and covers a matter of great concern throughout the country. It calls for animals to be slaughtered here before being exported as meat. May we have a debate on that important matter during the next week?
Mr. Newton: It is fairly clear that I do not plan to arrange a debate on that subject next week. My hon. Friend, however, may be among those who will bear in mind what you will say in a few minutes about Wednesdays, Madam Speaker.
I have already referred to the issue that my hon. Friend raised in responding to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), and I think that my answer now must be much the same.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: At the risk of boring the Leader of the House, may I ask him again to ask the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House—if not next week, at some time in the near future—to share the information that he has about the recent investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire? Does the Leader of the House agree that the bereaved families who have been waiting some 12 to 14 years for a response are entitled to that information, and that the Secretary of State alone should not be privy to it?
Mr. Newton: I believe that the hon. Gentleman asked me about that in December, when I last answered Prime Minister's questions. I cannot add to the reply that I gave him then, but I shall bring his continued concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I seek some clarification of remarks made earlier by the Leader of the House. Was he making a clear, unequivocal commitment to provide Government time for a debate on constitutional change in the United Kingdom, given the current interest in the subject? If so, will those on both Front Benches please provide us with definitions of their terminology as applied to the words "nation", "region", "state", "sovereignty", "independence" and "co-operation"—and, of course, the principle on which they base referendums?
Mr. Newton: As I have said, I should certainly like to hear definitions of some of the Labour party's proposals.
I am afraid that the answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is no. I was simply being as friendly and helpful as I could—as I always am—without commitment.
Mr. Max Madden: First, may I press the Leader of the House further on the issue of Government time for a debate on animal welfare? Secondly, will he give an assurance that Ministers responsible for the several private Members' Bills relating to that subject will adopt a rather more positive and constructive approach than some Ministers have adopted in the past in regard to private Members' Bills?
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider using his good offices to persuade the Government to advise those responsible for Government purchasing policies—and, indeed, the House authorities—to announce that they are unwilling to purchase imported veal until the means of its production is acceptable? Those are three positive steps that the Government could and should take to assist in the matter.
Mr. Newton: Obviously, my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider the various private Members' Bills as constructively as they can when the details are available. I am not sure whether all of them have been published yet, but I am sure that they will be read very carefully. As for the hon. Gentleman's last question, if—as I take it—he is suggesting that the House catering authorities, for example, should cease to buy white veal, I am sure that the Chairman of the Catering Committee will consider his suggestion.
Mr. John Gunnell: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about the death of Lee Bowen in Doncaster prison? Given that some 86 per cent. of those working in the prison had never been in prison before when it opened in June, I am sure that the Home Secretary will accept responsibility for this event, which was a direct result of his privatisation policy.
Mr. Newton: In view of the subject of the hon. Gentleman's question, I think that it would be appropriate for me to bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Greville Janner: Are we likely to have a chance to debate the work of the Overseas Development Administration? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman please ask for a statement about overseas debts owed to this country in general and, in particular, the debt owed by the kingdom of Jordan?
In view of the Jordanian Government's skilful, courageous and successful involvement in the middle east process, and given that they are in any event very unlikely to be able to repay the debt, perhaps this is the right time to write it off as a gesture of good will and good intent towards a very brave Government.
Mr. Newton: As the hon. and learned Gentleman probably expects, I cannot promise a debate on that matter. However, he has effectively made his suggestion, and I am sure that it will be looked at by my right hon. Friends who are responsible for such matters.

Wednesday Morning Sittings
4.4 pm
Madam Speaker: Under the new arrangements for Wednesdays there will be one or two general debates between 10 am and 1 pm and up to three short debates between 1 pm and 2.30 pm. Ballots for the subjects to be debated will be held under broadly the same arrangements as those which have hitherto applied for post-Consolidated Fund debates and last-day Adjournment debates. The first Wednesday morning sitting will be on 25 January, and applications should reach my office no later than 10 pm on Tuesday 17 January. A list showing the subjects and times will be published the following day.
Members may apply for both the general debates and the short debates, and each application should indicate clearly into which ballot they wish to be entered. Separate ballots will be held for each type of debate but, of course, in the same week no Member will be successful in both ballots. Similar arrangements and a similar timetable will apply in each subsequent week. The existing arrangements with respect to Adjournment debates at the end of each day's business will remain unchanged.

BILL PRESENTED
  DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
  Mr. Secretary Lilley, supported by Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. William Hague, Mr. Secretary Glimmer, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Mawhinney, Mrs. Secretary Bottomley, Mr. David Hunt, Mrs. Secretary Shephard and Mr. Secretary Lang presented a Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate against disabled persons in connection with employment and the provision of goods, facilities and services; to make provision about the employment of disabled persons; and to establish a National Disability Council: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
Orders of the Day

  Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries Etc.) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.6 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is rather technical and in terms of its geographic spread it could probably be described as a wee Bill, but it has a clause 4!
  The Bill is extremely important because it proposes to remove a current source of uncertainty about who should pay for the services of a planning inspector appointed to hold an inquiry on a planning authority's behalf into objections to a development plan or other similar plan. It also applies to Scotland and Wales.
  The history of the matter is worth a glance. Since the 1970s, when the first local plan inquiry was held under the then Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the Department and local planning authorities assumed that it was lawful on the basis of an implied contract to impose a charge for making the services of the inspector available. That seemed entirely natural as the planning authority was statutorily required to hold a development plan inquiry and should therefore expect to pay for the expense involved in the process, including the expenses of an inspector whom the Secretary of State appoints independently of the authority.
  Some 21 years later, in 1992 and in the following year, Birmingham city council queried the amount charged by the Planning Inspectorate for the inspector appointed to hold the council's unitary development plan inquiry. Subsequently, the council questioned whether any statutory power existed to levy those charges. In support of the argument, the council cited the judgment of the House of Lords in the case of McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd. v. Richmond upon Thames London borough council.
  That judgment held that there is no power for a public body to levy a charge for its services in the absence of an express or implied statutory provision. Moreover, I am advised that although the Planning Inspectorate and the local planning authority normally agree on the terms on which an inspector is to be appointed for a development plan inquiry, there is no implied power to charge the authority for this service on any contractual basis.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other colleagues were made aware of that legislative gap, the Government decided that the only reasonable course was to fill it as soon as parliamentary time became available.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I agree that the only reasonable course is to fill the gap, but surely it is unreasonable and wrong to apply backdating. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Bill has to be retrospective given that the supremely qualified staff of

  293
  Birmingham city council, which has constantly been maligned by the Government, brought this matter to the attention of the House and the Government.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the hon. Member for that early and anticipated shot. I shall fire a reply in a moment or two. [Interruption.] I shall answer in a moment or two if the hon. Gentleman will just bide his time.
  My hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government and Planning announced in a written answer on 17 February 1994 the Government's intention to legislate on the issue in order to put the matter beyond doubt. [Interruption.] For the benefit of those hon. Members who are squawking, it is worth pointing out that the origin of the problem was in the drafting of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968. If there was sloppy drafting then, it was the fault of the Government of the day in 1968.
  Following that announcement, we did not consult in detail with local authorities associations about the provisions to be included in the Bill, but no discourtesy was intended. There are three reasons to explain that. First, as my hon. Friend's written answer explained, the Bill simply restores the situation to what it was previously thought to be by all concerned in these matters. Secondly, the Bill will have no effect on public service manpower, as the explanatory and financial memorandum points out.
  Thirdly, the agency's chief planning inspector informed all local planning authorities last year that the inspectorate would collect no further charges for development plan inquiries until the proposed legislation had been enacted. In the meantime, any local planning authority wishing to claim a repayment of its charge will receive it, but authorities have been advised to make full budgetary provision for the amounts that would be due to the Department if the proposed legislation were eventually enacted. This is, in effect, consultation in any event. Having changed sides from local government to central Government, I can fairly say that I have never known local authorities to be slow in responding when finances, either positive or negative, were concerned. We have not been flooded with complaints.
  The sums at stake may not seem large in total local government public expenditure terms, but the underlying principle is important. In England and Wales, up to and including 1992–93, they amount to £4.5 million. For 1993–94, £1.4 million has been recovered from planning authorities and paid into a suspense account. A further £2.6 million is owing to my right hon. Friend's Department. In the current year—1994–95—approximately £3 million will be due to the Department. In future years, charges will amount to approximately £3.6 million, on average, while the present development plan work load continues.
  The Department has repaid some £2.8 million to 97 local authorities, along with interest payments of approximately £101,000. The principle on which this Bill is based is that authorities should pay for the services that these charges represent and for which provision is currently made in the annual local government financial settlement.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend saying that it is not just Birmingham that has not paid, but that a whole raft of local authorities have not paid
  294
  and are deliberately avoiding paying, or is it simply that they have not been asked to do so?
  Sir Paul Beresford: It is not quite as simple as that. Local government, trying to be at its best in managing its finances, has perceived an opportunity. About 97 local authorities have had money repaid, along with interest payments. If the Bill is not passed, that backpayment will not arise again—it will return to Government.
  Clause 1, which applies to England and Wales, is the core provision of the Bill. It does two things. First, it enables the Department to recover from planning authorities the costs that we bear, through the Planning Inspectorate, in appointing an inspector to hold what is called a qualifying inquiry. That is an inquiry set up to hear objections to local plans, unitary development plans or simplified planning zone schemes, to consider objections to such schemes or to conduct an examination in public into structure plan proposals.
  Secondly, the clause enables my right hon. Friend to provide, by regulations, the standard daily amount and the travel and subsistence allowances that planning authorities are to pay to persons, other than inspectors, who are appointed to conduct an examination in public into structure plans. I regret that the provisions of clause 1 will inevitably seem lengthy and detailed. It is felt that that is necessary to ensure that the provisions do the job properly this time and, so far as humanly possible, do not leave anything to chance.
  Clause 2, which also applies in England and Wales, deals with retrospection. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) pauses in his conversation, he will hear that the Government are persuaded that, exceptionally, retrospection is justified on this occasion for two main reasons. The first is that clause 2 imposes no new financial burden on local planning authorities. It simply validates past payments that authorities made in good faith, believing—as did the Department—that they were sought and paid lawfully. In that context, it is important to remember that provision was made in the annual local authority financial settlement for the estimated sums that planning authorities expected to incur by way of charges for inspectors' services at development plan inquiries.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The Minister said that arrangements had been made to allocate resources to local authorities for those purposes. Birmingham council's original estimate for an inquiry, based on information given to it, was about £30,000 yet the final bill was almost twice as much. The council is not aware that its grant from central Government has been increased to take that into account.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I am aware that a discussion has taken place, but I find that a little interesting. I decided to check and query the matter and to consider the costs.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: They were £68,000.
  Sir Paul Beresford: No, they were £63,508. The invoice is dated 3 November 1992. The inquiry lasted 35 inquiry days, five inspection site days and 112 working days for the inspector. I shall not go through the details. It is interesting that a similar inquiry involving a well-known authority that is dear to many of our hearts, Wandsworth, lasted 23 days with four site visits—making a total of 27 days. It had a similar number of objections—

  295
  51,455. On a day-by-day basis, which is not a fair way of doing it, Wandsworth has more reason to complain than Birmingham.
  The second main reason why retrospection is justified is that, without retrospection, the other provisions in the Bill would be unfair to planning authorities that, through no fault of their own, have not yet reached the stage of holding an inquiry as part of their development plan process. There is no good reason why planning authorities that have already passed that stage should receive a windfall financial benefit through not including retrospective provisions in the Bill.
  By arrangement with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who will reply to the debate, and for the convenience of the House, I shall say a few words about the Scottish provisions in the Bill. I understand that the position has not been tested in the Scottish courts. In addition, planning authorities in Scotland have not, so far, pressed for repayment of the sums paid in the past. I suspect that that is an example of canny Scots. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks that similar problems may arise, he considers it prudent to legislate now to remove any doubt about the basis of charges made.
  Clause 3 enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to set charges by regulations. It establishes a firm statutory basis for payment by planning authorities in Scotland. That will apply in the case of both local plan and simplified planning zone inquiries. Although that provides equivalent powers to clause 1, there are a number of distinctive Scottish features. First, reporters for local plan or simplified planning zone inquiries in Scotland are appointed not by the Secretary of State, as in England and Wales, but by the planning authority from a list provided by the Secretary of State. That list may include both full-time reporters and other suitably experienced people who are not officers of the Secretary of State.
  Secondly, examinations in public into structure plan proposals in Scotland are carried out on behalf of the Secretary of State, so the cost does not fall on the planning authority, as it does in England and Wales. Finally, the Scottish Office inquiry reporters unit remains part of the Secretary of State's Department and is not a next steps agency. Clause 3 reflects those distinctive elements but with the same underlying objective and effect as clause 1 for England and Wales.
  Clause 4 makes retrospective provision with regard to local plan inquiries, held under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts 1969 and 1972. There have been no simplified planning zone inquiries in Scotland yet.
  As in England and Wales, neither of those clauses implies any new burden on Scottish planning authorities. They are intended to put on a firmer statutory footing the charging arrangements that have operated for a number of years.
  Mr. Steen: Can my hon. Friend assure me that the amounts that authorities have already paid in relation to their local planning inquiries will not be increased retrospectively?
  Sir Paul Beresford: That is absolutely correct. It is a bill that is related to set fees for time and services rendered.
  Mr. Rooker: Is it interest free?
  Sir Paul Beresford: I will have to check on that.
  Mr. Rooker: The Government have repaid some of the money to local authorities and, as I understand it, they have repaid some of the interest payments as well. Some of the payments must go back 20 years. The Government will now collect that money from local authorities. Will they insist on the return of the interest payments? It is bad enough for them to insist on the interest on the principal sum, but insisting on the interest on the interest would be unfair.
  Would not it be a good idea for the Government—I am sure that the Minister will have thought about this—if every time a Department levied a bill on any citizen or local authority, it had to print on that bill the statutory provision that allowed it to make that charge? It should have to give the legal authority that allows it to make that charge on everything, no matter what. With such a provision, this case would not have arisen. In addition, it would highlight any other cases lurking in Whitehall where the Government are illegally charging individuals or authorities.
  Sir Paul Beresford: This does not go back 20 years. It goes back to the discussions with Birmingham which were referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). We are talking not so much about a refusal to pay as the fact that the bills have not been collected. If the Bill becomes law, all the amounts due then will be recovered from the authorities owing sums for inquiries.
  Mr. Rooker: Without interest?
  Sir Paul Beresford: I believe so, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
  This is a technical and comparatively short Bill that provides formal charging powers that everyone had assumed existed for some 20 years. We are remedying uncertainty. Today we are concerned with the principle of the Bill and the Government are sure that it is soundly based on the principle that it is reasonable for the user of a public service to pay for it, including, as we have just discussed, an essential provision for retrospective payment. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: What a shambles. The Minister has told us that he is announcing a new measure that will provide certainty. In fact, what he has said has created even more uncertainty. He does not know how many years it will go back. In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) he said that it will go back to the discussions with Birmingham. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) he said that he does not know whether interest is payable and, if it is, he does not know whether it will be payable from

  297
  the time the money went back or whether it will be interest free. I hope that by the time his colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies to the debate he will have studied the Bill more carefully than the Minister so that he can provide firm answers to the questions that we intend to ask.
  There is an old proverb about making haste and acting slowly. There is another equally well-known proverb about people paying for their mistakes. This extraordinary Bill is a combination of both. As the House knows, planning legislation is one of the most complex areas of law. Changes in planning law require the most careful consideration, the most diligent consultation with those most affected by the changes and the best possible briefing for Ministers. With this measure, the Government have unfortunately failed in all those areas. There may be two reasons for that. First, perhaps they made a mistake. Secondly, having made a mistake, perhaps they do not want to admit it. This is not the first time that the Government have made a mistake and do not want to admit it.
  The House waited in vain to hear the Minister take some responsibility for this legislative mess, but we did not once hear him say, "Sorry, we have made a mistake." There was no contrition and no apology. The Secretary of State could not find time to come to the Dispatch Box and take responsibility himself.
  Sir Paul Beresford: As the Bill refers back to the Labour Government's 1968 drafting, I should have thought that the apology ought to come from the hon. Gentleman's party. In addition, I have now had it clarified that where interest has been repaid that interest alone will be recovered by the inspectorate agency. I hope that that clarifies the issue for the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Vaz: We now hear from the Minister that it was all Harold Wilson's fault and that it is nothing to do with this Government. The Secretary of State could not come to the Dispatch Box to take responsibility for what had happened because he is the good news man who gets to go to press conferences and to launch new initiatives. The Under-Secretary of State is the bad news man who gets to come to the Dispatch Box when the Government get things wrong. It is ironic that that task should fall to a Minister who, of all the Ministers in the Department of the Environment, knows what it is like to be a local councillor and to carry the heavy burdens of a council leader—although he had privatised most of the council's functions by the time he left Wandsworth.
  The Minister knows that every spending decision taken by a local authority has to be set against carefully defined criteria. Local government has suffered immeasurably as a result of the Government's cuts in the past 15 years. The Bill will mean yet another burden on local councils, despite what the Minister says. Having discovered that a mistake had been made, councils will have expected to get the money back and to be able to spend it on the provision of local services. When local authorities make mistakes, they have to pay for them.
  The Bill is not only about mistakes: the Government have acted illegally, charging local authorities when they had no power to do so—and it has been going on for years. If local authorities had acted in a similarly illegal way, all hell would have broken loose. The Secretary of
  298
  State and his Ministers would have been flying around the country demanding that heads should roll. The councils involved would be harried, ridiculed and pilloried and their councillors would be politically persecuted. Yet when the Government are found to have acted illegally, we are supposed to keep quiet about it. The practice has been going on for years without anything being done about it.
  The Government seek not only to give themselves power to charge but to do so in respect of past charging errors—and they wish to perform the change "just like that", as Mr. Tommy Cooper used to say. Retrospective legislation is a very dangerous precedent. It is wrong in principle and sets an even more dangerous precedent when applied to local government. It should be used only very rarely. It should not be used when Ministers have flouted the law and the innocent—in this case the councils—are being punished.
  Caries, whom I am sure that the Minister has read in preparation for the debate, states in his writing on statute law:
  "A statute is to be deemed to be retrospective which takes away or impairs any vested right … under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty."
  Referring to the case of Calder v. Bull, Judge Chase said:
  "Every law that takes away or impairs rights vested agreeably to existing laws is retrospective, is generally unjust and may be oppressive. It is a good general rule that a law should have no retrospect."
  Yet those persuasive authorities have had no effect on the Government. Despite the general agreement that retrospective legislation is undesirable, the Government wish to proceed with it in this case.
  The director of technical services of Durham city council, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who had hoped to be here this afternoon, spoke for many councils when he said that the Bill would
  "set an exceedingly dangerous precedent if payments which were made with legal authority could be legitimised by subsequent legislation."
  As the House knows and as the Minister has briefly explained, development plans, structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans have to be the subject of public scrutiny at public local inquiries, examinations in public and hearings. Objections to the proposals are aired at such inquiries. It is a right that the public should have; it is their opportunity to comment on local plans. Such inquiries are chaired by inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State and drawn from the ranks of the Planning Inspectorate. The inspector listens to arguments and makes recommendations to the local authority. As has now become clear, from the first inquiries, Ministers have illegally charged local authorities for the services of inspectors.
  The Planning Inspectorate's corporate plan for 1994–97 predicted that the demand for inspectors for development plan inquiries would remain at current levels. Since 1991, the development plans of local planning authorities have had enhanced status and planning applications are now determined in accordance with the plan unless material circumstances indicate otherwise. They are, therefore, very important parts of the planning process.
  In terms of the completion of the plans, there is a long way to go. A survey published by the Minister's Department in August 1994 showed that only 60 English

  299
  districts—20 per cent.—had local plans in place by 31 March 1994. It showed that only 10 unitary authorities—15 per cent. of the total—had unitary development plans. More than 94 per cent. of English authorities are expected to have adopted plans by the end of 1996. In Scotland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) will explain, about 81 per cent. of local plans had been adopted by the end of 1993. The Scottish Office, as I am sure the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will tell us, expects complete local coverage by the end of this year.
  It was Birmingham city council that first raised the issue of the statutory basis for charging by the Secretary of State following, as the Minister has told us, the public local inquiry into the Birmingham unitary development plan. The House and the Government owe a debt of gratitude to the officers and members of Birmingham city council for their role in discovering the Government's error. I also commend the tremendous efforts made by my hon. Friends the Members for Perry Barr and for Selly Oak and by the other Birmingham Members who wrote to Ministers pointing out the error of their ways.
  The Birmingham inquiry lasted from November 1991 to February 1992. The inspector's report was received in October 1992, some months later. In November, as the Minister has said, the council received an invoice for £63,000 which exceeded its budgetary provision of £28,000. The reason was not that Birmingham had, in some way, done something to put up the bill. The reason was that the inquiry lasted longer than anticipated-38 days instead of 32. In addition, there was a unilateral 30 per cent. rise in the inspectorate's day rate charges of which the council was notified shortly before the inquiry opened.
  That bill was challenged on two counts: first, the size compared with what was estimated and, secondly, the statutory basis for the charge. On 24 June 1993, the assistant director of planning, Mr. Wenban Smith, wrote to the planning inspector, Mr. John, pointing out that as no regulations had been made under section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 there was no statutory basis for the charge. It was further attested by Birmingham that had the charges been the same as those prescribed under the Fees for Inquiries (Standard Daily Amount) Regulations 1988—which I am sure that the Minister has studied—the bill would have been half the size. No reply was received by Birmingham city council to that letter. It was not until a year later, when Members of Parliament wrote, that the Minister's predecessor replied.
  The House would have expected that on discovering the error the Government would have ensured the widest possible consultation with the associations and with individual councils so that they could implement the proposed changes, going through in great detail any proposals of legislation—but not a bit of it. In February 1994, just under a year ago, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities received a letter from the Department of the Environment referring to "some doubts" over Ministers' powers to make charges. The letter also said that "to clarify the situation" the Government intended to introduce retrospective legislation shortly.
  The AMA, after consulting its members, sent a reply via Mr. Phil Harper, who wrote to the DOE objecting to the Government's proposals, especially their retrospective
  300
  nature, and arguing further that in future the costs of the inspectors should be borne by the Government. The AMA received the letter from the DOE on the same day as a written answer appeared on the same subject—17 February.
  More evidence of the Government's unwillingness to consult—the Minister has spoken today of consultation with the authorities—came in a letter from Mr. D. Donaldson who works in planning division 4. Mr. Donaldson was responding to a letter from the Association of District Councils dated 1 November 1994. It took six weeks to reply to that letter. Millions of pounds of local taxpayers' money has been illegally grabbed by the Government. Mr. Donaldson, no doubt under ministerial instruction, says in paragraph 2 of that letter:
  "While we understand the reasons for the Association's concern, the Department does not accept that there has been a 'significant legislative error'."
  If that is not regarded as a significant legislative error requiring retrospective legislation, I wonder what is. In paragraph 3, Mr. Donaldson says:
  "The proposed legislation would be retrospective in order to validate payments which authorities have already made and to achieve equitable treatment for all planning authorities, irrespective of the time when their particular local plan inquiry was held."
  So, the Government want to be fair and equitable to all concerned. They are not going to rob Peter to pay Paul—they are going to rob both Peter and Paul.
  In all the consultations carried out so far, not one local authority feels that the principle of retrospection should apply. If the Act is passed, they will want payment to start from the time when the Act is passed, not from a previous decade. The local authorities say that that is a fair and honest way to proceed and the Labour party agrees.
  The Minister has told us that in his view £4.5 million up to the financial year 1993 and £1.4 million up to the financial year 1994 was owed by local authorities. Just to set the mind of the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) at rest, it is not a question of Birmingham council not paying or refusing to pay up. There is no legal authority and there was no legal authority for the councils to pay at all. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to pay a bill when he had no legal authority to do so. The bills were sent when there was no authority to do so.
  I am glad that the Minister was able to take advice and tell us about the interest. But we are not talking only of a global sum of some £7 million. For local councils these are very large individual sums. For example, Chichester will have to pay almost £20,000, Rochester £17,000, and Reigate and Banstead £75,000. I have not chosen examples of hotbeds of socialism. However, I have to throw in my local area of Leicester, which will have to pay £40,000. Individual councils will have to receive and then pay back a very large sum of money.
  On learning that there was no legal authority, the Planning Inspectorate refunded payments to local councils, informing them that the money would be clawed back when the legislation was passed. It must have been like a scene from the Keystone Cops. Each Minister in the Department of the Environment must have been given the responsibility of going in a fast car full of cash to hand it back to the town halls. Bearing in mind the Minister's fondness for privatisation, they perhaps engaged Group 4, or even Mr. Damon Hill, all with the same instructions: drive fast, do not stop, and if apprehended, blame it on

  301
  the lawyers. I can just see the cartoon in next week's Municipal Journal. It would be farcical if it were not so tragic—what a way to run a Department.
  We are very concerned about the scope of the charging regime. The proposed new section 303A(4) would allow the Secretary of State to recover
  "the entire administrative cost of, or incidental to, the qualifying inquiry, so far as borne by him".
  That appears to go well beyond the "remuneration and allowances" provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It appears that the Secretary of State is seeking to recover costs other than for those of appointing an inspector. When the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland replies, I hope that he will give us the cast-iron assurance that there is no intention to make charges over and above those made in the past.
  Mr. Rooker: Perhaps my hon. Friend will press the point that, with regard to new section 303A(4), in addition to the amount for an inspector, the Government intend to charge for the overheads of the Department of the Environment. What on earth have the DOE's overheads got to do with appointing an inspector with a dedicated staff and a dedicated task in mind? Why should local authorities bear a share of the costs of the DOE's overheads?
  Mr. Vaz: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I expected him, the hammer of the poll tax and the Opposition Member who did most to bring down that hated piece of legislation, to spot that. The proposal goes far beyond what was originally intended and far beyond the 1990 Act which refers simply to "remuneration and allowances". I hope that the Minister will give us the assurance that we need when he replies.
  I believe that there is a clear need to cut the costs of inquiries. Research commissioned by the DOE showed that local inquiries can cost as much as £170,000 for local plans and £300,000 for unitary development plans. The executive summary of the "Efficiency and Effectiveness of Local Planning Inquiries" stated that some of its recommendations were intended to
  "provide more certainty for local authorities and others in budgeting time"
  and ensure that a more businesslike relationship should exist
  "between the local authority and the planning inspectorate."
  The summary document was issued for consultation on 10 November 1993. The DOE said on 21 December 1994 that the full report would be published "imminently". When the Minister replies, I hope that he will tell us the date of the report's publication. He will know that one of his colleagues said on 17 February that the report was to be published "shortly". We await the proposals with interest and wonder why it has taken a full year from executive summary to the final report. We should like to hear how the Government propose to improve the local plan process. It should not be just a booking exercise; it should be much more substantial.
  Another and equally important argument goes to the heart of this matter and relates to the very principle of whether local authorities should have to pay in the first place. There is a view that, as a council is obliged by statute to prepare the plans and to hold the inquiries, the
  302
  financial burden should be borne by the Government—[Interruption.] I notice that that view has found favour among Conservative Members. I am delighted that they agree with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which holds that view.
  Other organisations take a different view. The Royal Town Planning Institute considers that if the Government paid the cost of the inspectors that might lead to a return to the pre-1968 situation of central Government having the final say in the adoption of local development plans. The institute believes that that would not be in the interests of effective planning or local democracy.
  The point is that this legislation, far from being a "wee Bill", as the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment described it, to be shoved through when no one is watching, gives us an opportunity to examine carefully a very important point of principle. We should listen to the views of the interested parties before we take a final view.
  The Opposition believe that once there is a statutory basis for charging, the relationship between the council and the inspector should be formalised. It should be that of purchaser and provider. I am sure that the Minister recognises those words as he was very keen to push them forward in Wandsworth.
  At present, the basis of a council's dealings with the inspectorate are open-ended in favour of the contractor. The client—the council—has very little, if any, control over the outcome in terms of the delivery date or price. The inspectorate should be required to give, and abide by, its estimates. A written statement should be provided in advance based on the circumstances of the case with any factors affecting variability—for example, sitting days—clearly identified.
  There should be provision for arbitration which is binding on both parties. There should also be a mechanism for challenging a demand which a local authority considers unreasonable. Under the provisions in the Bill, the Secretary of State can merely recover the costs through the courts. There should be proper regulation to ensure that the contractor's position of power and monopoly is not abused. That is entirely in line with the Government's wish to see the inspectorate as a trading agency.
  We believe that there is considerable scope for improving the operation of the inquiry scheme with regard to the greater use of written objections and shorter reports and developing a more informal approach with the local authority taking the lead in bringing objectors' concerns forward more effectively. Because of the new-found importance of development plans, it is always possible for particularly well-heeled objectors to delay the process to get their point across because they can afford expert representation. The costs of the inquiry will therefore spiral.
  We believe that planning authorities should involve local people in preparing plans at a much earlier stage. It is essential that the public are able to participate as early as possible. I was very impressed by the observations of the Royal Town Planning Institute on the Government's initial proposals. I do not believe that any hon. Member would disagree with the comments of Jed Griffiths, the senior vice-president of the institute, who said:
  "We need to get local people involved right at the roots of the planning process so that they can play a real role in shaping the future growth of the places where we live."

  303
  I am announcing today the establishment of a Labour party review of planning law. I hope that we will consult widely with all interested parties to make planning law a much more consumer-friendly part of legislation and the planning function much more understandable by local people. I want to see planning by local people for local people and planning for prosperity—the prosperity of local people in local areas.
  Mr. Steen: In his interesting speech, which I have been following very carefully, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that parish councils should have planning powers?
  Mr. Vaz: No, I am not. Far be it from me to stand at the Dispatch Box and reorganise local government. However, there is no reason why members of parish councils should not feel that they have a role to play as members of the public and go to meetings and participate in the process.
  The Government have been caught with their hands in the pockets of local authorities and we all know what happens to pickpockets. If the Government had charged the private sector without lawful authority, there would rightly be an outcry and Ministers would have to cough up and apologise. No wonder, simply to cover ministerial backs, the Bill explicitly states:
  "The Bill will have no effect on businesses as regards compliance costs."
  In our view, the Bill is bad and it has been drafted in haste. The Opposition have been given an assurance through the usual channels that before the Bill goes into Committee there will be a period of consultation with the associations and other interested parties. We shall hold the Government strictly to that promise. We shall therefore not vote against Second Reading today, but if we find that the Government are not prepared to consider their position on the issue of retrospection and are not willing to accept the reasonable proposals that we shall set out in Committee, I can assure the House that we shall be in a bare-knuckle fight with the Government in the later stages.
  It would be improper for the House to allow the Bill to pass before the Government are rightly condemned for their actions and are able to apologise for what has happened and it would be a negation of our duty as an Opposition if we allowed the measure to reach the statute book in its present unfit and unjust state.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: After the successful passage of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, the Government's principal new year's resolution must surely have been absolutely straightforward: "We just won't introduce new, unnecessary legislation. We will positively discriminate against passing any new laws which are not proved to be absolutely necessary." After all, that would be entirely consistent with the recent resolution of the House to reduce the number of hours that Parliament sits. Surely, if the House sits for fewer hours, prima facie it should pass fewer laws. Unfortunately, this is only the third parliamentary working day of 1995, and the House, believe it or not, is scrutinising a seemingly additional piece of legislation and adding it to the thousands of edicts that we churn out every year, many of which are entirely unnecessary.
  304
  Rather like habitual smokers, too many Ministers and their officials seem unable to resist the temptation to participate in their favourite pastime—passing laws. In most people's eyes, that is the justification for Parliament's existence, for, if we are not passing laws, what are we doing, they say. Whether laws are necessary does not seem to be questioned. Passing laws has become an end in itself, and the lifeblood and justification for the existence of Parliament. If we do not pass laws and we do not debate, we cannot justify our existence.
  The addiction now has such a great hold that it seems to have affected not only Ministers of all rank but civil servants, whose modus operandi seems to be entirely dictated by how much legislation they can get their Minister to pass and how many columns of Hansard and how many lines on the statute book they can fill. Are the Government proposing a performance-related bonus for civil servants according to how many lines of legislation they put on the statute book?
  The Bill is about the Government recovering from local authorities costs attached to certain inquiries. The inspectorate and the reporters unit has always charged for the costs involved in development plan inquiries. Indeed, even without any statutory basis, local authorities have paid up without much problem, to my knowledge, other than in the significant Birmingham case.
  Why did Birmingham challenge the legal basis of charging? As I recollect, it questioned it because the planning inspector was extremely dilatory in delivering his report. Birmingham said, "If you are charging us for this report, we would like it promptly. If you do not give it to us promptly, we will withhold payment." That seems to be a perfectly legitimate argument.
  In short, the existing system has worked well, even without statutory force. Therefore, one must ask: "What are the benefits of moving from a successful consensual agreement to a formal legislative framework?" Why take up the time of the House? Why increase legislation on the statute book, with all the associated bureaucracy? Why do we not leave matters voluntary? That is what the Conservative party is all about.
  Has the Birmingham challenge led to a flurry of similar cases from other local authorities? I do not believe that it has. The Government, not local authorities, have reacted. If there has been such a flood, it may be because of unconscionable and unreasonable delays in producing reports. It is a bit rich to clobber local authorities with a statute compelling them to pay if, at the same time, there is no local authority charter.
  I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister will think about a local authority charter which would ensure high standards of practice and which must include the prompt production of reports. It seems perfectly right that a local authority, if it is asked to pay for such reports, can say that there must be a charter which says that reports must be produced in two months, or there will be a reduction in charges made—just as, under the charter, one receives 20 per cent. back if a train arrives more than an hour late.
  There is another question: should charges be imposed at all? The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) touched on that point. Local authorities are obliged to prepare plans. That is the law. However, whenever plans are drafted, individual objections from local people are

  305
  bound to follow. That is our democratic process, which we encourage. An examination in public is therefore inevitable.
  I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Planning Compensation Act 1991. I was particularly enthusiastic about that legislation, which made it the statutory responsibility of every authority to draw up a local plan and to keep it up to date. Since 1991, such plans have had enhanced status, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East mentioned. The aim of local plans is to ensure that authorities develop their areas according to a rational process, with the fullest public consultation. That is what local accountability is all about.
  What happens? The Government actuaries in Holborn, using the most modern technology, analyse the demographic profile of regions and projects and see what is required in the next 10 or 20 years. They have what might be described as a crystal ball in Holborn. They look into it and ask, "What is required in each region of Britain? How many houses, schools, hospitals and roads are needed?" They produce a picture from Holborn—I do not know why it is from Holborn, but that is where they seem to be—and they present it to the Department of the Environment. Estimates are produced, based on their demographic profiles of births, divorces, deaths, employment figures and so on. At the end of the period—abracadabra—they say how much is required in each region of the country.
  For example, in respect of Devon—my area—the actuaries say, "We should have another 60,000 houses by the turn of the century." They then ask, "Why 60,000? Let's make it 90,000 houses." In the south-east of England—I do not think that anyone has an idea how many houses there will be in many Conservative constituencies—there will be nearly 1 million more houses by the turn of the century.
  That is what those people in Holborn are doing, looking into their crystal ball. In fact, if there are 960,000 more houses in the south-east of England by the turn of the century, it will be a continuous urban area. It will be a suburban area. There will be no countryside from London to Brighton.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I stayed in the Chamber to hear my hon. Friend, because what he says is usually good value. He raises an important subject. He will be interested to know that the Somerset branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, an organisation which would not oppose the traditional conservatism that my hon. Friend and I support, has written to me suggesting that the assumption that previous tendencies of people to migrate, particularly to retire to the south-west, should now be questioned and that housing and other developments should also be questioned. The south-west of England, which my hon. Friend and I represent, would otherwise be greatly disadvantaged by the developments that might follow.
  Mr. Steen: It was very kind of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) to make such gracious remarks about my contributions in the House. May I make, similarly, a comment about his interventions? They are well known always to be of very good value and of very good sense. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  306
  The Government are advised by civil servants in Holborn, who are very brilliant, wear glasses and gaze into crystal balls, and who believe that there should be 60,000 more houses in Devon and nearly 1 million more in the south-east. At the end of the relevant period, they get the houses, because planners and politicians build the houses, and they say, "There we are, we told you that they were needed." That has been happening in Somerset, Devon and the south-east.
  I question the assumption that is made, and I also question the process. Planners and politicians do great disservice to our local communities by burdening them with more homes, schools, hospitals and roads than are needed. They distort migration patterns in this country by building those houses.
  Mr. Vaz: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the Government should bear the costs of a local inquiry?
  Mr. Steen: That is the thrust of my argument.
  My modest local South Hams district council is one of the best in the country, and is regularly mentioned in dispatches as providing good value for money. I am questioning why, if the Government are committed to the democratic process and to consultation and have passed an Act saying that local plans must be drawn up, they do not pay part of the cost. I question that concept.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I have made it plain twice to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) and others that, through the standard spending assessment and the RSG, the Government have done that, and continue to do so.
  Mr. Steen: I do not think that I should get involved in a discussion between the occupants of the two Front Benches as to who should pay. However, there is a point—
  Mr. David Nicholson: Would my hon. Friend be interested to know that West Somerset district council, which covers part of my constituency and is Conservative and independent-controlled, has written to me expressing the same concerns and suggesting that, if the costs of inquiries are to be changed as a result of the Bill, that fact should at least be reflected in the SSA? The council also made the same point as my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) about retrospection.
  Mr. Steen: Those are all good points, and I know that the Minister is aware of the issues, as he is one of the Ministers with the most experience of local government. Having heard what my hon. Friend said about West Somerset council, which is not a hotbed of left-wing socialism—at least, not at the moment—I am sure that, when the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland winds up, he will be extremely circumspect. With discussions through the normal channels, I am sure that some improvement can be made.
  What I am saying—I hope that it is of some help to the House—is that the Department of the Environment hands down the housing allocations it believes necessary for the county, rather like Moses with his tablets. The county then offloads the numbers on to the district or city council. There is then an argy-bargy between the district and the county about where the exact numbers are to go. Revised numbers are then sent back to the Department for approval.

  307
  The whole process is therefore triggered by the Government sending down a diktat that so many new homes and new roads are to be built, and so much new employment is to be found, and then that there must be so many schools to deal with the children who will live in the homes, so many hospitals to deal with the elderly and the ill who will live in them, and so on. Local inquiries arise because Government have initiated the process.
  If things were otherwise, local plans would be development programmes based on what local people felt could be managed locally. What we now have is the opposite—a reaction to a Government edict handed down to the county for consideration by local people. The flow is from the top downwards, not from the local people upwards. It is therefore not surprising that, when local people are faced with a Government proposal for an influx of new construction, they lodge objections and rightly demand an inquiry. Why should local authorities pick up the whole tab for that process, which has been instigated by central Government and their officials?
  The Government must think about that again—not only about the fact that local participation in matters for which the Government have been a catalyst is penalised, but about the wider attitude towards legislation. The beginning of 1995 should have been a time to signal that we have learnt the lessons of the past and we shall halt the passage of new legislation. Yet here we go again with more legislation. There is always a good reason for it, no doubt, but there is no point in passing a major Act of Parliament saying that we will deregulate and reduce the existing level of legislation if we then pass new legislation to take its place.
  There seems little inclination or inducement to get hold of this virulent disease by the short and curlies and stop the legislative machine grinding out more and more laws. The reason is simple: Ministers' careers depend on passing laws. The more laws they pass, the more credit they get, and they move up the ladder. That is how the whole system works. No wonder the deregulation process is in difficulties. If a Minister does not come to the House with legislation to pass, he is considered inept and unenthusiastic. "What is he doing?" people ask, and he will be out.
  The House is sitting for fewer hours now, but that will have virtually no impact on the growth of statute law that makes us one of the most over-governed, over-bureaucratic nations in the world. It is no good complaining about the nanny state if we do little to curtail its all-pervasive and all-embracing nature.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Bill Olner: The Minister said that the Bill was merely technical, but for me it is much more than just a technical Bill. I speak as someone who was the chairman of a planning committee for six or seven years many moons ago, and I know the delicate balancing act that planning authorities, whether at district, county or city level, have to perform week after week and month after month. I am sure that the Minister, with his local government experience, knows it too.
  I well remember local plans being drawn up, especially in my constituency. That was a mandatory requirement on local planning authorities. Because of his local government experience, the Minister will also know that there are two conflicting forces acting in any planning
  308
  matter. One is the local population, who may not want expansion in their area; theirs is a legitimate grievance. The other force, which is becoming more difficult for local authorities to deal with, is that exerted by people with large tracts of land who want to develop them against local authorities' wishes.
  What brings some democracy and equity to the process is the fact that there will be a planning inquiry. I shall say more later about the retrospection, and whether a charge should be made in the first place, but I believe that it is an affront to the democratic process to charge anything for those due processes to be carried out. Among the facts to come to light at the planning inquiry will be the pressure that local authorities now have to face, especially from well-heeled planning applicants.
  When such a person makes a planning application, the local authority by due process may refuse it on legitimate grounds. I know that I am straying slightly off the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall attach what I am saying to the main theme. When a planning application is refused by the local authority, it may go to appeal and the inspector may approve it, overturning the local authority's decision. The local authority may then have to pay a considerable sum to the applicant.
  I hope that the Minister will understand that, in the planning committee, at the back of the ordinary local councillor's mind is the fear that, when a powerful person with plenty of money makes a planning application that local people do not want, it is getting more difficult to refuse, because in the end there may be a financial penalty for everyone else to pay.
  The planning system is based on democracy and on local people having an input. That is why the statutory mandatory requirement for local plans and unitary development plans should be funded directly by the Government. It has all come about because the Government, especially the Department of the Environment, have been found to be acting without due process of law. The Government should not have been charging what local councils had to pay for public inquiries in the past.
  It is ludicrous that the Government should seek to legitimise their errors of the past in this way. That goes against all natural justice. I do not know whether my own local authority has a financial interest in this or whether it has paid out money for this purpose, but it is incensed that the Government seem to be acting illegally by bringing before Parliament a Bill to legitimise their past actions.
  Even worse, the Government are trying to make the legislation retrospective. Until one of his colleagues pulled him up, the Minister kept talking about RSGs. I thought that the rate support grant went out with the poll tax—
  Sir Paul Beresford: Revenue support grant.
  Mr. Olner: Whether we talk about RSGs or SSAs, we would be hard pushed to find any local authority in the United Kingdom that could identify within its SSA any money given it for this purpose, so that it could pay the money back should there be a need for a local inquiry. I do not believe that any such money has been given to local authorities.
  I fear that this is the thin end of the wedge. The Bill details charges for the inspector and his officials and for other costs. All that breaches the principle of free planning

  309
  inquiries. In future, they will have to be paid for when a planning inspector is involved. That will erode the democratic right of communities to lodge planning appeals. I therefore urge the Government seriously to think about the legislation again.
  I wish now that, when I told my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) yesterday that I wanted to speak in this debate, we had decided to force a vote on the Bill—especially having heard what other hon. Members have had to say about it since then. Few of them seem to favour this piece of legislation.
  5.12 pm
  Dr. Ian Twinn: We have heard a remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). He wrongly blamed the Government, who he said demanded illegal payments from local authorities. On the contrary: it was the Labour Government who brought in the original legislation, which was presumably carefully thought through and scrutinised by the House of Commons. For more than 20 years local authorities and the Department of the Environment have been implementing the will of the House, which was that local authorities should pay the costs of planning inspectors—
  Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. It was not the will of Parliament that the charges should be borne in that way. The will of Parliament was that no charges should be made.
  Dr. Twinn: The hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstands me. It may be his job as a lawyer to play with words, but let us keep to the simple truth of the matter. At the time, Parliament thought that it was asking local authorities to pay these costs, since when the Department of the Environment has asked local authorities to pay them. They in turn believed that that was the law and were content with it—until Birmingham discovered that it was not the law. I do not blame Birmingham for finding out that what everyone thought was the law actually was not, and then exploiting that fact.
  Unless we pass this Bill, to restore the status quo ante, we shall have to adjust standard spending assessments to recoup the money that local authorities have been allowed against paying for these costs.
  I do not agree with Opposition Members who think that a point of principle is at stake and that it is right that central Government should pay the whole cost of the planning inspector; nor do I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). He should beware of his own arguments—
  Mr. Steen: They were good though.
  Dr. Twinn: I do not agree. My hon. Friend is worried about civil servants in the DOE inflicting population growth on his area. I share that concern, because I represent a suburban constituency in London, restricted by the green belt, and development is thrust back on us because the shire counties do not want it. We have no choice but to become town-crowned because of that.
  I should like local authorities to have a certain amount of freedom to speak independently. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If my hon. Friend suggests that the DOE picks up the tab, I suspect that we shall gradually accept
  310
  the principle that the DOE has every right to dictate what the result of an inquiry should be. At the moment we have a nicely balanced system of local planning inquiries; the DOE Planning Inspectorate supervises it, but the process is independent. The DOE does not interfere with the contents of the reports, but inspectors report back their draft recommendations to local authorities, which then have a chance to feed through their views to the inspectors.
  This is a pleasant and useful system in which local authorities pay for the inspectors' time and in return expect to have some say in the interpretation and presentation of the reports.
  Mr. Steen: What I am really saying is that we do not need this Bill. We can simply rearrange the SSAs to deduct some money from local authorities. If we are the party of deregulation we must not pass more regulations.
  The independence of the process is not affected one way or the other, because either way the Government pay for it—by sending out the bill and getting the money back, or by deducting it from SSAs.
  Dr. Twinn: I always hesitate to discuss the complexities of local government finance, although I used to understand it when I taught it. I certainly do not understand all its details today. This week I went to see the Secretary of State at the DOE with the Labour leader of Enfield council to talk about this year's SSA, and I understood less at the end of the meeting than I did at the beginning.
  We should not make SSA calculations more complicated than they already are. I would rather stick with the principle that local authorities be paid a lump sum which they can decide how to spend. That sum should include an amount representing the cost of employing a planning inspector. This legislation is necessary to return the situation to what we thought it was before Birmingham discovered that it was not.
  If local authorities really are concerned about the rising costs of local public inquiries, perhaps they should look more carefully at how they develop their local plans—that might be more productive. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Leicester, East about the need for more public participation and consultation. If we involve more groups of people earlier in the planning process, it is much more likely that local plans will emerge with local consent and that there will be fewer objections to them. That will lead to cheaper inquiries.
  I also agree with what the hon. Member for Leicester, East said about the Royal Town Planning Institute, which has pointed out that we might have expected an earlier response from my right hon. and hon. Friends at the DOE, following consultations on the document, in respect of improving local plans. We might have expected the introduction of more formal agreements between local authorities and planning inspectors about the format and costing arrangements for inquiries.
  If that were something on which Front-Bench Members on both sides of the House would get together while we await the Bill's consideration in Committee, I would wholeheartedly approve. If something were put into the Bill to allow a new agreement between the Planning Inspectorate and local authorities, we could improve the system and address some of the concerns that local authorities genuinely have. For example, an inspector

  311
  might fall ill after his inquiry and not produce the report. The local authority might be faced with the cost of a second inquiry, which would be completely unreasonable. So there are concerns for my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to answer.
  The principle of the Bill is that local authorities should pay for the costs of planning inspectors. We should go back to what we thought that the previous Labour Government had passed in 1977. The Bill should be welcomed by the House and passed.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: I do not intend to detain the House for long, as I believe that most hon. Members are in agreement with the general principle that it is right that local authorities should pay the costs of plans and the inquiries that go with them. I also recognise that a number of the points that I might have made have been made already by other hon. Members; it is important that we should all learn not to repeat ourselves too frequently and I hope not to do that this afternoon.
  There are one or two points, however, that need to be added to the debate. One point that was mentioned by more than one hon. Member is whether there will be any extra costs as a result of the Bill. The Minister gave us some assurance that, as far as the inquiries that have already taken place are concerned, no extra costs will be added to those that are now charged to local authorities. He was, perhaps, a little bit woolly on the question of interest, but I hope that he will clarify that later.
  The Minister was fairly clear that there would be no extra costs, but was less clear on whether they would apply to all future inquiries as well. That point has already been raised and I ask the Minister to give assurance that, in future, perhaps as a result of the consultation that he has promised us between the Bill's Second Reading and its consideration in Committee, costs charged to local authorities for inquiries will be along precisely the same lines as those traditionally charged and that no extra costs will be added.
  It is, of course, true that plans and inquiries are becoming more difficult and complex all the time, partly because of the number of objections to them nowadays. That is not entirely unexpected, because the amount of money that is involved in development permissions is very great and we must expect that many people will be concerned to ensure that the inquiries produce the result that is financially beneficial to them; not only the small man who, perhaps, wishes to amend or improve his house in some way but some of the larger vested interests that have a lot of money that they can apply to the costs of getting involved in inquiries.
  It is also true that inquiries are about plans, which, every year, become more important as the Government insist on them being followed more strictly and give greater weight to what is in structure plans or local district plans. That means that the pressure on people to take part in inquiries, to involve themselves and therefore perhaps lengthen an inquiry, is growing all the time.
  Inquiries are unpredictable. It is difficult to tell how long an inquiry will take and therefore how much it will cost. That makes it difficult for local authorities to budget sensibly for the costs of their inquiries. One of the points made to me by several local government officers is that no choice is allowed in who is to be the inspector for any
  312
  inquiry. While I would not like to see local councils given the right to choose their own inspector so that they might, perhaps, choose one whom they knew would give them exactly what they wanted, there is an argument for saying that some element of choice should be allowed. After all, one would have thought that the Government themselves, with their reliance on market forces, might give some credence to the idea that, if local authorities were allowed to choose between inspectors, they would be more keen to choose one whom they knew to be more efficient and effective and who would run their inquiries well. Perhaps those who were found to be less effective in the past would be less likely to be asked to undertake inquiries in the future. Some element of market forces in that way might be rather attractive to the Government. I hope so.
  We need some form of guidance about what to expect from our inspectors. The Government are keen on charters at the moment. Perhaps there should be an inspectors charter, which would lay down some ground rules on how they would work and what local authorities could expect from them.
  The point was made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that the Bill is a missed opportunity. He thought that there was a chance to include some ways of amending and improving the whole local planning process. I, too, would like to know when the Government expect to announce the improvements, which, perhaps, they hope to make as a result of the consultation. That has not yet been announced and we would very much welcome an early announcement.
  Perhaps most importantly, there is a great failing in the present planning system in that there is very little opportunity for the small man to have a real say. The large organisations, which are well funded and the local authorities themselves, which are comparatively well funded, have a much better chance of getting their way in an inquiry than the small individual who perhaps does not have the money or expertise of the big boys. That is a basic and fundamental flaw in the present planning system and we need to seek ways to overcome it. There is some opportunity for local authorities to do that, and I am proud and happy to say that my own Liberal Democrat-run authority in Newbury currently proposes that some money should be set aside to provide expertise for objectors to our local plan. It might seem a rather odd idea that one should try to help people to object to something that one is proposing, but there is a good argument for it, not only on fairness, as that is obvious, but on finance.
  One of the difficulties of local planning inquiries and one of the reasons why they cost such a lot is that some of the objectors are not good at setting out their objections. They do not really know how to make their objections well. As a result, it takes a lot longer than it might to go through them to work out whether they are valid. There is a good case for saying that it may save money in the long run if local authorities provided some means for the little man to gain expertise. That can be done now, but to make it more widespread the Government must recognise that need and the fact that it may increase costs to local authorities.
  The Minister has already given an assurance that the costs of inquiries will be met through SSAs and local grants. I believe that that cost of giving expertise—or the right to expertise—to objectors should also be met through SSAs and local grants. I hope that that and other

  313
  potential costs, as the costs of inquiries are met, will be fully met through SSAs. I ask the Minister to give that assurance today.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Tim Smith: The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) thinks that the Bill constitutes a missed opportunity, as he would have liked to see attached to it various other rather vague planning provisions, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) thinks that it is unnecessary and should not have been introduced in the first place, because we should be deregulating and not adding to regulation.
  The Bill has the virtue of simplicity. It is clear, straightforward and necessary, because once we discovered that the Government might be acting ultra vires, we had to put matters right. Before Christmas, I sent a copy of the Bill to the director of planning services of South Bucks district council, to ask him for his views. He said that it was his professional opinion that
  "It seems reasonable for local Councils to pay a fair level of costs for the services of inspectors and I think it would be difficult to object to the legislation. I would hope, though, that the levels of charges subsequently fixed by Ministers reflect a reasonable balance between recovering the Inspectorates costs while not draining the limited resources of local authorities."
  If my hon. Friend looks at page ii of the Bill, he will see that it says that the Bill
  "will have no effect on public service manpower."
  It will also have
  "no effect on businesses as regards compliance costs."
  So its regulatory burden is relatively limited. However, I agree with my hon. Friend when he says that we should do everything that we can to ensure that we stop the great tide of legislation.
  The director of planning services of South Bucks district council also made a point about recent developments with local planning inquiries. He said that they
  "are becoming extremely long and costly as more and more people exercise their right to object (e.g. the Wycombe plan had more than 500 objections)."
  That raises an important point, to which the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred. I agree that we should involve local people as much as possible in the planning process and explain it to local people. They do not understand precisely how it works. For example, parish councils have been referred to. Their role is commonly misunderstood. They have no authority over planning matters, yet all the parish councils in my constituency have planning committees. They go through the planning applications and decide whether they should be accepted or rejected.
  People say, "Beaconsfield town council rejected that planning application. Shouldn't that be the end of the matter?" One then has to explain that the committee is there only in an advisory role. That involves local people, which is what we want, but it is the district council that is the planning authority.
  That planning application may then go to the district council planning committee. If it rejects it, it will then go to the Secretary of State, and his inspector, apparently considering the application on its merits against exactly the same criteria, the same planning guidance from the
  314
  Department and the same county structure plan and district plan, may come to exactly the opposite conclusion to the parish and district council planning committees. Such an application could relate to just one house, an infill in Beaconsfield somewhere.
  How does one explain that a district council planning committee can come to a completely opposite decision on such a matter judged against the same criteria? In the end, such matters become highly subjective. We need to do more to explain the planning process to local people as well as involving them.
  There is another aspect that I wish to mention to my hon. Friend the Minister. I have written to him about this, but I feel strongly about it. A number of major developments can be proposed in one relatively small area at the same time, but at the moment the planning process is incapable of taking into account the potential effect of all of them. Each one has to be considered individually on its merits and it is not open to an inspector to consider other applications that may be in the pipeline at the same time.
  I have an extreme example of that in the villages of Dorney and Taplow in my constituency. Those villages form a green lung between the conurbations of Slough and Maidenhead; a tongue of green between the two.
  Mr. Steen: That will not last long.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. It will not last long because of the tremendous development pressure. The Secretary of State has approved a planning application from Eton college for the construction of a rowing lake 2 km long and 0.5 km wide in the village of Dorney. He has also approved a new five-mile stretch of the River Thames that is to be constructed by the National Rivers Authority to benefit the people of Maidenhead who live on the other side of the river. Those two huge planning applications, both involving millions of pounds, were being considered at the same time, but one inspector could not consider the other. In the end, the two were approved.
  Now it is proposed to widen the M4 from three to seven lanes in each direction. Again, that proposal will be considered on its merits. The overall impact of all those developments will not be considered by any one inspector. That is a fundamental flaw in the planning system, which needs to be addressed. We need to explain to local people why it arises and what we shall do to address it.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to raise those matters because planning, the protection of the environment and the green belt are important issues in my constituency. I have given examples of ways in which people do not understand the planning process. We need to do more to involve them and more to explain the system to them.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I want to make only a brief contribution and I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) by not repeating points that other hon. Members have made.
  The more that I think about the Bill, the more I listen to the Minister and the more I study the notes on clauses, the more I realise that the Bill could equally be entitled, "Birmingham Catches the Tory Government Out Retribution Bill". That sums it up.

  315
  It has been said that the Bill is needed to put right mistakes made by Harold Wilson's Labour Government in the 1960s, when most hon. Members here now were probably at school. However, I remind hon. Members that the Bill amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Therefore, it is not all the fault of Harold Wilson's Labour Government in the 1960s. It is the fault of the way in which the House of Commons operates. We do not fully scrutinise or understand the consequences of the legislation that we pass. I hope that, with the new mood accompanying the Jopling reforms, we shall pay a little more attention to what we are legislating for.
  I should make it clear that Birmingham city council in no way objects in principle to paying for planning inquiries. There is no argument about that. It is an important part of local authority responsibility. A briefing note from Birmingham city council says:
  "However, the principle that the local authority should be responsible for its Development Plan is more important, and the City Council would not wish to argue with the principle of being charged for inspectors services."
  Another point which has been touched on and which will certainly be raised in Committee and on Report concerns the contractual arrangements between inspectors and local authorities. That matter should be considered in detail. The Bill does not address that, but it can be raised by way of amendment to the long title.
  For the local authority to pick the inspector is going a little too far, but there should be some competition. However, these days legislation allows schools to appoint their own inspectors. It is not like the old days, when they had no say in the matter. Therefore, there is an argument for bringing in, if not the full rigours of the market, a degree of competition, particularly in view of the way in which Birmingham suffered—I use that word in a general sense—a vast increase in the inspector's charges just before the inquiry took place. That point cannot be repeated too often.
  Furthermore, the inspector's charges on Birmingham, as on other authorities, for a day when visits take place are the same as for when the inquiry is taking place. I understand that that is done to keep the accounts simple, but there is an argument for differential charging.
  I regret that I shall not be available to serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill, so I shall make one point now on the detail of the Bill. I have referred to the Department's overheads, but new section 303A(6) in clause 1 suggests that local authorities could be charged for an inquiry that does not take place as if it had taken place. If an inquiry does not take place, it is fine to charge for the set-up and administrative costs, but to be charged on the basis of what an inquiry would have cost if it had taken place is outrageous. I shall leave that point to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who are far more experienced than I am in such nit-picking and will have the opportunity to do so in Committee.
  I have some partisan criticism to make across the Chamber. I have detected some NIMBYism this afternoon. Listening to the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen), one could be forgiven for forgetting that he was once the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. I was in the House when he was and he would riot have made that speech then. Then his constituents from Liverpool holidayed in the west country, bringing jobs into that part of the world. They are now being told, "You can't come and live here." That is what he is telling my
  316
  constituents—people from Birmingham and elsewhere in the west midlands, thousands of whom spend joyous periods in the west country. One of the problems is that the M5 gets blocked up. The countryside of Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and Wiltshire is beautiful and much enjoyed by my constituents, some of whom decide to live in the area. That is their right as citizens, and I do not see why the hon. Member for South Hams wants to stop them.
  The issue goes beyond that, however. People who now live in the west country may want their children to have homes, so that they can remain in what has become their county. That will not be possible without new buildings—extra buildings and replacements, which are the same in some senses. At the present rate of replacement, every home in the country has to last about 900 years. Listening to hon. Members from the south-east, one would think that we wanted to concrete the area. Of course we do not. Hon. Members should not use such extravagant language when we are discussing people's homes: people should have a fair amount of choice about where they live, and the extravagant language of hon. Members from the south-east and south-west ruins their case.
  Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and I were merely questioning, and suggesting that the House question, some of the rather extravagant demographic predictions made by people in Holborn, which my hon. Friend graphically described.
  Mr. Rooker: I was Labour spokesman on housing and construction for about three years. During that time, I discussed whether the south-east and south-west should have new towns or villages, or whether we should go for infills to complete the circles of some of the villages. That arrangement, which would stop the linear flow, seemed much more sensible to me.
  When Birmingham first raised the issue early in 1994, the Department of the Environment did not respond. One Birmingham Member of Parliament does not like to be called a Birmingham Member, but nevertheless represents at least 70,000 Birmingham citizens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name him."] I am referring to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). He does not appear on any list of Birmingham Members, because Sutton Coldfield is the only constituency in the city that does not include the prefix "Birmingham". That conveniently allows the right hon. Gentleman to give the impression that he is not a Birmingham Member. I did not give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I would mention him, but I did not think it necessary to do so; in any event, we have engaged in correspondence on the subject.
  Early in 1994, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was masterminding a vicious Tory party political broadcast attack on Birmingham city council. It was proved that every point that the Tories made about the council was a lie. I am not surprised that a block was put on the Department of the Environment. It was a case of, "Well, Minister, Birmingham has caught us out on this planning matter. We must go to the House of Commons and secure a change in the legislation, because we have been illegally—criminally—charging local authorities all over the country money that we had no right to charge them." Ministers at the Department have slagged off Birmingham at virtually every opportunity.
  I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for not rising to the bait presented by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), who invited him to attack

  317
  Birmingham city council again. The Prime Minister has learnt his lesson. When Ministers attack the council, it usually bites back, and we end up with more votes than we had before they began attacking us.
  I also pay tribute to my colleagues, the members and officers of Birmingham city council, for what they have achieved. They do not seek to wipe out what has happened in the past or to escape paying charges; they have no argument with what they understand to be a point of principle. They have, however, taken the opportunity to raise other issues, such as retrospection and the contractual arrangements between the inspectorate and the city council. For that, we all owe the council a vote of thanks.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who opened the debate, described this as a wee Bill. We have had a wee debate as well, in terms of numbers present rather than quality.
  Opposition Members have made excellent speeches, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I know that their speeches were especially appreciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz).
  Every speech has referred to clauses 1 and 2, which apply to England and Wales. As a Scottish Member, I dare not comment on those clauses in any detail. As Conservative Members may know, we in Scotland have a separate planning system and, indeed, a separate system of local government; we even have separate central Government machinery in the form of the Scottish Office, which spends more than £14 billion a year in Scotland—unaccountably—and employs more than 7,000 civil servants.
  We are so different that we have not only separate clauses in Bills of this kind but, in some instances, separate legislation and a separate Committee structure in the House of Commons. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is present, knows that Scottish Office Ministers have even introduced a range of innovative procedures that demonstrate the distinctive way in which Scotland is treated in the House. I believe that all that justifies Opposition Members' case for a Scottish Parliament: clauses 3 and 4 should really be debated not here but in the Scottish Parliament that a Labour Government will set up after the next election.
  None the less, I welcome the opportunity to debate the Scottish clauses, especially clause 4. [Laughter.] Since I became a Front Bencher I have not had many opportunities to debate any variety of clause 4. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for the briefing with Scottish Office civil servants that he arranged earlier today, which I attended, about the Scottish part of the Bill.
  Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the only plans in Scotland that will be affected by the Bill are the local plans of district planning authorities? The Minister who opened the debate referred to structure plans in Scotland, but I should like a Scottish Office Minister to confirm that they will not be affected.
  318
  In theory, the Bill covers the proposals relating to simplified planning zones in Scotland. Will the Under-Secretary confirm, however—as there have been no inquiries about the provisions in that regard—that those provisions will not be affected either?
  The Minister who opened the debate said that clauses 1 and 3 would have the same underlying objective and effect—clause 1 in England and Wales, and clause 3 in Scotland. If that is so, will the Under-Secretary explain the different language used in the two clauses? Clause 1 refers to the entire administrative cost of the inquiry being recovered, but clause 3, which applies to Scotland, refers only to the Secretary of State for Scotland having regard to the general staff costs and overheads, and to general administration costs. According to the notes on clauses, the full cost to the Scottish Office will be recovered, but I should like the Minister to explain the difference in the language, and tell us whether that difference implies any difference in the application of the clauses to the respective countries involved.
  Paragraph 94 of the notes on clauses states that some Scottish local authorities have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to repay the sums that he collected illegally from them. In his introductory remarks, the Minister said that that was not so. I should be grateful if the Scottish Office Minister would clarify the position: have any Scottish local authorities asked for that money to be repaid? If so, which authorities were they? If any authorities were to make such a request, what response would they receive from the Scottish Office? If the money was repaid, what would be outcome if the Bill were enacted? Would they be required to pay the money back to the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  Clause 4 requires Scottish local authorities to repay to the Secretary of State for Scotland any sums that have been returned to them by the Secretary of State. It appears that, unlike for England and Wales, there is no provision in clauses 3 or 4 for recovery in Scotland of that sum as a civil debt. If it was necessary to give the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to recover money from Scottish local authorities, why has it not been considered necessary to give him the means to recover it? Why is there no civil procedure for the Secretary of State for Scotland to recover that money, as there is in England and Wales? If he wants the money back, how will he set about getting it?
  The Bill's origins lie in a House of Lords ruling, which I suppose was within the context of English law. Has that ruling any force in Scotland? Is it likely to be tested in the Scottish courts? More important, if the ruling were contested by a Scottish local authority, how would that affect the Scottish provisions of the Bill? Would the clauses be suspended while that case was tested in the Scottish courts, and if the Bill's Scottish provisions were suspended would the provisions of the whole Bill be suspended? I should be grateful if the Minister could make that clear.
  The Bill confirms that since 1968 successive Labour and Tory Governments have acted illegally. The point is not to try to lay blame and say whether a Labour or a Tory Government were originally at fault. The reality is that Governments of both parties have made charges to local authorities for which there was no statutory provision.

  319
  The Government have been in power for almost 16 years and would have carried on making illegal charges to local authorities without the intervention of Birmingham city council, to which the whole country is indebted. Will the Minister confirm that if local authorities had acted in a fashion similar to that of successive Governments they would not have received the same sympathetic treatment? Would they have been allowed to keep or reclaim the money that they had collected illegally? Would they have had the benefit of retrospective legislation? The answers to the questions are obvious. Local authorities would not have been allowed to get any money back, nor would they have been given the benefit of retrospective legislation.
  Why do not the Government simply accept that central Government have made a mistake, that they should pay the price for that mistake and that they should repay to local government the moneys that they collected from them illegally?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East spoke of the dangerous precedent that has been established in that respect. It seems that local government payments in Scotland, England and Wales can be legitimised by subsequent legislation. That means that retrospective local government legislation is now an acceptable way of handling that. If that is so, the Government are establishing a dangerous precedent.
  My hon. Friends have promised the Government a bare-knuckle fight in Committee and on Report. I accept that the Bill has much less serious implications for Scotland than it has for England and Wales, but my hon. Friends may be assured that they will have the support of every Scottish Labour Member in that fight with the Government.
  5.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): The Opposition reply to this interesting debate was opened with considerable rhetorical flourish by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). I agree with the analysis of the Bill by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). It is correct to say that for 21 years successive Governments have been working on a certain assumption, as have local authorities north and south of the border.
  As hon. Members have recognised, everyone was acting in perfectly good faith until the matter was challenged in the courts by Birmingham city council. I tell Birmingham Members that I certainly make no criticism of Birmingham city council for doing that: it had the right to do so. As a consequence of its action and as a result of the Government responding quickly and decisively, an area of considerable doubt will be clarified.
  I confirm the reference by the hon. Member for Leicester, East to consultations with local authority associations before the Bill goes into Committee. I understand that that is a matter for discussion through the usual channels. The hon. Members for Leicester, East and for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and other hon. Members mentioned the scope of costs to be recovered by the inspectorate. I reassure the House that there is no intention of increasing the costs to be recovered from planning authorities. In England, the amounts recovered will be the inspector's salary, travel and subsistence costs and the
  320
  inspectorate's administrative support costs. Those sums will be specified at a composite daily rate in regulations to be made under powers in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) spoke about costs being incurred when an inquiry did not take place. That applies when a planning authority starts the process of a inquiry and then decides not to have one. The other detailed point was made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who said that the respective provisions north and south of the border differ. They differ not in intent or objective, but because the travel and subsistence costs of reporters in Scotland are paid under a different Scottish planning Act that does not apply south of the border.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) spoke about the local authorities charter. In England and Wales, the Planning Inspectorate will begin to offer a service agreement to each authority after a draft agreement has been discussed with local authority associations. That will specify a certain level of service that the inspectorate will aim to achieve.
  My hon. Friend also made a number of points about the effect of the planning system in the south-east and the south-west of England. He said that he thought that I would be circumspect in responding to those points in my speech. He is correct. I propose to be extremely circumspect and will just say that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), has listened carefully to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who have rightly used the opportunity to make some more general comments on the planning system.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Hams said that Ministers receive promotion based on the number and length of Bills that they introduce. I was sorry to hear that because I have no intention of introducing any Bills during this Session. I humbly say to my hon. Friend that the Bill is a short one of only five clauses.
  The hon. Members for Leicester, East and for Newbury and my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams and others raised the issue of local or central payments. All hon. Members have received from the Royal Town Planning Institute a briefing that puts the case for local payment, and therefore local control, very clearly and decisively. Interestingly, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr confirmed, Birmingham city council, which raised the legal action, is questioning not that principle but simply the legislative basis for payment.
  Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister enlighten the House on the question of interest payments from the date that the money was given back to local authorities during the last year to the date when it might be repayable if the Bill is passed? Who will be responsible for those payments? Will local authorities have to give back the interest for that short period or will they be allowed to keep it?
  Mr. Stewart: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made clear, if local authorities have received interest payments they will be required to pay them back.
  Mr. Vaz: I am sorry to press the Minister, but I am referring not to interest received but to interest from the time the payment is made to the local authority to the time

  321
  that it must repay the money to the Government following enactment of the Bill. I am concerned with that short period.
  Mr. Stewart: I am genuinely trying to help the hon. Gentleman. My understanding is that where the interest has been repaid on sums repaid, the amount of that interest will be recoverable by the inspectorate if the Bill becomes law. I hope that that makes the matter clear to the hon. Gentleman. If, on reading Hansard, I find that I have not made the position clear, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—and to the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who is showing an interest.
  Mr. Rooker: I refer to my original intervention in the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. I understand that some interest has been repaid. Will the Scottish Office Minister now say that the actual cash sum of the original principal plus the interest is the only money to be repaid? In other words, will he say that no one will claim that interest is due on that actual cash sum for the period between the payments?
  Mr. Stewart: That is correct. There will be no additional financial burden on a local authority as a result of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked me a number of detailed questions about the Scottish provisions. In answer to his first question, he was right to say that they relate only to local plans and simplified planning zones or inquiries in Scotland. That is because, in Scotland, examinations in public into structure plan proposals are carried out on behalf of the Secretary of State—who therefore pays the whole cost—and not on behalf of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that there have been no inquiries in Scotland in relation to simplified planning zones.
  On the hon. Gentleman's third question, the matter has not been tested in the courts in Scotland. He asked what
  322
  would happen if it were tested before the Bill becomes law. I cannot anticipate the result of any court action, but I can reassure him, I hope, by saying that I do not believe that any local authority is anticipating taking court action—for the obvious reason that the Bill will make the position very clear in the reasonably near future.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about outstanding accounts. In Scotland, the total is £104,000. He asked me about the local authorities involved, which are West Lothian, Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Perth and Kinross and Moray.
  I hope that in replying to this short debate I have been able to reassure the House on the perfectly legitimate points that have been raised. I hope that there will not be a bare-knuckle fight in Committee and thereafter on this Bill. Instead, I hope that we can look forward to a constructive discussion of what I believe the House generally has agreed is a necessary Bill. I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (COSTS OF INQUIRIES ETC.) BILL [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 Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries etc.) Bill it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (i) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act; and

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

  (b) the making of payments into the Consolidated Fund.— [Mr. Burns.]

  Question agreed to.

  Child Care Facilities (House of Commons)
  [Relevant documents: Part of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Administration Committee on 1 March and 26 April 1994 (Extracts from House of Commons Paper No. 374 of Session 1993–94) and the Report on potential demand for child care facilities published by the House of Commons Commission.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  6.4 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The purpose of this debate, which the Leader of the House has arranged at the request of the House of Commons Commission, is to sound out the views of hon. Members on child care provision for hon. Members, their staff and staff of the House. I hope that it will be helpful if I briefly set out the background to what has been a long-running issue, describe the options for a child care policy, and then leave it to other hon. Members to express their views.
  Under the system introduced following the Ibbs report, the usual way in which new or extended services are provided to the House is for the relevant domestic Committee to make a recommendation. The Finance and Services Committee and the Commission then consider the merits and costs of the proposal. As I said during oral questions on 24 October, that route has not been followed in this case because the relevant Committee—the Administration Committee—did not agree to support the provision of such a service.
  That decision occurred after the Committee had supervised a survey of demand at the request of the Commission. The survey, by RSL Ltd., has now been made available to the House on our authority and it provides some useful material for this debate. I shall discuss the results of the survey in a moment, but first I want to identify the different groups of people whom we need to consider in forming any policy on child care provision.
  I should say here that the Chairman of the Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), intended to take part in this debate, but has been prevented from doing so because he has had to return to Scotland for the funeral of a close relative.
  Under the 1978 Act, the Commission is the employer of House staff, currently some 1,300 in number. The Commission's financial responsibilities in employment matters are limited to the provision of facilities for that group of people. However, it is well aware that the issue of child care is of equal concern to hon. Members and the staff whom they employ—of whom some 1,600 are now paid by the Fees Office. A significant number of Members' staff work not here, but in the constituencies. Although the financial implications of providing any child care service for Members and their staff are not the direct responsibility of the Commission, we feel that it would be better to have an agreed general policy that would include them.
  I come now to the options for a child care policy and to the survey of demand. There are three main options—an in-house nursery established on the parliamentary estate or nearby and run by the House itself or on its
  324
  behalf; the provision of places in an outside nursery, probably run as a joint venture with another body; or direct financial assistance to parents to help them in providing their own child care. The third option, using child care vouchers, is already used in the other place, as well as in the National Audit Office and many other organisations.
  The first option of an in-house nursery was the main basis for the original planning in the late 1980s. However, the former Services Committee soon encountered a major difficulty. The Accommodation and Works Committee advised that no space on the parliamentary estate would be available for any nursery until after the completion of the phase 2 building, which is now envisaged for 1999. In theory, existing space could be reallocated, but the location provided would need to be suitable, with sufficient play space, toilets and other accommodation.
  The Commission's view is that we must meet the standards which other nursery providers are required by statute to meet, and those are fairly exacting. Those difficulties led the Services Committee and its successor, the Administration Committee, to investigate a second option—that of taking some places in a nursery set up in conjunction with Whitehall Departments. One particular scheme was identified in Vincent square, but was turned down by the Administration Committee last year as inappropriate because of the lack of flexibility—only six places were initially available—despite a considerable requirement of capital and running costs.
  I come now to the third option of child care vouchers. Such a scheme would provide a subsidy towards the cost of child care arranged by the parents. The House of Lords uses such a scheme for its staff, although it is not available to Peers and I do not know what the demand would be if it were. As I made clear at the outset, the House of Commons Commission has direct responsibility only for staff of the House. Therefore, if this option were to be chosen, whether it was extended to Members and their staff would depend on whether the House resolved that there should be additional funding for that purpose or whether, in the absence of additional funding, Members were willing to devote part of their existing office costs allowances to providing child care vouchers for their staff. They are, of course, free to do that now, although I recognise that some hon. Members, like me, are finding some difficulty in meeting their existing office costs obligations out of their allowances.
  I should add that a claim for a voucher scheme has now been made by the trade unions representing House of Commons staff. In the other place, eligible staff receive a voucher worth £6 per day worked, per family, and the Commons unions are seeking similar treatment. Unlike workplace nursery places, the subsidy is a taxable benefit and it would be worth about £4.50 after tax to most staff. I have moved several amendments to Finance Bills in Committee on behalf of my party to try to widen the tax relief so that it would extend to vouchers and to other forms of child care, but we have not been successful so far.
  Those are the three options on which a survey of potential demand was carried out early this year. Questionnaires were sent to 4,220 people, including hon. Members, their staff, staff of the House and others. There was a 28 per cent. response rate, which is not unusual for such studies. The findings show no clear-cut preference

  325
  between an in-house facility and people making their own child care arrangements using vouchers, although the former was marginally preferred.
  The Commission has already made known its view in terms of its responsibility to House staff. It has said that, if a viable scheme for child care help can be devised, it would want it to go ahead. As a good employer, the Commission is aware of the arguments for assistance with child care. I know that many House staff make intricate and often expensive arrangements to have their children cared for, as was shown in evidence taken by the Select Committee on Employment in June 1994, where a number of hon. Members and House staff from various Departments gave detailed and clear evidence about the arrangements that they had to make. Any scheme would undoubtedly help in the recruitment and retention of staff. No less important, the introduction of a child care scheme would also firmly underline the House's commitment to a policy of equal opportunity.
  In deciding its policy, the Commission needs to take account of the practical possibilities and the cost. An in-house nursery, assuming that we could find suitable space for it in the near future, would be expensive both to the House and to parents, and might not provide value for money. For example, if parents received a 50 per cent. subsidy, in line with civil service practice, parental contributions could still be as high as £75 per child per week. A joint venture scheme would involve similar costs per child. It would also be hard to predict the number of places needed. Finding a suitable location will undoubtedly be a problem, as the Commission's discussions with the relevant Committee have illustrated.
  There are other drawbacks to an in-house or joint venture scheme. Opening hours would have to be either very long, adding to the cost, or unsuitable for parents who work late hours. In some cases, young children would have to be brought to Westminster by public transport in the rush hour. The demand in recesses would be difficult to predict. On-site facilities, however, would benefit some staff and could be opened to other groups who work in the building and are covered by the survey. such as the police, postal staff and press. There is also value in the House setting an example to employers in the provision of a workplace nursery. We might, however, be able to help more people at lower cost through a voucher scheme, which could also cover hon. Members' staff who work in the constituencies. We have received representations on that point.
  The Commission wishes the matter to be resolved as it has been under discussion for an unreasonably long time. We look to hon. Members for their views on whether a workplace nursery or a voucher system is preferable, on whether vouchers represent an interim solution until the provision of on-site facilities, and on any other consideration that we should bear in mind before reaching a decision.
  6.12 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: This debate on the provision of child care in the House of Commons and on the provision of such a facility generally has both a symbolic and practical importance. By the mid-1980s, 24 per cent. of women with children under the age of five
  326
  were working; by 1991, however, 45 per cent. of such women were at work. There is a national child care gap of 400,000 places.
  As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, the House of Commons should set an example. Both business and industry increasingly recognise the need for child care provision and its importance to working mothers and fathers—and I stress fathers. I was speaking earlier to a Conservative Member who said that he would have liked to be here for the debate but that he was looking after his little boy and there was no child care provision. Obviously, therefore, some hon. Members need such provision and they are not necessarily women.
  Fifteen years ago, long before I came to this House, I raised the issue with an hon. Member and was told that the House of Commons did not need child care facilities because there were not many women Members. He said that most of them were past child-bearing age, so the problem did not exist. I pointed out there and then that hundreds of women worked in the House of Commons as researchers, secretaries, librarians, catering workers, cleaning staff and ancillary workers. He looked very surprised. It is all too easy for hon. Members to think that they are the only people here who have needs. We are talking about many people who make the operation of this Chamber possible.
  The Labour party is taking positive steps to encourage more women to come to this place and I understand that the Conservative party has a target of 50 per cent. women candidates for the next election. It is in the interests of the political parties and of democracy that we have more women Members of Parliament.
  I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) are the joint chairs of the parliamentary Labour party women's group. Since April 1992, it has considered child care and the attitude to children in the House and it has found some interesting facts. First, there is a family room in the House. When we asked whether it was possible for children to use the family room, we were told that it was for the wives of hon. Members and that children would disturb them.
  Secondly, we found that there was a rifle range. I found it extraordinary that it was acceptable for the House to have a rifle range but not a creche. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who was the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson on women's issues, visited the rifle range and met the officers of the rifle club, who were somewhat alarmed at our asking to see it as they suspected that we were on our child care campaign. They assured us that one woman hon. Member was a member of the rifle club and they were a bit put out when we rightly guessed who it was—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). We pointed out to the officers that we were not trying to stop their fun but trying to make the point that if it was all right to find room for people to take potshots at targets it should also be all right to find room for children.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Peckham (Ms Harman) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) once tried to arrange for their children to visit them during a half-term holiday. They were told that they could not provide their own food and would have to pay for food that was provided. They were also told that there would be a charge for the room. Just trying to arrange to see their own children was a great effort.

  327
  I understand that, since 1989, Government Departments have been able to use existing budgets to subsidise child care. That is important in the House, where many staff are paid considerably less than hon. Members. We should think about the way in which costs would impact on people on lower pay. In 1992, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) visited the Ministry of Defence creche. In the culture of the MOD, many military people in their working life rarely have much contact with children. The fact that the MOD has a creche is to its credit. It is interesting to see buggies and wellington boots in the MOD foyer. If a creche can be provided in the MOD, I do not understand why it is impossible for us to have such a facility here. Clearly, the MOD venture is an unqualified success. Parliament should follow that example.
  I believe that the report, which has been quoted extensively, shows that a majority support an in-house facility rather than vouchers. Having spoken to people in the House who have parental responsibilities, I suspect that an in-house facility is what they would most prefer. The Parliamentary Nursery Campaign Committee issued a statement today. Its press officer said that the survey showed that there was a clear demand from hon. Members and their staff and House of Commons workers. As has been said, the survey was carried out by an independent research company. The press officer said:
  "A day nursery would be of considerable benefit to mothers and fathers who work in the mother of Parliaments. It would alleviate the isolation of children from their parents who work long hours. But it would also be in the public interest. A day nursery would help to reduce staff absenteeism and unnecessary staff turnover and consequent loss of expertise and experience. Given the growing demand on Members of Parliament this should help to improve their ability to represent the interests of their constituents".
  We have come a long way since 30 October 1979 when Mr. Patrick Jenkin, then a Secretary of State, said on the "Man Alive" programme on BBC television:
  "If the good Lord had intended us to have equal rights to go out to work, He wouldn't have created man and woman."
  I am pleased to say that such statements are not heard so often now.
  Mrs. Edwina Currie: They are heard on the Conservative side of the House.
  Ms Corston: Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South should set up a women's group, as we have.
  Mrs. Currie: We have tried.
  Ms Corston: I suppose it might not get many members.
  I commend the House of Commons Commission for carrying out the survey and I pay tribute to hon. Members who have served on the Committee in the past and have made the survey a reality. I hope that we shall have an in-house creche of which we can be proud well before the next general election so that the increasing numbers of women who come here will know that the job is commensurate with a family life and so that women outside this place will be encouraged to think about a parliamentary career because they will see that they will not have to abandon their children.
  6.21 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: I wish to caution the House against the suggestion being mooted that we should set up a creche within the precincts of the
  328
  Palace of Westminster. I am surprised that we are having this brief debate at all, bearing in mind that the Accommodation Committee has addressed this problem on four occasions. On each occasion it reached the decision that there should not be a creche within the Palace of Westminster. What is the time of the Accommodation Committee used for if its decisions are overridden, or attempted to be overridden, again and again by the House?
  There are at least five reasons why I agree wholeheartedly with the Accommodation Committee's decisions. I have been in the House for a very long time and, over the years, I have learnt that room here is at a premium. For many years I had only a tiny office, and many hon. Members still have very poor accommodation. We should recognise that, even when the new building in Bridge street is finished, we shall still be in the same position, with enormous competition for the available room.
  Our work load gets inexorably heavier and most hon. Members need much more space than ever before for their filing cabinets, computers and papers. When I first came to the House, only a few of us had an office at all. Many of us used to work at a desk in one of the Lobbies. Some hon. Members will remember those days. Now we have more burdens than we had then and we could not possibly manage with a desk in a corridor. Many of us still share rooms which are far too small. It is extraordinary to suggest that there is some wide open space that could be used for a creche or creches—that is what we will need.
  Mrs. Currie: The same arguments were used about the establishment of the House of Commons gymnasium. It now has 600 members, including 60 hon. Members. It is an extremely useful and invaluable service for the entire community that works here. Is my hon. Friend recommending that it should be shut because we do not have enough space?
  Dame Jill Knight: Of course not. What a stupid suggestion. There is a great deal of difference between the need of hon. Members who work long hours in this place to have exercise, and the extra-curricular activity of bringing in all their children. It is a totally different matter.
  In spite of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), I shall develop my argument and point out that this is not only an issue for Members of Parliament. Library staff are constantly asking for more space, which they need, as do our secretaries and many other staff here. We do not have enough room for good working conditions now, and it is useless for my hon. Friend to suggest that we have so much room that space can be made available for many other purposes. I do not know where an extra room for a creche or creches would come from.
  I love children, but I do not think that their place is here. We are talking not about older children but about babies and toddlers who would need many nurses and minders. Their presence here would be noisy, costly and continuous. Hon. Members must understand that we could not close the creche for the summer or Easter holidays. If we opened a creche, it would have to be open all the time that children need to be cared for.

  329
  The number of children who would have to be catered for would be far bigger than anyone has so far recognised. We are talking not only about the children of hon. Members. I am happy to see far more women Members than we have ever had before—
  Mr. George Mudie: Rubbish.
  Dame Jill Knight: Well, there have never been as many women in the House as there are today. That is a good thing, and I hope that there will be more.
  We are talking about the children of secretaries, Library staff, attendants, cleaners, kitchen staff and Post Office staff. There are many other offices, such as the Rediffusion office, the cook's office and many more. This morning I took the precaution of finding out how many female staff work in this place.
  Ms Janet Anderson: The hon. Lady mentioned the large number of staff, other than hon. Members, who work in the House and might wish to make use of this facility. Does she accept that many of those staff work during the recesses as well?
  Dame Jill Knight: That is exactly my point. The hon. Lady must understand that the recesses are used for intensive work in the Palace of Westminster. It would not be possible to close a creche during the summer months, so when would there be an opportunity to carry out all the necessary building work and refurbishment? To judge from what she said, the hon. Lady seems to recognise that, once open, a creche could not be closed simply because the House was not sitting.
  Does the hon. Lady wish to come back on that point? Does she contest it? We are talking not about a creche for the days, weeks and months when the House sits, but about a permanent creche all year round.
  Ms Anderson: I agree that we are talking about a permanent facility. My point was that there would be no need to close it during the recess, because plenty of people would still be using it. I do not see why a creche would have to be closed in order for building and refurbishment to be carried out in the rest of the Palace.
  Dame Jill Knight: With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady has not been here very long, and probably has no idea how much work is done during the recess. I am making a perfectly relevant point.
  Ms Anderson: The hon. Lady said that I am relatively inexperienced in respect of the House. She may not be aware that I worked in the House for almost 20 years as a secretary before I became a Member of Parliament, and therefore have a great deal of experience of its workings.
  Dame Jill Knight: There is all the difference in the world between working as a secretary and working as a Member of Parliament.
  Mrs. Currie: There is not a scrap of difference.
  Dame Jill Knight: If my hon. Friend thinks that there is not a scrap of difference, why is she not a secretary rather than a Member of Parliament?
  Mrs. Currie: Without my staff, who are absolutely marvellous and work very long hours, I could not be a Member of Parliament.
  Dame Jill Knight: There have been times when my hon. Friend has wished to be a Member of another Parliament; perhaps she will eventually leave us to attain that goal.
  My point, which I am sure that many hon. Members understand, is that we are talking not about a short-term facility which is open only when the House sits. We are talking about an extension of the House that would have to be available the whole year round.
  I took the precaution of finding out how many female members of staff would be eligible to use creche facilities. I found that there are 1,395. Even if only half of them—it might be more, but I was unable to find out the exact number this morning—are of child-bearing age, there could be nearly 1,000 children to be cared for.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: I will always give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Lady has been extremely generous in giving way, and I apologise to her. As she knows, I have been here a long time. It has always struck me that, when the House wants to find accommodation, it will hire suitable buildings and go to considerable expense, as it has at Millbank and elsewhere, in order to provide suitable accommodation. The provision of a creche is long overdue, but it could be done. We face the hazard of wasting the assets of many women here because we do not provide something—the right to a creche for their children—that is regarded as absolutely elementary in most industrial units. We are being wasteful and fairly short-sighted.
  Dame Jill Knight: In all fairness, if those women had not found it possible to make arrangements for their children, they would not be working here.
  The House should carefully consider the number of children eligible for a place in a creche here. We should remember that we could have 1,000 children, babies and toddlers in this place.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: It would be pandemonium.
  Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend said that it would be pandemonium, and he is probably absolutely right.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: This is the last time.
  Dr. Jones: I take the hon. Lady's point that there might be a large number of children involved, but surely the purpose of having an independently conducted survey was to establish the demand. There is a demand, and it is one for which we should be able to cater.
  Dame Jill Knight: I remind the hon. Lady that the Accommodation Committee, which knows far more about

  331
  the matter than people outside, has examined the position at least three or four times, and decided that it will not back the idea of a creche in this place.
  We are not talking only about the children of women Members of Parliament. We must recognise that there is such a thing as the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and there is no reason why male Members of Parliament could not claim to use the creche, which could mean 2,000 or more children here. I am making a serious point, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) should not regard it as funny. Coping with 1,000 or 1,500 children in this place is a more serious matter—
  Mrs. Currie rose—
  Dame Jill Knight: I am not giving way, even to my hon. Friend. I am making a serious point—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I do not allow private conversations. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) has the Floor, and if she does not want to allow interventions, other hon. Members must keep quiet.
  Dame Jill Knight: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am cautioning the House— [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. My comment applies to all parties, including Front Benchers.
  Dame Jill Knight: It is not a question of accommodating only a handful of children. We would be committed to making places available for about 1,500 toddlers and babies, which is a very serious matter.
  I am also worried about the cost. It is all very well to say that we have made money available for this and that, but we must remember that it is taxpayers' money. People outside are paying for the things that we demand.
  Mrs. Currie: This is a taxable benefit.
  Dame Jill Knight: My hon. Friend says that we can tax but, whether or not people are taxed, the cost of providing facilities for so many children would be very great. First, there would be the of renting a prime site in the most prestigious area of the city of London. The creche or creches would have to be kept in excellent decorative order. I can just imagine the scandal if the media were to discover a crack in a wall or that the paint was not in good condition.
  There would have to be an enormous amount of equipment such as sand pits, chairs, tables, potties, paddling pools, climbing frames, swings, seesaws, paints, toys, picture books and wendy houses. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) may think that that is funny. Perhaps she has not had the advantage of having children, as I have had. I know what it costs to have children catered for.
  Dr. Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Dame Jill Knight: I was not referring to the hon. Lady.
  Dr. Jones: I should like to answer that point.
  Dame Jill Knight: I said that I would not give way again, and I meant it.
  The facilities that would have to be made available here are not cheap. Facilities would also have to be made available for cooking food and for serving it. There would have to be beds, cots, high chairs and staff.
  332
  I do not know whether any of the hon. Members who have backed this proposition have made the slightest effort to work out the cost. I reckon that it is only fair, when we are spending taxpayers' money, to consider carefully the cost we are imposing. One thing for sure is that employees in this place would demand subsidised child care and would be neither able nor willing to pay the extremely high cost that would be demanded for it.
  There are plenty of ways in which children can be cared for when one is a working mother. I strongly believe in systems whereby women who need to work, perhaps because they are lone parents, are given every help in having their children cared for in a nursery—but not in the House.
  6.41 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: I understand that we have had discussion, debate and campaigning on child care facilities in the House for about 25 years. In that time, there have been many good intentions, as well as quite a lot of opposition. I had not expected to see quite so much opposition today. A number of surveys and studies have been commissioned on how we might move forward on the issue. As far as I can see, in those 25 years we have hardly moved a step forward.
  I had hoped that there would be consensus across the House on the issue. The past year has been the United Nations Year of the Family. There has been much discussion about how we can help and support families. There has been much cross-party consensus that good child care is part of that support, so I am especially disappointed to have heard comments today that seem to hark back to the old way of thinking—that we do not need to support families through child care.
  We are talking about recreation facilities. I find that being able to be with my family is a bit of recreation, as other people go to the gym for recreation; it is not somewhere I go for recreation. Listening to the debate, I am reminded of the time some years ago when I was a councillor. I was branded as being of the loony left because I thought that it was important to have child care facilities, or at least to discuss them. Memories of that time came back to me today.
  I hope that some of my points will answer criticisms made today. Child care is important for women to be able to fulfil their potential. It is important to families, and it is important that men and women are able to share in the responsibilities of looking after children. Outside this place, there is an increasing awareness among British companies that child care provision is good for business as well. Companies have realised that it is in their interests to keep their women employees once they have had children and to hold on to the skills of those employees.
  A couple of years ago, the Institute of Personnel Management studied a company with about 2,000 employees. It discovered that it was giving away about £500,000 a year without even realising it. It was losing about 50 women a year who were leaving the company—solely, probably, because they were not getting child care at work. It was a problem. Further calculations showed the company that that was costing it about £10,000 a head. The position is not quite the same in the House.
  There are various estimates of how many people work in the House. If we use the figure of 3,000, that makes the House a fair-sized business. It is not unreasonable to

  333
  assume that we have here a similar loss of trained and experienced women who leave when they have children. There are women who work for Members of Parliament, in the Library service, in catering, in finance and in other parts of the House, who have valuable skills.
  I know just how skilled many people here are. This week—the people involved were men—I have had to deal with the Public Bill Office. We could lose just as much as any company in the loss of women who work here. There is no doubt that it makes economic sense for us to provide child care assistance for people working in the House. I have not done the sums, but I cannot imagine that this place is so different from other businesses.
  When I arrived here, I was somewhat surprised to find a gym and a shooting range, but no nursery or creche. To a certain extent, we have got our priorities wrong. I know that space is at a premium. We have heard a great deal again today about just what a premium it is. I know that things have improved, but I also realise that we all work in difficult conditions. There are four people in my office, and I am sure that that is true for other people here. More offices are being built and planned. Surely we should at least be planning space for creches and nurseries in those buildings.
  We have a family room, which has also been mentioned this evening. I have not had the opportunity to use it, but I have been to have a look at it. I understand that children are allowed to use it at the moment. I am not sure whether, if there was a health and safety check on it, it would be considered absolutely suitable.
  There are some sofas and a number of small tables which have extremely sharp corners. There are some books and one or two toys, which are not complete. There is a small room where the children can wash and perhaps hang clothes, but there is no lavatory and there is no nappy-changing facility. Perhaps we could start with some nappy-changing facilities, a playpen for small children and some more suitable games and toys, not only for young children, but for older children who are here as well.
  Mrs. Currie: When I arrived in the House 12 years ago, there was no family room. I for one am very grateful that we got it. It is, however, worth pointing out to the hon. Lady that it is available only for Members of Parliament; members of staff cannot use it.
  Mrs. Maddock: I am grateful for that intervention. I understand that point. However, we could improve the family room facilities fairly quickly.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: While the hon. Lady is busy sneering at the toys and other facilities available in the family room, she might bear in mind that it was the families of Members of Parliament who organised it, got it together and provided it. She might bear that in mind when she is so contemptuous.
  Mrs. Maddock: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thought that I was sneering; I was not. I was merely pointing out that I would like to see better facilities there. Perhaps we could help the people who have provided the family room to get facilities rather better than those at present. We have had quite a lot of surveys in the House. Perhaps we should ask people what else they would like to see in the family room.
  334
  The latest survey published in the long saga of trying to do something about child care facilities shows that more people would prefer to have in-house facilities than a child care voucher scheme. Despite that, because of the long history of inaction, we should do two things. We should try to set up a child care voucher scheme, such as the one operating in the other place, and we should allocate some space in our future plans for a nursery or creche on site. A lot of building is going on, especially around Westminster tube station, and we should do everything we can to say, "Here is the space; we will use it."
  Vouchers are often a better option for many people, because they provide a bit more flexibility. I have a personal view about the best way in which to look after young children. I spent some time living in Sweden many years ago, where I was very conscious of the fact that children could become institutionalised from an early age. The provision of child care vouchers gives people the opportunity to have their children looked after in a family-type environment.
  The scheme operating in the other place has been reasonably successful. I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that in fact an enormous number of people have not been rushing to take up the vouchers. I tried to get the most recent figures. There are about 310 staff in the other place, and so far 17 have taken up the voucher scheme. If there are between four and five times that number of staff here, to start with, perhaps 100 people would try to take up the child care voucher scheme. Obviously, as Liberal Democrats, we would like the scheme to be even better value for money and child care vouchers to be tax free, but that is not part of the debate today.
  Labour Members have talked about what their party was doing to get women into Parliament. I think that all the parties have discussed that with their women members. We certainly have. We discovered that one of the reasons why women found difficulty in becoming a Member of Parliament or even in getting involved in politics was that often they were the carers, not only of children but of older people. We are obviously discussing an important point if we are serious about wanting more hon. Members in the House.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am following what the hon. Lady is saying. Is she saying that we want not only a creche but some facilities for older people as well?
  Mrs. Maddock: When I made the point about older children, I was talking about our family room.
  Dame Jill Knight: Just a moment ago, the hon. Lady mentioned that women looked after young people and were carers for elderly people as well. I am trying to get clear what she is asking for.
  Mrs. Maddock: Sorry: it did not occur to me that the hon. Lady was referring to that. I was merely pointing out that women care for other people too, but it is irrelevant to the argument today.
  Providing child care facilities for employees of the House is very important. It is important that we set an example to other people by being good employers. However, many people outside the House are ahead of the game. Even if we do not think that the provision of child care facilities is a good idea, when considering it from a

  335
  purely self-interested economic point of view, it would be worth our while. That has been proved by studies in the business world. We are a business here, whether we like it or not.
  We have procrastinated for far too long. I hope that, after today's debate, we will take some action, rather than having to come back again in another year to ask if we have conducted another survey and what we are to do about it. It is time we did something, and took some action.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: In this debate, we should differentiate clearly between the idea of an in-house creche and that of providing vouchers. What seems to have been debated tonight is the provision of an in-house creche, which, in my view, would be mere feminist tokenism. I have listened carefully to the hon. Members for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). All of them are talking about the wonderful tokenism. Is it really sensible to expect women to drag very young children and infants across London, through the rush hour, to central London to a creche or child care facility here? It is wildly inappropriate to think of any such thing.
  Then, take that argument—
  Ms Corston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Arnold: No, not for the moment. Take that argument a little further and listen to what the hon. Member for Christchurch said about the creches that she saw in Sweden and her concerns about institutionalisation of the children concerned. I know that it is not the Liberal Democrats' practice to carry forward their own logic. They did not with the carbon tax as they then opposed VAT on fuel. I ask the hon. Lady to take forward her logic. The place to bring up young people, especially infants, is in the home with their mothers.
  Mrs. Maddock: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully, he would have heard me propose two things—that we had a creche here and that we provided child care vouchers. It was precisely because I agreed with many of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made that I was talking of my experience in Sweden. Providing both gives the parent a choice. Parents can decide where they want their child to be and what is most convenient for them.
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Lady outlined the disadvantages of bringing up very young children throughout the day in creches. So, let us not be under any illusion. Let us consider where that creche would be in Westminster. Let us look at our facilities. Mention was made of the rifle range. I wonder whether hon. Members have been down to the rifle range and seen it in the cellars of this place without natural light. Should youngsters be brought up in such Dickensian surroundings without natural light? That is a fatuous suggestion.
  Let us look further into the proposal to consider whether the facilities would be provided in the outbuildings or even outside the parliamentary estate. Committees of the House considered precisely that and came up with a cost liability of £234,000 to the taxpayer if we were to advance down that line. That was for only six children—admittedly, over a five-year period. Hon.
  336
  Ladies on the Opposition Benches are talking not about children, but about many hundreds of children. Have they begun to address not only the impact on the development of the children concerned, but the cost to the British taxpayer of their proposals?
  One of the hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches said that she had been a councillor and had been involved in such matters. I should have thought that the hon. Ladies coming here from the weird and wonderful Labour councils would have looked at some of the weird and wonderful projects that they had carried out at vast expense to the council tax payer. The talk of an in-house creche in this ancient building in Westminster has more to do with posturing and posing for photo opportunities than much else. I can think only of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who seems to have made that kind of photo opportunity into an art form.
  Ms Corston: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Defence creche in Northumberland avenue is extremely successful and well supported? Clearly, staff in the Ministry of Defence—both men and women—feel that it is perfectly possible to take their children to that creche without it creating any problem whatever. Is he also aware that although nobody has ever suggested that the rifle range be turned into a creche, that range is surely symbolic of the priorities of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Arnold: The hon. Lady refers to a creche in the Ministry of Defence. If I believed that some of the hon. Ladies of the Labour party would submit their children to the proper, disciplined instruction that is to be found in the armed services, I might even favour the idea. But that is not what they are suggesting. They would bring in their weird and wonderful approach to child rearing, with all its disastrous consequences.
  What about the demand for child care? We should look at it properly. Indeed, it was looked at properly. The Administration Committee and the House of Commons Commission commissioned a report to go into that matter, and we have been able to consider that report in quite some detail tonight. Incidentally, what was the expense of that report? I asked the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who, as a leading member of the Liberal Democrats, believes in open government—the cost of that report. His answer was that it was confidential and that he could not give that information to an hon. Member in this House. I must say that, when it comes to cost, there seems to be an extraordinary approach to matters such as the one before us.
  What did that report show? If the cost to parents were £150 per week, out of all the Members of Parliament, Members' staff and staff of the House, 38 only would take up the use of such provision and only 18 of them would do so immediately. Even if the price were only £75 a week to those people, the take-up would be 69 only.
  The matter has been considered very carefully by the Administration Committee under the genial chairmanship of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). It is no coincidence that, after many years of consideration of the matter, the Committee turned down the proposal not once, but twice. It was turned down unanimously by the Labour members of the Committee and by the lady members of that Committee. They turned down the proposal because they looked into the matter,

  337
  used their judgment and then decided against it. The House should accept the judgment of that Committee and of those hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen.
  Mr. Beith: I explained earlier that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) is attending a funeral in Scotland today. He would want me to point out that he moved a motion from the Chair, which was defeated by the Committee. As Chairman, he did not cast a vote on either of the occasions to which the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred.
  Mr. Arnold: Therefore, we cannot know the hon. Gentleman's view of the matter. However, that does not alter the fact that no members of the Committee were in favour of the proposal. That point is worth bearing in mind.
  The answer to the question whether we should give Members of Parliament vouchers for child care is a categorical no. The public already think that we are gravy-train merchants. If hon. Members had such vouchers, the public would think that we were once again helping ourselves.
  It has been asked whether vouchers should be provided to the staff of Members of Parliament. They can already be provided as part of the office allowance, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said. I wonder how many hon. Ladies on the Opposition Benches can stand up, put their allowances where their mouths are, and say that they have already made that provision for their staff.
  With regard to the staff of the Palace of Westminster, in respect of their other pursuits and duties in this place, there is plenty of merit in a child care voucher system. However, that should be considered within the global employment package of the staff concerned. We should consider who are the most relevant and who are the least relevant. Any enlightened employer would make that consideration.
  We should be under no illusions: with widespread eligibility, many hundreds and possibly thousands—as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) said—would apply for vouchers. As usual, the poor infantryman—the taxpayer—would have to pick up the bill for the wild enthusiasms of the feminists in this place.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. George Mudie: I thank the Leader of the House for finding time for this debate. It has been long awaited and very gratefully received. It is about time that the issues were aired.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight). Although I did not agree with a word she said, I admired her courage and honesty. I sit on the Accommodation and Works Committee with her—at least, I have had that pleasure for the past year or so; the membership keeps changing and I am not sure whether she is still a member of that Committee. At least she is honest and open enough to come to the Chamber to tell us what persuaded her to support the decision of that Committee. I point out to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the decision was
  338
  not taken unanimously. However, at least the hon. Member for Edgbaston expressed the honesty of her convictions.
  The House sometimes surprises us. Sometimes its generosity catches one's breath, but sometimes its meanness does the same. This is one of the latter occasions. When we discuss this issue, hon. Members may say in self-defence, "Well, I have survived for 20 years in this place, so I don't see that it's necessary." That view may be a reflection of the fact that there are so few women in this place.
  One can recount all sorts of reasons why the provision is unnecessary. However, I simply cannot understand why so many bars, a shooting range, a gentleman's hairdresser or a gym are necessary, but child care provision for the children of the staff—and for Members' children, if we wish—is not.
  In response to the questionnaire, only 12 per cent. of hon. Members—52—showed an interest in the proposal. Hon. Members are not pressing for the proposal. They do not seem to be anxious about it. There is not a majority in favour of it. However, the staff have expressed a very serious interest in the proposal.
  It is not simply a question of, "I want". More than 200 members of staff who replied to the questionnaire said that they were willing to contribute up to £50 a week for child care. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) said that they would not be so keen to contribute if they had to pay £150. He should wander along the Corridor into the Tea Room and have a nice intimate talk with the Tea Room staff. He should find out how much money—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mudie: No, I will not give way. Many hon. Members wish to participate and the debate has a fixed time limit.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham should find out how much those dedicated staff earn. That is the approach that we should take. We are not talking about a perk for Members. Members of Parliament are not pressing for it. The proposal should be the response of an enlightened modern employer.
  From the moment hon. Members walk through the front door of this building, we are cosseted by first-class staff—the catering staff, the messengers, the cleaning staff and the Library staff. Wherever we go, we receive first-class treatment from the staff. However, we never step back and see them as individuals raising families, with all the problems that children create. So long as they are there and at our beck and call, fine; we do not care what they are paid and we do not care about their problems. That is what it is all about.
  More than 800 members of staff responded to the questionnaire and said that they were interested in the proposal as they had a need. What is so offensive about the Administration Committee's report is that it was aware of those details, but the Committee voted four-nil to pay no attention to that request.
  While all that was happening, the hon. Member for Gravesham may be aware that the Government sent out a document entitled, "The Best of Both Worlds". The views in that document are not those of loony left councils. The Government made space in that publication to say what Leicester county council is doing in respect of day care

  339
  nurseries. The document referred to the experience of the Midland bank and American Express, and said that there should be more of it and that that was best practice. However, when it comes to the staff of this building, we do not care. They are here simply for our convenience.
  Mrs. Currie: I wish to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the excellent staff in this place. I invite him to ponder the fact that almost the first action of the new Republican House of Representatives in the United States was to decide to remove from itself all the special privileges that exempted it from employment laws in the rest of the country. In doing that, it asserted that it was a normal place of employment.
  Mr. Mudie: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention as it gave me time to calm down. I would urge the approach described by the hon. Lady on the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed ended by asking us for our views. He wanted to know what we thought should be done. The first thing that the Commission should do is to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and his colleagues that one priority is not enough when one is doing a job: more than one priority can be handled. It is not good enough for the Accommodation and Works Committee to say that its priority is that every hon. Member should have an office to himself or herself and, until that is settled, it will not do anything else.
  The sting is in the tail if we listen closely to the hon. Member for Edgbaston. The Accommodation and Works Committee's priority takes us to the end of the century. Once that objective is reached, we know what will happen. Members' allowances will mean that there will be more staff in the House. It is no longer sufficient to have one secretary's desk; one needs one or, possibly, two researchers' desks as well.
  The dinosaurs in this building always have an excuse. It would be better, if the dinosaurs will not give way, to consider the capital works programme on the Floor of the House. All the money is not being spent on Members and their secretaries—far from it. Some very interesting money is being spent. I shall spare some blushes in the Chamber and in the building by not going into detail. Details would be—[Interruption.] I shall give one example.
  Why do we intend to spend a vast amount of public money moving the gentlemen's hairdresser from one side of the corridor to the other? Have hon. Members ever seen a queue in that barber's shop? If they have, they are at the wrong end of the building. The man is feared. I have parliamentary privilege, I hope. He is feared. I shall never go to him for a haircut—I have not gone to him for a haircut. We are going to spend that money when we say that we cannot find money for a nursery. We are going to build a plush new hairdressing salon—it is not even going to be unisex; it will be a gentlemen's salon—on the other side of the corridor.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: Is that in the building programme?
  Mr. Mudie: Yes, it is in the building programme.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed should look quietly at the building programme. He will find, as I have found, that there is sufficient brass in the budget to
  340
  build more than one day nursery. I should like the right hon. Gentleman also to tell the Accommodation and Works Committee that it is not good enough to wait until the end of the century for the new building to be completed.
  We want, either in the parliamentary estate or reasonably close to the building, suitable day care facilities such as those which we are urging private employers to provide. We should end the intolerable situation in which a girl in our Tea Room receives no child care vouchers, whereas a girl along the corridor in the other House receives child care vouchers. It is intolerable that staff in the Palace should be treated differently. The hon. Member for Edgbaston fears that 2,000 people will come out of the woodwork and demand such facilities. Child care vouchers would meet that demand without the need to find another building.
  As a modern employer approaching the 21st century, we need day care facilities on the premises, that is, on the estate or nearby. If that would take more than 18 months, the Commission should consider awarding vouchers to staff and Members. I would even settle for staff being awarded vouchers. If great cost were involved, the staff should have precedence. Staff should be paid child care vouchers equal to if not more than what is offered along the corridor. I would even shame the other place into raising the value of its vouchers, because the level is too low now. That would immediately assist the first-class staff who look after us. We should reciprocate.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Time is precious. I know that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) wishes to respond to this good-natured debate. I fear that I might incur the wrath of Opposition ladies by saying what I am about to say—it might be a high-risk strategy—but I hope that what I say will be reasonable. I have just a few observations which lead me to believe that setting up a creche would be not an enlightened move, as the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) suggests, but a regressive step.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) said that the House should set an example. Indeed it should. It should set an example by not having a creche within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster or immediately nearby, as hon. Members have suggested. The position from which I start is not the jibe which some might level at me that a woman's place is in the home. That is not my view at all. I want as many women as possible to be active in the labour market and at work.
  By and large, it should principally be up to the individual family unit to decide how to afford the care of children, what arrangements should be made and how it should be provided. In essence, behind this matter is the principle that the state should pay and that the state should subsidise women in work for the care of children. I find that philosophically objectionable, by and large, except in respect of women Members of Parliament, to whom I shall return in a moment. This matter, in effect, is a plea for a job subsidy.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Why is it so terrible for the state to subsidise families but well and fine for the state to subsidise the hon. Gentleman's house in Westminster?
  Mr. Duncan: One might have expected such a comment from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and

  341
  Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I am sorry that it is not in the spirit of the debate from which she has largely been absent.
  The argument about the House of Commons not having space is not significant. If space is needed, it can always be found. The point about which I feel strongly is that it would be in the wrong place. The place where one needs child care is near one's residence, not one's place of work. It would be inappropriate to have a large creche in or near the Palace of Westminster, to which mothers—or fathers—have to bring their children, perhaps across London, at very peculiar hours because of the nature of the work patterns of this place. It is far better to have child care premises close to where the mother, father or parents live.
  Mrs. Currie: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
  Mr. Duncan: I can probably predict what the hon. Lady is going to say, but I will take the risk of giving way to her.
  Mrs. Currie: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his courtesy. As both he and I passionately believe in parental choice, is not the matter of where children may be looked after a matter for the parents? Some of us would take different decisions. At the moment, the problem which faces many such parents is that there is a lack of such provision, and the proposal that we are discussing tonight would improve it.
  Mr. Duncan: I am grateful for what the hon. Lady says, but I do not think that it is right—
  Mrs. Currie: I am an hon. Friend.
  Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend, yes—even now. It is inappropriate for such a body to provide those facilities, although I have no objection to individuals being given the means to find such facilities for themselves. What I principally object to is the collectivisation of child care around the place of work. It would turn us into an Orwellian body of which I do not approve.
  There might be a good case for vouchers as part of a package of remuneration for those who work peculiar hours to care for their children and to assist the care of their children because they have to work peculiar hours. There is a good case for that for women Members of Parliament. The force of biology, whereby they are mothers and have the principal care of children, is a severe block on their ability to be Members of Parliament. I should like to remove as many barriers as possible to women being Members of Parliament simply because they are the ones who bear children. However, the way to do that is not to provide a central facility in or around the House of Commons or the Palace of Westminster; it is to give them, because of their peculiar circumstances, an allowance, much as hon. Members who live outside London are given one within our package of remuneration as Members of Parliament, for a second home or for travel to our constituencies.
  It is the institutionalisation around the place of work for child care to which I philosophically object. It is far better for parents to be given the means and the opportunity to choose for themselves the way in which
  342
  they care for their children. In the words of someone who brought up twins with no help from the state, I say to the proposal, "No, no, no."
  7.19 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: When I hear the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) talk about the collectivisation of child care and the institutionalisation of work I wonder how many workplace nurseries he has visited.
  It is important that we have had this debate, although Thursday evening may not have been the ideal time for it. Nevertheless, it has been a long time coming and it is good that the House has had the opportunity to debate the issue, which is important to Members of the House and even more so to the staff of the House and the staff whom Members employ. It is also right that people outside the House should see that we as Members of Parliament recognise the importance of child care provision in general.
  The contributions to the debate—most of them from Opposition Members, regrettably—have been constructive in terms of the improvements in child care that not only the House of Commons, but women and men in the country as a whole, need. I have recently been appointed to the House of Commons Commission, so tonight I wanted mainly to listen to what others said. However, I shall make a few comments of my own, although after the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) I thought that other contributions might be superfluous. My hon. Friend said forcefully what many Opposition Members believe. I hope that Conservative Members realise that there are male Members of Parliament who advocate child care facilities too. It is not only what the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) abusively called the token feminists who are in favour of such improvements.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: As a male Member of Parliament, I strongly endorse what other Opposition Members have said. As the father of four children under eight, I would gladly swap one day in my life—a day of trying to look after them on a partnership basis with my wife, finding care for them and doing my job as a Member of Parliament—with any of the Conservative Members who have spoken against the proposals. If either the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) or the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) cares to take up my offer I shall meet him outside in the Lobby.
  Mrs. Taylor: I have seen my hon. Friend in the morning walking through the streets of Pimlico with his young children, and a touching sight it is. I know that he takes his responsibilities seriously, and I hope that many other hon. Members do so too.
  We had hoped that there would be a degree of consensus in the House about the case for making progress following the debate, but the speeches that we have heard have been a mixture of constructive suggestions from most people and staggering comments from a couple of Conservative Members, who do not seem to have taken on board any of the arguments, or the ideas, beliefs and needs that emerged clearly from the survey.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) complained that it might be noisy if children were allowed into the House of Commons, but anyone

  343
  who has sat through some of our debates must put that objection to one side. But I have one point of agreement with the hon. Lady, in that she proved that there could be a considerable demand for the facilities in question.
  The hon. Member for Gravesham wanted to draw attention to the problems that women may have—he said women, but fathers could have the same difficulties—dragging young children across London to a creche. He should consider the difficulties that many people have dragging children across cities to find child care facilities simply because there are not enough of them.
  Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) has always been immensely careful in all the jobs that she has had. Has she yet had the opportunity to make an estimate of the money that we would have to find if large numbers of parents applied for places for their children?
  Mrs. Taylor: I know that the hon. Lady is concerned about such matters, and I suggest that she looks at some of the estimates in the survey that Opposition Members have mentioned. She should also consider the costs that many employers have because of absenteeism when their employees take time off work to look after their children, and because employees have to change their occupations, thereby increasing staff turnover, because there is no adequate child care provision.
  When I found out that the debate was to take place I was not sure whether I should declare an interest, because I have two children, one of whom was born while I was a Member of Parliament—although, conveniently, that happened in the summer recess in 1982. For me, as a northern Member who is not based in London, child care facilities in London are not especially pertinent to what I consider to be my needs. Members who suggest that the case for a creche or other facilities has been made on the basis that more women would be attracted to becoming Members of Parliament are short sighted. Such provision might help, but it is certainly not the be all and end all for attracting more women Members. The issue is far more complex, as I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends know.
  The decisions that have to be taken are important. Some hon. Members have suggested that there has been progress; others have doubted that. The family room in the House of Commons, which has existed since I entered the House in 1974, is sometimes used by children, but it is simply not suitable for young children; indeed, most of the facilities of the House are not suitable for them, as most Members realise.
  The provision of child care facilities is important to Members, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, it is probably far more important to the staff of the House and the people whom we employ. We should do all that we can to ensure that provision is made, and made as effectively and as usefully as possible.
  During business questions earlier today the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said something in sweeping language that has been repeated by the hon. Members for Gravesham and for Rutland and Melton—that any child care facility should be near the parents' home, and that that should be the primary factor. It strikes
  344
  me as strange that members of a party that claims to be the party of choice are telling people exactly what child care facilities parents should choose.
  Mrs. Currie: It should be clear that there are Conservative Members, too, who feel as strongly as anyone in the House about the need to provide facilities. The figures given to us earlier about the number of women working in this place were inaccurate. It is true that 1,318 salary payments are made to female staff but there are also 596 women known to the personnel office who work for the Departments of the House. Of course there are also 62 women Members of Parliament. So we know of about 1,976, and that is a lot of women—including staff employed by Conservative Members—many of whom must have-small children.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Lady probably represents a wider spectrum of opinion within the Conservative party than do the other Conservative Members whom we have heard. Her comments are valid.
  Time is running short. We, as employers of our own staff, and the House of Commons Commission which arranges for the employment of people in the House, have a responsibility not just to set an example but to do our best as employers. The points that I have made about absenteeism and staff turnover are economically valid as well as important in respect of acting as good employers. The options of vouchers and direct provision need not be mutually exclusive. Given the timetable difficulties associated with the provision of a creche, more progress could possibly be made in the meantime with vouchers. What suits one family's circumstances may not suit another's—that applies as much to hon. Members as to secretaries and Library staff. It would therefore be wrong to be too restrictive about the kind of help that might be provided.
  The one thing that we should all agree is that there must be some change—some movement. No hon. Member has defended the anomalies that prevail now. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East referred to the people who work in the Tea Room of the House of Commons. One of them has a young child who will be four in March. Eighteen months ago, her counterparts in the House of Lords were given child care vouchers. Had she transferred to the House of Lords then she would by now have had 18 months' worth of vouchers. It is ridiculous to treat staff in one part of the building differently from those in another. We cannot allow that to continue.
  There are many aspects to this problem. Provision for very young children is required. There is also the real problem of how to provide child care after school and in the school holidays. The hon. Member for Edgbaston proved to us that there is a demand, but her conclusions were quite wrong. Throughout the country there has been a growth in the number of school care clubs and holiday care clubs. I gather than in June hon. Members will have the opportunity to see at first hand what that means. It must represent the way forward.
  Figures that I have show that one in five children between the ages of five and 10 are left alone during the school holidays. That is dangerous and it cannot be right. People live further than ever before from their families; grandparents are not always on the doorstep to help with care. There is thus a greater need than ever before for child care facilities.

  345
  It is important that any provision that is made be flexible. As I said before, what suits one family does not necessarily suit another. This has been a useful debate even if there has been no clear consensus. Most hon. Members have agreed that there should be some improvement in child care provision—that must be the way forward. It is important that the Commission considers our opinions but keeps matters as flexible as possible so that we can provide the right kind of care, not just for Members' children but for those of the staff of the House and of the staff whom we personally employ.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Beith: With the leave of the House, I should like to thank hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. The Commission will want to consider their views carefully. If there was a consensus it may have been centred on the idea that voucher provision has a part to play, either as a step towards something else or by itself.
  The figures that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) offered are way out of line with the advice that we have received. Our estimate of the number of those who might take up vouchers was only 82, and the numbers who might use a creche may be even smaller—so we are talking of figures of a very different order.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  7.34 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One realises that justice is frequently portrayed in this country as blind. It is important, however, that it should not also be portrayed as deaf. This evening I want to raise the question of the identification of the general public with sentencing policy in the courts, particularly when horrendous and—one hopes—unique cases of murder are dealt with.
  I should like to set out the circumstances in which the case of a constituent of mine, a Mr. Ryan Keen, was considered. A young and active man, he was well known in the town of Nantwich as a footballer. He was very popular and had worked extremely hard building up the local football team. Among the people connected with him were two men who chose, although they were 10 years older than him, to try to enter into a friendship with him. Those two men lured Ryan Keen first into a tour of various pubs and then to an address at which he was doused in paint stripper, whereupon lighted matches were thrown at him. The result was a horrific death involving 95 per cent. burns. I ask the House to consider the agony that that young man must have endured before he died.
  I want to comment on some of the facts that were given during the trial because I think that they are relevant. Mr. Keen was said to have gone with the defendants to a pub where bar staff and customers alleged that they heard Card and Oliver, the two men initially charged with the murder, discussing setting someone alight. One witness said that as they were leaving the pub, Oliver told Card:
  "I'll set light and don't you help."
  The consultant pathologist who gave evidence in the case said:
  "Ryan had extensive burns covering 95 per cent. of the total area of his body. The only area not burned was his foot. There is no possibility of anyone surviving burns like that."
  He also gave evidence to the effect that Ryan suffered internal combustion, either by inhaling liquid which caught light inside him or by the fire passing down his throat. Traces of flammable liquid were found inside his stomach, an empty half-gallon bottle marked "white spirit" was found by the fire service officer on the floor and there was a powerful smell of the liquid in the house.
  I give the House these horrendous details not out of any desire to shock but because, when dealing with such appalling cases, it is vital to understand the reactions of the public. In my constituency, a great deal of attention was paid to the case. The day-to-day evidence was reported in considerable detail. It was therefore a matter of shock when, after some days of evidence being heard, the charge was reduced from murder to one of manslaughter. There were press reports of a Crown Prosecution Service spokesman saying that there were no plans to appeal against the sentences.
  The Minister will know that the sentences handed down, although commensurate with the charge of manslaughter, were fairly light—three and five years. The CPS spokesman was supposed to have said that they were
  "about what you'd expect for manslaughter."

  347
  I find it difficult to understand why the charge was changed in this way half way through the case. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that defendants frequently change their plea at the initial hearing. The strength of our jury system and its very foundation is that it should decide the facts of a case—whether defendants are guilty or not guilty.
  The jury was not permitted to reach such a conclusion. I have to ask, therefore: was there a plea bargain? If some kind of arrangement was reached, on what basis was it made? I have looked carefully at the official definitions of murder and manslaughter to try to relate those charges to what happened in this trial. Indeed, I have tried very hard to understand exactly why the procedure went as it did.
  I wrote to the Attorney-General, raising with him the conduct of the case. I hesitate to use the word "derisory", but the sentences were very light given the nature of the death. I asked whether there was any way in which the state would appeal against them and seek a rather more exemplary punishment for the two men concerned. He was courteous enough to send me a detailed reply, which set out not only the range of sentence appropriate in any case but the behaviour that the judge would normally be expected to follow and the conclusions that he reached. He said that the judge set out
  "the factual basis on which he passed sentence … He found that Oliver conceived a plan to punish Ryan Keen … "
  having lured him
  "to Oliver's house on the pretext of taking part in some form of dare and there to frighten him or injure him but only to some limited extent."
  Frankly, if one douses a human being almost from head to toe in paint thinner then throws lighted matches at him, I find it difficult to understand that that is regarded as something that would not do irreparable harm. When I helped to run a general practice, we had an appalling death of someone who suffered the same degree of burns. The coroners court accepted that such a degree of burning could not be an accident. Therefore, both the parents and the neighbours of this boy find that initial fact very difficult to accept.
  When I went further into the case, and even when I began to study the Attorney-General's letter closely, I found other things that I found difficult to understand. The Attorney-General said:
  "I have also considered your concern regarding the acceptance of the pleas to manslaughter. As you are aware, Card and Oliver were initially tried for murder. It was only after the court and jury had heard the whole of the prosecution's case and after Oliver had given evidence that the trial judge asked to see all counsel in his chambers."
  I have to ask: why at that point? Why were the pleas not changed initially? Why was so much of the case allowed to proceed? Is it true that there was not enough time for the whole of the case to continue? If so, why was it not adjourned? It would certainly have been difficult and expensive, but it would not have been impossible.
  Let me ask some other questions that concern me greatly. If the plea bargain took place half way through the hearing, by whom was the decision taken? Was an arrangement reached between the judiciary and those who were defending and prosecuting the case? Who investigated, and what were their conclusions? What reasons were given for the plea bargaining? Why did the Crown Prosecution Service agree to drop the case after four days of hearing evidence?
  348
  When one looks closely at the management of the case, one sees the difficulty that the general public has in accepting the decisions that were handed down in relation to the two men. Most people, on a commonsense basis, would have accepted that what the two men were being tried for—murder—was the charge that they should have faced. What most reasonable people would find difficult to accept—myself among them—is why the charge was reduced to manslaughter.
  I worry that the system may be moving away from a decision of a jury towards some form of Americanisation. Plea bargaining major sentences according to a number of factors—which, in this case, were not made clear in court or to the family, who were devastated by the decision—is an exceedingly dangerous habit to form.
  A jury was in court. It heard the evidence and it should have taken the decision. If there was to be a change of plea, why was it allowed at that stage in the case? If the executive are doing deals with the judiciary, we are getting into a very dangerous situation and one that will have a direct effect on what happens in our courts.
  The CPS must have believed that the evidence to charge the defendants with murder was sufficient otherwise it would not, I presume, have brought the case. So what happened four days into the hearing to change its mind?
  In some instances, that may be in the general public interest. In, for example, the Guinness case it may have been in the public interest to consolidate a number of charges and to go for only one charge, but that does not apply in this instance. I do not believe, given the rules, that there should be plea bargaining in a case of murder. A full explanation should be given and such decisions should not be taken between the judiciary and the executive in secret. In my view, the family has been the victim of a slide towards the Americanisation of the British system. If there was a problem, the case should have been adjourned. There is a proper procedure and we cannot allow this kind of thing to happen.
  I know that if the House of Commons ever gave instructions to judges about the decisions that they should take in relation to cases we would be sliding down an exceedingly dangerous slope. I do not seek to do that, but I wonder whether Ministers understand that ordinary people, knowing that they have lost a very loved child—a fit 20-year-old—in a heinous attack by two fit 30-year-olds, want a sentence that reflects the appalling fate that befell their child or a clear demonstration of why the system has failed them. They do not accept that the sentences passed on the two men were in any way commensurate with the crime. They do not accept that what happened during the trial was a true reflection of justice. They do not accept that a better fist could not have been made either of explaining openly what was happening or at least seeking to justify it. If that is their view, I have to tell the Minister that it is also mine.
  I am desperately unhappy about what happened in the case of Ryan Keen. It may indeed be too late to do anything about the sentences passed on those two young men, which may now be an accurate reflection of the final charge that they faced, but I must tell the Minister that there is a public interest in proper justice, in openness and in a belief that we have the jury system to deliver some decision. That did not happen and many, many people wonder why.
  7.49 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on raising this important matter which gives me the opportunity, first, to set out in general terms the basis on which charges may from time to time be altered, and then to deal with the specific case that she raised.
  Justice is not blind. One can peer at virtually any statue of justice—in particular the one on top of the Old Bailey—and there is no blindfold around the eyes of justice. Justice has very sharp eyes and ears.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I were deeply concerned for the family in their sad and tragic loss. I have spent most of my life in the courts, principally in the criminal courts, and I am only too familiar with the anguish of parents in circumstances such as this. Ryan Keen had a most promising life ahead of him and it was a tragedy of the highest order that it was so dreadfully and wastefully cut short, as my right hon. and learned Friend said when he wrote to the hon. Lady on 16 November.
  As I promised, I shall first deal with the general principles which the Crown Prosecution Service adopts in its selection of charges in criminal cases. They are not just plucked out of a hat. They are not just a matter of convenience. They are not based on the concept of cost. They are based on the principle of seeing that justice is done on the particular facts revealed by the evidence in the case.
  Section 7 of the code for Crown prosecutors sets out the three principal criteria which are applied. First, the charge or charges must reflect the seriousness of the offending. Secondly, they must give the court adequate sentencing powers. Thirdly, they must enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way. That latter factor is of special importance in cases of trial by jury, which this was.
  In an ideal world it would be possible for the custody officer, who initiates the process of prosecution when a suspect is brought to a police station, to alight on a charge which remains the charge throughout the life of the prosecution until a verdict is returned either by the magistrates, if it is a summary offence, or by a jury, if it is a case tried on indictment.
  But in the nature of things, that is not always possible. The custody officer may have only a limited account of what took place from the arresting officer who may have been unable to contact a number of important witnesses at that time. The custody officer must do his best on the facts as they are known to him to prefer an appropriate charge.
  I have had the advantage in recent months of going to police stations throughout the country to observe custody officers dealing with suspects in the lively environment of custody suites at police stations. It is an instructive experience. On two recent occasions, I witnessed one in south Wales and another in Manchester.
  The custody suite is not a place for peace and quiet or reflection. There may be tearful suspects, friends and relatives wanting their say, property to be gathered up and accounted for and other matters of a pressing nature with which the custody officer must deal. But he selects the charge at that stage on the basis of the facts as they are recounted to him. The astonishing thing is that so often
  350
  the custody officer's sensing of the true charge is subsequently borne out when more facts come to hand. That is the first step in the prosecution process—the preferring of the charge by the custody officer.
  The next stage is the consideration of the case by a lawyer in the CPS, usually a few weeks later when more evidence has been gathered together. It is hoped at that stage that the case will be complete or near complete. There may be much more evidence than that which the custody officer had the advantage of considering at the first stage.
  It is not surprising that at that stage, which I shall call stage two, the charge preferred by the police may need to be withdrawn, substituted or added to. But the purpose of that is to comply with the three criteria in section 7 of the code which I outlined at the beginning of my speech. That in turn is designed to ensure that justice, according to law, is done in each case as it proceeds on its way through the courts.
  Let me give a number of examples which may occur in the life of a case. It does not ossify after the lawyer in the CPS or after counsel has drafted the indictment, if he does, or if he approves the indictment drafted by a lawyer in the CPS. In the life of a case, sometimes the evidence changes dramatically.
  The defence may submit medical reports or medical reports may come to hand as the result of an initiative taken by the CPS or the barrister instructed in the case. That evidence might tend to show that a defendant is not capable of forming a specific intent which is an essential ingredient in the offence. A witness may become too ill to testify, leave the country or die.
  All those matters might put a different complexion on the case from that which originally appeared. It would be obtuse if those responsible for the prosecuting process did not take those changes in the evidential base into consideration in their framing of the charges or in their subsequent decisions on whether to accept a plea.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Solicitor-General give way?
  The Solicitor-General: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I would like to complete this stage of what I have to say because it might assist comprehension.
  At some appropriate stage, either immediately before a defendant pleads to the indictment or at the end of the Crown case, or at any stage prior to a jury returning its verdict, the prosecution may decide to accept some plea to a charge lesser than the original one. That is not at all unusual. The decision may be based on the fact that the evidence on paper has not been borne out by the evidence given live by witnesses in the witness box, on oath. After that evidence has been tested in cross-examination and subjected to scrutiny and, possibly, witnesses have been called for the defence, it may become apparent that the view initially formed by the Crown is no longer borne out and that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to seek to maintain a case that is no longer supported by the evidence. The role of the prosecutor in such circumstances—whether that prosecutor be a Crown Prosecution Service lawyer in a magistrates court or a junior or leading counsel in the Crown court—is set out in section 9 of the code.

  351
  In those circumstances, the lawyer concerned should accept the defendant's pleas only if he concludes that the court will be able to pass a sentence that matches the seriousness of the offence. In no circumstances must the Crown accept a plea merely for reasons of convenience.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the Solicitor-General's Department has briefed him carefully, and that he has not come to the House unprepared. How many cases does he know of in which evidence was given to the court for four days and the judge then called counsel together and asked—presumably, though no clear statement was made about the matter—for a change in the pleas? If the Solicitor-General can assure me that that is not unusual but happens frequently, I think that the House of Commons should consider certain questions. I want him to tell me that what happened in this case was not unusual.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Lady has a powerful crystal ball. I made a note of what I would say on that subject before I came into the Chamber: I wrote that the procedure adopted by the judge in this case was not unusual. It is with no disrespect to the officials who briefed me that I tell the hon. Lady that I do not need to ask them whether the procedure was unusual; having spent more than 30 years in the courts, I know from my own experience that it happens from time to time. I have been personally involved—both as prosecuting and as defending counsel—in cases in which such a procedure has taken place.
  I hope that I can satisfy both the hon. Lady and the wider public that the procedure is not contrary to the interests of justice in the slightest; indeed, in appropriate cases it is very much in those interests. The objective is to ensure that justice is done—that a defendant is convicted of an offence of which the evidence shows him and no other to be guilty, and that that defendant is given a proper and appropriate sentence for that offence. Those are the twin purposes of accepting pleas in such circumstances.
  The case of Card and Oliver did not last for three or four days, as the hon. Lady said. In fact, it started on 5 October and continued until 14 October—the Crown case alone, that is. On Monday 17 October, the defence made a submission that the murder case should not go to a jury. On that day the judge gave counsel an indication of his view, having rejected the submission.
  On Tuesday 18 October, the judge gave a further indication. The defendants pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a plea accepted by the Crown, on Wednesday 19 October. The case lasted from 5 October until 19 October. Most of that time was occupied by the hearing of the Crown case in full and subsequently by the first defendant, Oliver, giving evidence in chief, being cross-examined by leading counsel for the Crown and then being re-examined. It was at that stage that the judge gave his final view.
  There was no question of secret justice or consideration of matters that were not ventilated to the public. All the evidence from those whom it was intended to call—with the exception of two minor witnesses—was given. I can tell the hon. Lady, if she does not already know, that although the first defendant—Oliver—gave evidence, it was not the intention of the second defendant—Card—to give evidence, so no additional light would have been
  352
  thrown on the case by his evidence. If memory serves me aright, the hon. Lady raised that point in one of the letters that she sent to us.
  Let me make another correction to set the case in its proper context. The sentences were not as the hon. Lady described them; they were of an entirely different order of magnitude. The principal defendant, Oliver, was sent to prison for eight years, and the defendant Card for six years. I venture to suggest that that framework is rather different from the account given by the hon. Lady, doubtless in entirely good faith.
  Let me explain in a little more detail how the case evolved. As the hon. Lady rightly said, the prosecution did not take the initiative in substituting a lesser charge or in any way seeking to compromise the case. The defendants were initially charged with murder and committed for trial on that basis; the Crown opened its case as a joint charge of murder, and conducted it in that way throughout. As I have said, at the end of the Crown case certain submissions were made.
  The hon. Lady asked how, if a jury had been sworn to give a true verdict according to the evidence, a judge could express his view of the facts—which was then accepted by the Crown—and the jury could never complete their hearing of the case.
  What took place was not unusual: I shall explain why it was entirely proper. The trial judge's function is to ensure that the quality of the evidence that is called justifies conviction. If, as in this case, the judge concludes that the nature and quality of the evidence are such that they do not justify conviction, he can convey that view to Crown counsel and defending counsel. Far from being improper, that is quite appropriate and the judge's duty as part of his supervisory power is to do just that.
  The judge heard virtually all the evidence before expressing the view that in his judgment it would be inappropriate for the Crown to press for a conviction for murder and that such a conviction would be contrary to the justice of the case as he had heard it.
  Leading counsel for the Crown was Mr. Anthony Evans QC, who is an experienced and robust counsel, and he did not rubber-stamp the judge's view. It would have been quite wrong for him to do that. He took the view into account and consulted those in the CPS who were instructing him. They concluded that in the circumstances of the case, it was right to accept pleas of manslaughter and not to continue to invite the jury to convict for murder because that would be contrary to the justice of the case.
  The hon. Lady says that the trial should have continued. However, that would surely have been quite improper. The Farquharson guidelines indicate that, at that stage, Crown counsel is in charge of the prosecuting process. He had heard all the evidence and in consultation with the CPS he was of the view, as was Mr. Justice Waterhouse, who is an extremely experienced Queen's Bench judge, that it would have been calculated to lead to a miscarriage of justice if prosecuting counsel had allowed the case to go on. Quite properly, he adopted a course which is not unusual and decided to accept the pleas of manslaughter. The jury acquitted the defendants of murder and convicted them of manslaughter. The defendants were in charge of the jury on counts of murder and that was the only process

  353
  by which the case could be terminated. In the circumstances that I have outlined, it was the jury's verdict.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: Of course, the Solicitor-General means that the jury was directed to come to that conclusion. He has said that the man who lit the match and flicked it did not give evidence. Is he convinced that all the evidence affecting the case had been heard? I accept any criticism that the Minister cares to make about the way I presented the case. But I am not a lawyer and it would be difficult to persuade people who have read the details of the case that there was not much more evidence to be heard.
  The Solicitor-General: I fear that the hon. Lady is quite wrong about that. I have told her that there was virtually nothing more to be heard because Card did not intend to go into the witness box.
  When the judge sentenced the two defendants he set out most clearly, as prosecuting counsel had done when he accepted the pleas, the basis upon which he was sentencing them. First, he said that the two defendants had formed a plan to teach Keen a lesson for getting involved with Card's ex-girlfriend. Keen was lured to Oliver's house on the pretext of taking part in some form of joke or dare. He was there doused with turpentine and frightened or the defendants intended to injure him in a minor way by using a flame.
  With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady, who was not present in court, or anybody else who was not there, cannot second-guess the judge who heard all the evidence. Secondly, the judge concluded that Oliver was more
  354
  involved in planning the event and that to prevent the deceased from chickening out, he offered to sit with the deceased while Card poured turpentine on both of them. Card then set alight the deceased's clothing. What is more, he also set Oliver alight and Oliver sustained some burns.
  Thirdly, the judge found as a fact that both the offenders had much to drink and neither of them foresaw that the deceased would become a ball of flame or that his clothes were so combustible. Fourthly, and more importantly because it is crucial to the sentence which the judge subsequently passed, neither of the offenders had any intention of causing really serious injury to the deceased who was still their friend. Oliver attempted to extinguish the flames and Card's inactivity was a result of shock, not malice.
  In view of those findings by the judge, it is quite wrong to view this case as one of murder and to invite my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to refer it to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the facts were other than the judge had found. In the circumstances which I have explained the prosecution accepted the plea to manslaughter. At the risk of becoming tedious, I repeat that it is not unusual for a trial judge who has formed such a clear view of the facts to indicate that view and it is wholly appropriate for the Crown to take notice.
  The sentences of eight years for Oliver and six years for Card were within the range of sentences for offences of manslaughter. They were not light or derisory sentences, far from it. In my view, justice was dispensed in law and in fact.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

HEALTH

  Primary Care
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence there is that providing better primary care reduces the need for secondary care in the health service.

  Mr. Malone
  Increasingly, services that used to be provided in hospital are being offered in GP surgeries for example physiotherapy, diabetes and asthma clinics and vasectomies. Relieving the burden on secondary care allows treatment of more serious conditions and reduces waiting lists. This represents real improvements for patients. A 1992 study comparing data from 11 industrialised nations including the United Kingdom found that a primary care led health system was associated with lower costs of care, higher satisfaction of the population with its health services, better health levels and lower medication use.

  District Nurses
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements exist to ensure the health and safety of district nurses;

  (2) what measures she has taken to protect district nurses from verbal and physical abuse at the hands of patients released under the care in the community scheme.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 provides the legislative framework within which local employers and their staff agree arrangements to ensure the health and safety of all staff.

  NHS League Tables
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to include patients' views in NHS league tables.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Research Units
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the future of the research units funded by her Department and recently subject to expert peer review.

  Mr. Malone
  Site visits to all the units have been made and, with the agreement of the relevant directors, copies of the reports together with the conclusions of the site visit teams have been placed in the Library. One report is outstanding and will be placed in the Library shortly. The outcome of all visits is favourable and Department of Health funding will continue. The future of the units will be secured by agreeing a172
  long-term programme for each and, at the same time, creating opportunities for all directors to tender competitively for additional research commissions.

  Cook Report
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to be able to issue a substantive reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Don Valley—reference MR/KV—relating to the Cook report.

  Mr. Sackville
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Cumberlege, replied yesterday.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many secure unit places for young offenders were created in the last year.

  Mr. Bowis
  Secure accommodation is for all children looked after by local authorities, some of whom may be offenders or alleged offenders.

  We announced on 22 April 1994 a new capital building programme to provide an additional 170 secure places.

  Doctors' Pay
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the amount paid to general practitioners in the London borough of Newham in respect of the Jarman deprivation index based on the 1981 census returns for the year 1993–94 and the sums that would have been payable using the census returns for 1991; and what basis of payments she expects to be adopted for 1995–96.

  Mr. Malone
  The information on payments is not available below family health services authority level.

  The basis of payments for 1995–96 will be decided after the Doctors and Dentists Review Body has made its recommendations for that year.

  Census Returns (1991)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to rectify or supplement the census returns of 1991 to account for under-enumerations; and if she will consider further adjustment for areas where studies have suggested that further supplementation is required.

  Mr. Sackville
  Allowance for under-enumeration in the census has been made in the production of the Registrar Generals' mid-year population estimates. Details of the adjustments were published in Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Monitors PP1 93/1 and PP I 93/2, copies of which are available in the Library.

  For other census outputs, the general practice adopted, as with previous censuses and as in other countries, has been to publish guidance on what is known about the level of undercoverage; users can then take this into account as is appropriate for their particular applications. The relevant information was first published more than two years ago; further details have been published since then but have been only marginal revisions of the overall amount. There was nothing exceptional about the overall coverage of the 1991 census—the published tables relate to 98 per cent. of the population, similar to 1981. This is up to the best international standards.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Rents
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average local authority rent in 1978–79; what it is today; what has been the increase in real terms; and what was the corresponding change in the retail price index.

  Mr. Curry
  The average weekly local authority rent in England in 1978–279 was £5.90 and in 1994–95 it is provisionally estimated to be £35.68. After adjusting for inflation using the gross domestic product deflator, these figures represent an increase of 107 per cent. in real terms. The GDP deflator shows inflation of 192 per cent. over the period and the retail price index an increase of 183 per cent.

  Local Authority Leaseholds
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to introduce measures to assist local authority leaseholders who are encountering difficulty in selling their homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  I hope, in the spring, to introduce a more flexible form of agreement which local authorities can use to assist in the open market sale of flats by indemnifying mortgage lending to new purchasers. We are looking at a scheme to help local authorities take back certain flats, which are affected by mortgageability problems, in exchange for selling leaseholders another home more suitable for their needs.

  Housing Association Rents
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the percentage increase in rents for new housing association assured tenancies between 1989 and 1994; and what was the change in the retail prices index over the same period.

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the Under-Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), gave the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Mrs. Prentice) on 30 November 1994,Official Report, columns 724–25.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for a second round of bidding for the single regeneration budget, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  As I announced in a parliamentary reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) on 5 December 1994,Official Report, columns 9–10, a second bidding round of the single regeneration budget will be launched later this year. Some £240 million will initially be available for round two, with £40 million of this available in 1996–97 for early funding of approved bids. As with round one, we shall expect good quality, deliverable bids which effectively address local needs.

  Wildlife and Conservation Seminar
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment that major conservation societies were invited to the wildlife and conservation seminar held by the Crown Estates, English Nature and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

  Mr. Atkins
  There has been no such seminar. Copies of the notes of informal discussions among these three bodies have been sent to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the British Trust for Ornithology.

  Nature Conservation Societies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if nature conservation societies will be allowed to apply for sporting leases on tidal land.

  Mr. Atkins
  Yes, applications should continue to be made to the Crown Estate.

  Shooting Leases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has carried out in relation to allocation of shooting leases and areas of particular nature conservation importance.

  Mr. Atkins
  None. Notification of such an area as a site of special scientific interest provides a mechanism for consultation with English Nature over shooting. Where the Crown Estate owns tidal land, the commissioners rely on advice from English Nature prior to granting leases, including sporting rights on the foreshore.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if nature conservation societies will be allowed to participate in drawing up draft procedures for considering the grant of shooting leases.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Crown Estate are about to begin consultations with a wide range of interested bodies over revised draft procedures drawn up with the help of English Nature. Within sites of special scientific interest, owners and occupiers should continue to consult English Nature.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish his proposals for measures to replace water company byelaws in 1997.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have today published a consultation paper about the purpose, format, scope, and administration of measures to replace water byelaws. Copies have been placed in the House library.

  For many years, water companies have made byelaws for the prevention of waste, misuse, undue consumption and contamination of water. Current byelaws expire in 1997, but there is no provision now for the companies to make new ones. I am therefore consulting a wide variety of interest groups and individuals on a range of replacement options.

  The paper explores a number of possible options from a non-statutory code of practice to national regulations either as part of the building regulations, as separate water regulations or a combination of these two. It also considers whether water companies should continue to control the replacement provisions or whether the

  175
  responsibility should be transferred to local authorities, an independent agency or placed under joint control.

  There are some difficult issues to be addressed, but above all the health and safety of consumers must be protected and water companies must be able to carry out their statutory duty to maintain an adequate supply of water which is fit for human consumption.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment whether he will consult on amending the building regulations in England and Wales to help disabled people gain access to and within dwellings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am today issuing a consultation paper setting out the Government's proposals for amending the Building Regulations 1991 to make certain requirements in relation to the design and construction of new dwellings which will be of benefit to disabled people. Comments on these proposals are invited by 30 April 1995. It will be important to establish what measures will be of particular benefit to disabled people, and what the implications will be on housebuilding costs. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Care Disregard
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many inquiries were made to the family credit helpline about the new child care disregard since its introduction in October.

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not recorded. The family credit helpline service has 70 incoming lines, which operate a queuing system. The lines are open from 7.30 am to 6.30 pm, Monday to Friday. During the period in question, from 1 October to 16 December 1994, a total of 880,462 inquiries were received with regard to family credit in general. Helpline operators have direct access to the family credit computer system and answer queries regarding all aspects of the benefit from both current and potential claimants.

  State Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is his estimate of the average loss of benefit to those women who will lose some of their entitlement to state pension following the changes announced to the state pension scheme in the Gracious Speech;

  (2) if he will give his estimate of the number of women who will lose some state pension entitlement following the changes to the state pension scheme announced in the Gracious Speech.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Estimated numbers of women affected by the proposed changes to the state pension scheme range from 100,000 in 2010 to:

  1,900,000 in 2020

  2,100,000 in 2030

  1,600,000 in 2040

  1,800,000 in 2050

  176
  Based on current rules of entitlement, it is estimated that, for those women reaching 60 in 2020, the average reduction in expected benefit would be around £50 per week—1994–95 rates—for the five years until they reach the new state pension age. This estimate takes account of reductions of expected state pension entitlement and offsetting increases from dependency increases, widow's benefit, incapacity benefit and income-related benefits.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many social fund applications for(a) grants and (b) loans have been turned down in each local office in the Benefits Agency southern territory in each year since 1990–91;

  (2) how many social fund applications for (a) grants and (b) loans were turned down even though the applicant fulfilled qualifying criteria due to local budgeting restriction in each local office in the Benefits Agency southern territory in each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 December 1994 column 675–76]: I am advised that Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, is writing again to clarify his reply of 13 December 1994. I am arranging for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library with the additional information.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. John Denham dated 11 January 1995:

  I am writing to clarify the information provided to you in my letter of 13 December 1994 in response to your Parliamentary Question. You asked how many Social Fund grant and loan applications were refused, despite the applicant fulfilling qualifying criteria, due to local budgeting restrictions for each local office in the Benefits Agency Southern Territory in each year since 1990–91.

  As previously explained, the new Social Fund Computer System records reasons for refusal for every item refused in an application, unlike its predecessor. The reason for changing the way in which refusals were recorded was to enable customers to receive a more detailed decision which gave reasons for refusal of individual items requested.

  As a consequence, the figures for 1993–94 in Annex B (which show the number of refusals for individual items on the grounds of insufficient priority) are greater in some cases than those in Annex A (which show the number of applications refused in their entirety). This means that the figures for 1993–94 contained in the two Annexes are not directly comparable.

  Finally, I apologise for the erroneous inclusion of South Cheshire In Annex B.

  I hope this explains the position and I apologise for any confusion.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the savings from abolishing the national insurance ceiling and (b) the cost of abolishing the national insurance threshold in 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 10 January 1995]: The information is in the table.
  177

  Change in yield (£ million)

  (a)

  (b)

  1994–95

  +2.7

  +3.2

  1995–96

  -1.0

  -1.1

  Notes:

  1. the reply at (a) assumes that the upper earnings limit would remain in place at current levels for the purpose of calculating contracted-out rebates.

  2. the reply at (b) assumes that non contributions are paid by employed earners on the portion of earnings below the lower earnings limit.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computer Software
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extend of loss of computer software expertise to the United States of America; what action he plans to minimise it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  There is no substantial evidence of overall net loss of software expertise from the United Kingdom to the United States of America. Of the 4,700 computing students graduating in the United Kingdom in 1992–93 only 80 entered employment overseas as a first destination. The Government's policy is to encourage improved international competitiveness so that United Kingdom companies can continue to attract the best software expertise available in the world.Source of graduate information: Department of Employment "First Destination Survey"—Figures do not include the Welsh and Scottish polytechnic.

  Stagecoach Bus Company
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what complaints have been made to the Office of Fair Trading as a result of operations by the Stagecoach bus company or any of its subsidiaries; what action has been taken in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Director General of Fair Trading has received a number of complaints about the activities of the Stagecoach bus company. As with all such complaints he receives, these have been carefully considered, and further inquiries made and action taken where appropriate.

  Complaints against Stagecoach or its subsidiaries have led to further action in the cases listed:

  Competition Act 1980

  Southdown Motor Services Ltd: referred to Monopolies and Mergers Commission, behavioural undertakings given after MMC adverse finding, May 1994.

  Fife Scottish Omnibuses Ltd: behavioural undertakings given May 1994.

  Fair Trading Act 1973—monopoly provisions

  Bus services in the north-east of England: referred to MMC November 1994. It will be for the MMC to determine whether a monopoly situation exists in favour of Stagecoach or other operators, and, if so, whether this has operated against the public interest. The MMC's report is due in May 1995.

  Electronic Mail
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to receive and respond to communications via electronic mail.
  178
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The recently published Command Paper "Creating the Superhighways of the Future: Developing Broadband Communications in the UK" made clear the Government's commitment to being more proactive in offering public services using new communications technology. The DTI recognises the significant benefits afforded by electronic mail where these can improve the efficiency and quality of public services. Electronic mail facilities are already available to many with in the DTI, and are being progressively extended throughout the Department. I have an e-mail address on the Internet, which is "taylor@mintech.deman.co.uk", as announced in the House on 15 December 1994,Official Report, columns 1249–50.

  This exchange is also being issued on Internet.

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

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

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

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

  Welsh Consumer Council
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh Consumer Council concerning the filling of the vacancy for the post of director; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 10 January 1995]: The appointment of director of the Welsh Consumer Council is a management matter for the Welsh and national consumer councils.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Space Science
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the expenditure of the Science and Engineering Research Council and Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council on space science over the past 10 years, distinguishing between the amount required for European Space Agency expenditure and that required
  179
  for domestic expenditure and giving the estimated outturn for the current year; and what other departments or research councils have provided additional funding for space science.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Expenditure by SERC on space science at 1994–95 prices was as follows:

  Total of which ESA subscription

  £ million

  £ million

  1984–85

  21.9

  19.0

  1985–86

  25.7

  22.8

  1986–87

  29.7

  24.3

  1987–88

  33.4

  29.2

  1988–89

  39.2

  33.4

  1989–90

  40.0

  33.9

  1990–91

  36.3

  29.1

  1991–92

  37.0

  27.2

  1992–93

  41.1

  29.9

  1993–94

  40.2

  29.9

  As part of the research council reorganisation at 1 April 1994, responsibility for this expenditure transferred to PPARC.

  In 1994–95 PPARC expect to spend £46.5 million on space science, of which £36.4 million relates to the ESA subscription.

  The Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Defence, the Meteorological Office and the Natural Environment Research Council have also provided funding for space science.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he takes into account political affiliation when making public appointments.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Account has sometimes been taken of party political affiliation when making appointments in my area of responsibility, as when the nominee of the Leader of the Opposition was appointed to the Millennium Commission. However, these and all other appointments are based on the ability of the individual concerned to perform the duties and responsibilities of the post for which he or she is being considered.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Budapest Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional financial, logistical, technical or other support is to be made available by the United Kingdom to the International Atomic Energy Agency in fulfilment of the commitment entered into by Her Majesty's Government's support of section VI, page 23 of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Budapest summit declaration of 6 December.
  180
  Mr. Baldry
  The IAEA has been working since 1993 on a package of measures designed to strengthen and streamline the agency's system of safeguards, in particular with a view to better detect clandestine nuclear weapons programmes. The United Kingdom will take a view on appropriate levels of financial, logistical, technical or other support in the light of the decisions taken by the IAEA board of governors, who are meeting to consider full proposals in March 1995.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government in 1994 to uphold the commitment made under section I of the principles governing non-proliferation at page 22 of the OSCE Budapest summit declaration of 6 December, in regard to the control of missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction and their components and technology.

  Mr. David Davis
  The United Kingdom is an active member of the missile technology control regime which seeks to control exports of missiles, as well as components and technology, capable of delivering nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The United Kingdom continues to work closely with her MTCR partners to limit the proliferation of ballistic and cruise missiles in accordance with her commitments under the regime.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ascertain whether the proposed extension of the 1958 Anglo-American mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters, Cm. 2686, is compatible with the commitments entered into by Her Majesty's Government as a signatory to the OSCE Budapest summit declaration of 6 December, in regard to section VI, part 1, subsection 3 on the control of the transfer of missiles, their components and technology.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no doubt that the 1958 United Kingdom United States agreement for co-operation in the uses of atomic energy for mutual defence purposes is consistent with the commitments reaffirmed by the OSCE Budapest summit declaration.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds of policy Her Majesty's Government supported the section under nuclear proliferation, at page 23 of the OSCE Budapest summit declaration of 6 December which calls for the indefinite and unconditional extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

  Mr. Baldry
  We support indefinite and unconditional extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty because it provides the best possible framework for the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, for negotiations on nuclear disarmament, and for the promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the United Kingdom's purchase of Trident missiles and their auxiliary technological support from the United States of America falls within the affirmation made by the participating states of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe under the principles governing non-proliferation, page 22 of the Budapest summit declaration of 6 December.

  Mr. Baldry
  The United Kingdom's purchase of the Trident system does not conflict with the affirmation
  181
  made on page 22 of the Budapest summit declaration. Trident is committed to NATO and forms part of the stable security environment envisaged in the summit declaration.

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the special negotiating session for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty held under the auspices of the United Nations in Geneva in December; what proposals were put by Her Majesty's Government to the special session; and how they were received by other participating states.

  Mr. Baldry
  The ad hoc committee of the conference on disarmament made good progress on the verification regime of a comprehensive test ban treaty, reaching broad agreement on the main components of an international monitoring system and making technical preparations for developing the on-site inspection provisions. The organisational arrangements for administering the treaty were also considered. The United Kingdom delegation played a full and active part in the negotiations.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 12 January.

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Exhibitions
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the standing conference on schools' science and technology to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 20 March to Friday 24 March 1995.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the Defence Police Federation to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 30 January to 3 February 1995.

  Staff Statistics
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many people are 182
  accredited to work at the Palace of Westminster, in the categories (a) working for hon. Members (b) servants of the House and (c) others; how many in each category are women; how many in each category are full time; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The latest Pass Office figures show that;

  (a) 1.295 people, of whom 759 are female, work for hon. Members of this House

  (b) There are 1,470 officers and staff of the House, of whom 616 are female.

  (c) A total of 8,482 others are accredited to work at the Palace of Westminster and in the parliamentary outbuildings, of whom 1,787 are female.

  The figures at (c) include Members of both Houses, officers and staff of the House of Lords, the staff of Peers and Lady Peers and any other individuals sponsored by the House of Lords.

  I regret that the Pass Office records do not indicate whether passholders are employed full or part time.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service men who were invalided from the services prior to 1973 were beneficiaries of the armed forces pension scheme as at 1 January in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of making pension payments to beneficiaries of the armed forces pension scheme who were invalided from the services prior to 1973 on the same basis as those who were invalided from the services after 1973; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. It is a general rule of all public service pension schemes that improvements apply only to those serving from the date they are introduced, as the administrative task involved in arranging back payments would make it impossible to introduce such improvements.

  Harrier Aircraft
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were flown by Royal Air Force Harriers during the Air Warrior exercise in Nevada in August 1994; how many of these involved low-level flying; and where the work-up training of aircrews was conducted prior to deploying to Nevada.

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Harriers flew 199 sorties during Exercise Air Warrior 94; all of these would have included some element of low level flying. No specific work-up training was conducted prior to the exercise.

  RAF Spadeadam
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amounts paid by each foreign air force
  183
  for use made of the electronic warfare training facilities at RAF Spadeadam in each financial year since 1989–90.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not my Department's practice to release details of Government-to-Government payments of this kind.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the status of the offer by the Slovak Government to host Royal Air Force low-flying training in Slovakia since the election of a new Government in that country.

  Mr. Soames
  We have received no indication that the status of the Slovak offer to host Royal Air Force low-flying training in Slovakia has been affected by the change of Government there.

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use his Department has made of executive search agencies in filling vacancies within his Department and executive agencies administered by his Department during the last year; and how much these services have cost his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: During the past year, my Department and its executive agencies have used executive search consultants on six occasions. The cost of this work has been some £190,000. Executive search consultants are used to identify and recruit staff to fill key posts in the Department which are

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Number of Nurses (WTE)1

  29,416

  29,478

  29,732

  29,715

  29,536

  In-patient Discharges (000)

  896

  912

  920

  942

  952

  Total Number of Patients all Types2 (000)

  7,669

  7,786

  7,891

  8,059

  8,210

  Average Daily Number of Patients (weighted)3

  48,632

  47,554

  46,010

  44,819

  42,869

  Nurse Patient Ratio4

  0.60

  0.62

  0.65

  0.66

  0.69

  Notes:

  1 The number of nurses are derived from the annual census at 30 September.

  2 Includes in-patient discharges, out-patient and day patient attendances, and day cases.

  3 The average number of patients is derived by weighting the patient counts for the year by average relative costs as derived from the Scottish health service costs publications. The downward trend is mainly a reflection of reduced lengths of stay of in-patients. The intensity of nursing care will, however be increased on average over these shorter stays.

  4 The ratio of nurses to the average daily number of patients.

TREASURY

  Anti-avoidance Rules
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he made when introducing his new anti-avoidance rules affecting financial assets held by associates of banks, of the effect on registered housing associations borrowing from the private finance markets; and what plans he has to amend the Finance Bill to exclude them from these provisions.

  Sir George Young
  The proposal in question affects the tax treatment of certain financing transactions between banking groups and a range of different borrowers including, as it appears, a number of housing associations. It applies to the lender rather than the borrower in these transactions, and does so without reference to the characteristics of the borrower. It will impinge on housing 184
  either suitable for open competition or require skills and experience which are not available within the public service. In addition, some £80,000 was spent on advertising the posts nationally and on the legitimate expenses of candidates called for interview.

SCOTLAND

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his investigations into the rust on the Forth rail bridge.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The inquiries which I discussed with the hon. Member last month are well advanced but not quite complete. I shall write to the hon. Member once I have the conclusions and have had an opportunity to consider them.

  Staffing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average qualified nurse to patient ratio in each of the last five years by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 December 1994]: A nurse to patient ratio is shown in the table and incorporates all patient types. It is not an absolute measure but gives an indication of trends. It does not take account of the changes over time of the intensity of nursing activity per patient as hospital stays have shortened.

  associations, like other borrowers, only if they have chosen to indemnify their lenders against the effects of future tax changes. My right hon. and learned Friend sees no basis in these circumstances for excluding lending to housing associations from the scope of his proposal; he will, however, be considering representations that a degree of transitional protection should he extended to lending already made to them.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of increases in(a) petrol duty, (b) milk and (c) mortgage interest payments on the retail prices index.

  Mr. Nelson
  The increases in petrol duty will contribute an increase of around 0.16 percentage points in December 1994, and a further increase of around 0.06
  185
  percentage points in January 1995, to the change in the all-items retail prices index.

  The milk index rose by 3.6 per cent. in November, contributing around 0.04 percentage points to the change in the all-items RPI.

  So far, few mortgage lenders have passed the recent 0.5 per cent. increase in base rates on to their borrowers and so the impact on the all items RPI has been negligible.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effect of each 0.5 per cent. increase in mortgage interest rates on the retail prices index.

  Mr. Nelson
  An increase in mortgage interest rates of 0.5 percentage points would have the effect of adding around 0.31 percentage points to the change in the all-items RPI.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show in rank order the percentage change in price since August 1992 of each of the non-food sub-group items of the retail prices index.

  Mr. Nelson
  The percentage change in price of each of non-food sub-group items of the retail prices index since August 1992 are shown in rank order in the table.

  RPI Sub-group Items

  Percentage Change

  Tobacco

  15.1

  Catering

  10.6

  Leisure Service

  9.4

  Personal Goods and Services

  7.8

  Fares and Other Travel Costs

  7.7

  Alcoholic Drinks

  6.6

  Motoring Costs

  6.5

  Clothing and Footwear

  6.3

  Fuel and Light

  4.7

  Household Goods

  3.4

  Household Services

  2.2

  Leisure Goods

  0.2

  Housing

  -1.0

  Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the paper on prices read by the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England to the City of London branch of the Institute of Directors on 13 December 1992 represents Government policy.

  Mr. Nelson
  As the Deputy Governor stated in his speech on 13 December 1993, we must regain the attitudes and expectations of a non inflationary climate.

  It is the task of monetary policy to produce such a climate. Since October 1992, the Government have had an explicit inflation objective. The aim is to keep inflation—as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments—in the range 1 to 4 per cent. and to bring it down to the lower half of the range by the end of the present Parliament. In November, underlying inflation was 2.3 per cent. and it has been lower than 3 per cent. for 14 months, the first time inflation has been this low for this long since 1961.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effect of the increase of interest rates this year on the rate of profitability of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
  186
  Mr. Nelson
  No estimates of the effect of interest rates changes on the rate of profitability of UK manufacturing industry are available. Treasury forecast of profitability of UK industrial and commercial companies, as measured by the real rate of return of capital, are given in chapter 3 of the Treasury's "Financial Statement and Budget Report", 1995–96. The forecast shows a healthy rise in the real rate of return on capital in 1994, followed by some further increase in 1995.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the increase in interest rates on 7 December has had on real interest rates; and if he will publish a table showing the real interest in each year since 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  Real interest rates can be calculated in several ways, using either short or longer term nominal interest rates, and either past or expected future rates of inflation.

  Data on interest rates and inflation are published in the CSO publications "Financial Statistics", table 7.10, and "Economic Trends", table 3.1. Data on expected future inflation rates are published in the Treasury's monthly review of independent forecasters, and the Bank of England's inflation report.

  Treasury Forecasts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecasts the Treasury made in 1989, 1990 and 1991 of the duration and depth of the recession.

  Mr. Nelson
  Treasury forecasts were published in 1989, 1990 and 1991 in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" and Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecasts the Treasury made in 1992 of the extent of the present recovery.

  Mr. Nelson
  Treasury forecasts were published in the March 1992 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" and the November 1992 Autumn Statement report.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to privatisation of the Bank of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government have no plans to privatise the Bank of England.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the review of trade performance in his Budget speech, if he will show for manufactures, finished manufactures and semi-manufactures, the increase in the volume of imports and exports from(a) the EEC and (b) other countries in (i) the latest three months and (ii) in the year 1993, together with his estimate of the growth of the market for imports in those markets.

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 December,Official Report, column 939.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the average percentage increase in the volume of exports and imports of manufactures(a) in 1972 to 79 and (b) 1965 to 72, the relative volume and relative value in (i) 1965, (ii) 1972,

  187
  (iii) 1979 and (iv) 1993, together with the balance of exports against imports in terms of value.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information about exports and imports of manufactures from which percentage increases, relative volumes, relative values and balances may be derived can be found on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library of the House. The information is not available for years prior to 1970.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the nominal and real exchange rates of the lira against the pound sterling and (b) the balance of payments between the United Kingdom and Italy for each quarter since July 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  Exchange rate data for the United Kingdom and Italy in both nominal and real terms—adjusted for relative price movements in a number of other competitor countries—can be found in the IMF publication "International Financial Statistics". However, sterling's real bilateral exchange rate against the Italian lira is unavailable.

  Data for bilateral trade in visibles between the United Kingdom and Italy may be found on the Central Statistical Office database, available in the House of Commons Library. Data for bilateral trade in invisibles are also

  Production

  Imports

  Exports

  Implied Consumption

  1963

  £ million

  143.5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  000s tonnes

  422.2

  —

  —

  —

  1973

  £ million

  270.2

  7.1

  23.6

  253.7

  000s tonnes

  408.7

  13.1

  42.2

  379.7

  1979

  £ million

  797.4

  44.9

  104.1

  738.1

  000s tonnes

  409.7

  25.9

  63.2

  372.4

  1993

  £ million

  1,857.50

  267.4

  297.4

  1.827.5

  000s tonnes

  613.0

  121.4

  129.1

  605.2

  Source:

  CSO

  Production data—Census of Production (1963);

  Quarterly Sales Inquiries (1973 and 1979);

  PRODCOM (1993)

  Imports and Exports—Business Monitor MM20A (1973 and 1979); Business Monitors MM20 and MQ20 (1993)

  The production data values represent the invoiced sales of manufacturers at current prices. The data prior to 1993 only cover those manufacturers with 25 or more employees. Data for 1964 are not available—data from the 1963 census of production have been provided as the nearest equivalent.

  The implied consumption figures are calculated as production plus imports less exports. They represent the total market for chocolate and chocolate confectionary in the United Kingdom. Consumption data based on the prices paid by consumer in the shops, as opposed to those charged by manufacturers, is shown:

  Consumption £ million

  1963

  n/a

  1973

  364.7

  1979

  1,065.0

  1993

  2,938.0

  Source:

  MAFF estimates.
  188
  available on the database, but in annual form only. Further information about these invisibles figures can be found in an article entitled "Geographical analysis of the overseas invisibles account" in the June 1994 edition of "Economic Trends".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will complete the United Kingdom entry to the October issue of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Mr. Nelson
  Responsibility for the publication "Monthly Statistics of Foreign Trade" lies with the OECD. However, the CSO has provided the OECD with the required data and asked for the series to be updated. The Central Statistical Office is also arranging for this data to be supplied to the OECD regularly in the future.

  Chocolate Confectionery
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) production, (b) imports, (c) exports and (d) consumption of chocolate confectionery in (i) 1964, (ii) 1973, (iii) 1979 and (iv) 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  The available data on the production, imports and exports of chocolate and chocolate confectionery are as follows:

  Money Supply
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the amount by which the money supply would have to increase in terms of MO and M4 to accommodate an increase in the work force in employment to the 1990 level without an increase in the velocity of circulation;

  (2) what was the velocity of circulation of MO and M4 for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  There is no simple link between money supply and employment. In the long run, increases in money supply result in inflation, which is detrimental to activity and employment. Employment prospects are best increased by the achievement of sustained economic growth. This requires structural policies to improve the long run performance of the economy and a stable macro-economic environment with low inflation.

  Table 6.2 is the Central Statistical Office monthly publication, "Economic Trends", shows the velocity of circulation for MO and M4.

  Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will describe the method he has used to back his assertion in the Red Book, paragraph 3.47, that exporter's margins in the third quarter of this year had regained their pre-exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Nelson
  The measure of export profit margins used in paragraph 3.47 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" is the ratio of the manufacturing export price average value index to the Treasury's estimates of manufacturers' total unit costs.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the increase stated in his Budget speech for non-oil exports to EEC countries in the three months to August took account of the under-recording of exports to the EEC in 1993; and if he will publish for the most recent three months in each case the increase in the volume of exports to(a) the EEC and (b) non-EEC countries since 1992, together with the increase in United Kingdom manufacturing output.

  Mr. Nelson
  I have no reason to believe that the growth of non-oil exports to other EC countries between the three months to August 1994 and the same three months in 1993 is either under or over-recorded.

  Figures for exports to other EC countries and to non-EC countries and for manufacturing output are available on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average rate of economic growth between(a) 1964 and 1973 and (b)

  Mr. Nelson
  The average annual growth rate of real gross domestic product between 1964 and 1973 was 3.1 per cent. The average growth rate between 1973 and 1993 was 1.6 per cent. Within this period, the average growth rate over the past 10 years has been significantly higher than over the previous 10 years.

  Tourism
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact on the retail prices index of the price of foreign holidays; and if he will give the balance of payments on tourism each year since 1970, together with the change in the terms of trade for manufactures, based on the second half of 1973=100.

  Mr. Nelson
  Foreign package holidays were introduced into the retail prices index in February 1993. In 1994 this component comprised 29 parts per thousand of the all-items "basket" of goods and services. At November 1994, the latest date for which information is available, the 12-month percentage increase in the foreign holidays' index was 2.4 per cent.

  Data on the balance between expenditure by overseas residents visiting the UK and expenditure by UK residents visiting abroad are published in the "Business Monitors", MA6 and MQ6, entitled "Overseas travel and tourism".

  Terms of trade for manufactures can be derived from unit value indices, based on 1990=100, available from the CSO database which can be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount by which the exchange rate would have to fall to enable the United Kingdom to bring the current account back into balance(a) including and (b) excluding North sea oil at the current level of employment, all other things being equal.

  Mr. Nelson
  The latest figures show that the current account is no longer in deficit. In the third quarter of 1994 there was a current account surplus of £800 million and the current account excluding oil was close to balance at—£200 million.

  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the value of the pound sterling against the deutschmark and the French franc in December of the years 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1994.

  Mr. Nelson
  Monthly data on exchange rates are published by the CSO in table 7.1A of financial statistics. These data are also available on the CSO database which can be accessed through the Members' Library.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual rate of increase in consumers' real expenditure and real disposable incomes(a) since 1979 and (b) between 1964 and 1973; and if he will account for the difference.

  Mr. Nelson
  The annual rate of increase between 1979 and 1993 as 2.6 per cent. in consumers' expenditure and 2.7 per cent. in personal disposable income, both measured at constant—1990—prices. Between 1964 and 1973 the rates of growth were 3.0 per cent. and 3.2 per cent. respectively.

  A large number of factors, both domestic and international, influence the growth of consumption and real personal disposable income. There is no simple explanation that can account for developments in these variables over such a long period of economic history.

  The residual difference between personal disposable income and consumers' expenditure constitutes saving. Saving at constant prices is not published, but the principle is the same and the difference between real personal disposable income and real consumers' expenditure may be regarded as "real" saving.

  The proportions of disposable income devoted to expenditure and saving vary constantly.

  Current Account
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which the improvement in the current account deficit in 1994 forecast in the Red Book is due to(a) an improvement in the balance of visible trade less oil and erratics; and (b) an improvement in the balance of trade in finished manufactures (i) with the EEC and (ii) with other countries.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury does not publish forecasts of the balance of visible trade less oil and erratics or of the balance of finished manufactures. Nor does it publish forecasts separately for trade with other EC countries and
  191
  with non-EC countries. Forecasts of the balances of trade in manufactures, oil and other goods are shown in Table 3.3 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Figures for the first three quarters of 1994 are available on the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount by which the exchange rate would have to fall to enable the United Kingdom to bring the current account back into balance in conditions of full employment at the maximum sustainable rate of growth, all other things being equal.

  Mr. Nelson
  Achieving the maximum sustainable rate of growth depends on continuously improving all aspects of performance across the whole economy—on competitiveness in a broad sense.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage share of gross domestic product was accounted for by manufacturing output in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany, (c) France, (d) Italy, (e) Holland and (f) Belgium in (i) 1968, (ii) 1973, (iii) 1979, (iv) 1990 and (v) 1993.

  Mr. Nelson
  Such information as is available is published in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development publication "National Accounts", detailed tables, volume II, which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the rate of growth of exports of United Kingdom finished manufactures to(a) the EEC and (b) the rest of the world for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information about exports of UK manufactures from which rates of growth may be derived can be found on the CSO database which may be accessed through the Library of the House. Volume information is available only from 1988, but information at current prices is available from 1972.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show the net operating surplus of manufacturing as a percentage of net capital stock in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the USA, (c) Japan and (d) Germany in (i) 1968, (ii) 1973, (iii) 1980, (iv) 1987, (v) 1990 and (vi) 1993; what was the corresponding increase in manufacturing output based on 1968 = 100; and what was the relationship between the two series.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on United Kingdom net rates of return for manufacturing industrial and commercial companies since 1970 is available from the CSO's shared database and is published in the CSO "First Release", (94)205—"Profitability of UK Companies". Information on manufacturing activities relating to all economic sectors is unavailable. Information on rates of return for OECD countries since 1980 is published in Table 14 of OECD's national accounts, volume II. Rates of return achieved in different countries are not directly comparable because different assumptions are used in their calculation. Both publications are available from the Library of the House.
  192
  Index numbers of manufacturing output are available back to 1974. Using 1980 as a base year they are:

  UK

  USA

  Japan

  West Germany

  1968

  99

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1973

  114

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1974

  113

  84

  81

  90

  1980

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1987

  108

  127

  122

  107

  1990

  121

  139

  149

  124

  1993

  115

  142

  135

  n/a

  Source:

  United Nations Industrial Statistics Yearbook.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the profitability of United Kingdom, United States and German companies in manufacturing each year since 1980.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on United Kingdom net rates of return for manufacturing industrial and commercial companies is available from the CSO's central shared database and is published in the CSO First Release, (94)205—"Profitability of UK Companies".

  Information on profitability by United States and West German companies is published in table 14 of the OECD's national accounts, volume II. Rates of return achieved in different countries are not directly comparable because of different assumptions used in their calculations. Both publications are available from the Library of the House.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the effect of changes in interest rates and the exchange rate or the rate of return in manufactures; and if he will publish a table setting out the figures for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nelson
  No estimates are available of the effects of interest rate and exchange rate changes on the real rate of return on capital for manufacturing. The latest figures for the rate of return on capital for manufacturing companies are available in table 1 of CSO "First Release" (94)205, a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the fall or rise in the average capital employed in manufacturing in real terms between 1979 and 1993 and the corresponding figure for the average capital employed in other non-North sea industrial and commercial companies.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on average capital employed at current replacement cost by industrial and commercial companies is published in the CSO "First Release", (94)2025—"Profitability of UK Companies". This is available from the Library of the House. Constant price data are not readily available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the change in the volume of exports of finished manufactures to the EEC in the first quarter of 1993 together with his estimate of the effect of any under-recording.

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested and more recent figures are available from the Central Statistical Office database, which can be accessed through the House of Commons Library, and are published in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", also available in the
  193
  House of Commons Library. The figures incorporate adjustments made as a result of the recent quality review of the Intrastat system carried out by Customs and Excise and the Central Statistical Office.

  National Debt
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current ratio of the national debt to gross domestic product; and what was the average figure for the 1970s.

  Mr. Nelson
  At end-March 1994, the national debt was 46½ per cent. of gross domestic product. The average ratio for the 1970's was 52¾ per cent. of GDP.

  Companies (Rates of Return)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the net rate of return in 1993 for manufacturing, financial service, North sea oil and gas, and non-North sea industrial and commercial companies less manufacturing.

  Mr. Nelson
  Information on United Kingdom net rates of return for manufacturing industrial and commercial companies is available from the CSO's central shared database and is published in the CSO "First Release", (94) 205—"Profitability of UK Companies". The net rate of return on capital employed by non-North sea industrial and commercial companies in 1993 was 17 per cent. The net rate of return on capital employed by non-North sea non-manufacturing industrial and commercial companies in 1993 was 9 per cent. Rates of return for the financial services industry are unavailable.

  Profits (City of London)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes the Bank of England should take to reduce the rate of profit made by firms in the City of London to the same level as the import competing and export industries.

  Mr. Nelson
  None. Financial services are themselves import competing and exporting. They made a positive contribution of £15.6 billion to the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1993.

  Data Processing Equipment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of return the Government apply in the case of data processing equipment; and how much of that is accounted for by depreciation and how much by the cost of borrowing.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government specify a standard rate of discount, which serves as a cost of capital, to ensure that the use of resources by central government is no less efficient at the margin than resources used by the private sector. The rate of 6 per cent. in real term is applied to the internal costing of all central government activities, including acquisition of data processing equipment.

  The rate of depreciation will depend on the expected life of the equipment, and will vary from case to case.

  In industrial assistance cases, including assistance to manufacturers of data processing equipment, a discount rate of at least 8 per cent. in real term is applied, depending on the commercial rate considered appropriate for the particular investment.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures his Department is taking to encourage the education and training of the long-term unemployed for re-entry into the workplace; and what programmes are available to them.

  Mr. Paice
  Training is one of the options on the menu of opportunities made available to long-term unemployed people to help them back to work.

  Training for long-term unemployed adults is delivered through training for work.

  Additionally, the Employment Service offers a wide range of help to provide the individual advice and support that people need to get back to work as quickly as possible.

  Restart interviews encourage long-term unemployed people to search for jobs actively; jobclub and the job interview scheme help them to find jobs more effectively; jobplan workshops and restart courses provide opportunities for self-assessment, confidence building and action planning; community action provides work experience for people who have been unemployed for more than 12 months. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget statement on 29 November 1994 set out plans for further help including the extension of workwise and 1-2-1 which offer help to 18 to 24 year-olds who have been unemployed for more than one year.

  Preparatory Maritime Conference
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contribution Her Majesty's Government have made or intends to make to the preparatory maritime conference of the International Labour Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The International Labour Organisation replaced the preparatory maritime conference with a tripartite meeting on maritime labour standards. This took place in Geneva from 28 November to 9 December 1994 and was attended by a full United Kingdom delegation.

  Gas (Safety)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will state the nature of, and give references to, the statutory obligations of(a) British Gas plc to maintain standards of safety of all gas supplies and (b) the obligations on owners of property or householders in respect of safety of all gas equipment on their property; and what steps he expects to take to vary current statutes consequential to his proposed reorganisation of the gas industry.

  Mr. Oppenheim
  British Gas plc must comply with the general duties of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. In addition, it must comply with the following specific legislation: the Gas Act 1986, schedule 5, which imposes duties on the public gas supplier to take immediate remedial action when there is a reported escape of gas; the Gas Quality Regulations 1972 and 1983, which impose duties concerning the pressure, odour and purity of gas supplied to consumers; the Gas Safety (Rights of Entry) Regulations 1983, which allow British Gas plc
  195
  employees to enter premises to prevent danger, in respect of gas escapes and dangerous gas appliances; the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994, which include duties on those who install and maintain gas appliances and fittings; and the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982, which require gas transmission and distribution pipelines to be notified to the Health and Safety Executive.

  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 also impose duties on owners of property and householders. This includes a duty on landlords to maintain appliances which they own in a safe condition, and for such appliances to be checked for safety each year. Householders' duties include, for example, not using appliances which are known or suspected to be unsafe, not searching for gas escapes with a naked flame, and reporting leaks or suspected leaks to the public gas supplier.

  The Health and Safety Commission is considering its response to the safety implications of the Government's proposals for liberalisation of the gas market and will respond shortly.

TRANSPORT

  London Underground
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many violent crimes were committed on London Underground during each of the past seven years.

  Mr. Norris
  This information is set out in the table.

  London Underground: incidence of violent crime

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1988

  1,048

  1989

  1,018

  1990

  750

  1991

  685

  1992

  636

  1993

  601

  1994

  613

  Source:

  British Transport police figures supplied to London Underground.

  Note:

  1 Figures include assaults on passengers, staff and police.

  Buses (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the changes in the regulations setting down the maximum hours per day or per week which he, or persons whom he has appointed, relating to drivers holding public service vehicle licences for bus services in the area of London Regional Transport, made since 1 January 1985, stating in each case by whom they were made and what consultations preceded changes in those conditions.

  Mr. Norris
  Regular bus services on routes of less than 50 km are subject to national rules on drivers' hours in part VI of the Transport Act 1968, as amended. Regular services on routes exceeding 50 km are subject to European Community regulations on drivers' hours and tachographs which came into force in 1986.
  196
  Since 1985 there have been no changes to either the EC regulations or the national rules which affect the maximum hours per day or per week which an individual may drive. But the introduction of the EC regulations resulted in a number of minor consequent changes to the UK legislation. These changes were all made by statutory instrument and representatives organisations were informed about them. Those which affected bus operations are as follows:
  The Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 1986-SI 1986/1456.
  The Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment Regulations—SI 1986/1457.
  The Drivers' Hours (Harmonisation with Community Rules) Regulations 1986-SI 1986/1458
  The Community Drivers' Hours and recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1986-SI 1986/1669.
  The Community Drivers' Hours and recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1987-SI 1987/805.
  The Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Exemptions and Supplementary Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1988-SI 1988/760.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will publish the text of penalty clauses included in contracts between Trafalgar House and the Government regarding the Birmingham northern relief road;

  (2) what penalty clauses would be brought into force by (a) a decision to withdraw Government support for the Birmingham northern relief road and (b) a decision to oppose the road; and what would be the cost to the Government.

  Mr. Watts
  The concession agreement between the Department and Midland Expressway Ltd. is commercially confidential. Provisions for early termination of the concession by either parties are contained in the agreement.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will meet the cost of blight to homes or businesses as a result of the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road.

  Mr. Watts
  Payments for land compensation, including those relating to blight, are made by the Department in the normal way. The concession agreement provides for Midland Expressway Ltd. to reimburse the Department.

  Western Orbital Route
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the projected western orbital route around the west midlands will be a tolled road.

  Mr. Watts
  The trunk roads review, published in March 1994, indicated that the western orbital route would be considered for its suitability to be taken forward under a design, build, finance and operate contract which does not require the payment of tolls by road users.

  Rail Businesses
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 694, about the sale of rail

  197
  businesses, what is the target date for the sale of each of the businesses listed; and if he will specify the nature and target date for the sale of each of the businesses described as "various businesses in BR central services".

  Mr. Watts
  It is intended that the rolling stock leasing companies will be offered for sale during 1995. The sale of all of the other businesses listed will be handled by BR's vendor unit.

  These businesses will be marketed as soon as they are ready for sale, as speedily as practicable and, in the case of the various central services businesses, using the most appropriate method of sale. It is intended that the majority of these businesses will be offered for sale during 1995 and 1996.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 1 December,Official Report, columns 800–01, if he will make a statement regarding his Department's expenditure on special advisers in each of the last three financial years and for the financial year 1979–80.

  Mr. Norris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on 19 December,Official Report, column 937.

  Road Noise
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list his Department's current obligations relating to road noise arising from the construction of new trunk roads.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Howell, dated 12 January 1995:

  As you know, since the creation of the Highways Agency, it falls to me as Chief Executive to write to MPs who have tabled questions on matters which relate to operational matters of the Agency.

  The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 require highway authorities to carry out or pay grant towards the cost of insulation of qualifying residential property against traffic noise arising from the use of new or altered roads. Dwellings, or other buildings used for residential purposes, within 300 metres of a new or altered road are eligible for insulation if it is calculated that within 15 years of opening the noise level will increase by 1 dB to a level of at least 68 dB.

  The Regulations also allow highway authorities discretion to carry out or pay grant towards the cost of insulation of residential property against noise arising from the construction of new or altered roads.

  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what decibel readings his departmental officials are receiving from within 300 of the A3 in the region of Ash Grove, Guildford;

  (2) what decibel readings his departmental officials are receiving from within 300 m of the A3 in the region of Weston road, Guildford;

  (3) what decibel readings his departmental officials are receiving from within 300 m of the A3 in the region of Burpham and Abbotswood.

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my right hon. Friend.
  198
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Howell, dated 12 January 1995:

  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what decibel readings we are receiving from within 300 metres of the A3 at several locations within Guildford.

  There is no general monitoring by the Agency of noise levels on the trunk road network and I regret, therefore, that the information you require is not available.

  You know that the section of A3 which passes Ash Grove, Weston Road, and Abbotswood (and Burpham) is a post 1969 road. It forms part of the A3 Burpham to Ladymead scheme which opened to traffic in 1981. In his letter of 23 November, Dr. Mawhinney explained that the obligations placed on the Department of Transport by the Land Compensation Act 1973 and associated regulations, both in terms of the noise mitigation measures and compensation for depreciation in the value of property caused by noise, were fully discharged in respect of that scheme. He also explained in some detail why existing unaltered roads in this category could not be reassessed and retreated for noise mitigation.

  It follows that no purpose would be served in taking noise measurements along this section of the A3.

  Airports
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on proposals for an airport between Abingdon and Wantage.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Pleiade Associates has undertaken work on a proposal for such an airport. It has not been the subject of a planning application. If one were made, it would be subject to normal planning procedures.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the "Runway Capacity to Serve the South East" report.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I expect to be responding shortly to the consultation on the report of the RUCATSE working group.

  Stagecoach Bus Company
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what complaints have been received by the traffic commissioners in respect of the operations of the Stagecoach bus company or any of its subsidiaries; what routes or services have been the subject of such complaints; what action has been taken by the traffic commissioners as a result of such complaints; what has been the outcome of each action taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  Traffic commissioners receive a wide variety of complaints about bus operations, including those relating to the Stagecoach bus company and its subsidiaries. Most are of a minor nature. Where the complaints relate to matters within the jurisdiction of the traffic commissioner they are investigated; the companies are notified and steps taken to rectify any deficiencies. Complaints about matters not within the traffic commissioners' jurisdiction are passed on to the appropriate authority to deal with.

  More serious complaints involving potential disciplinary action are normally dealt with at a public inquiry. In July 1993 a public inquiry was held into allegations made by Orion Transport Ltd. of intentional interference into their operations by Fife Scottish Omnibuses, a Stagecoach subsidiary. At the inquiry, Fife Scottish Omnibuses Ltd. was given a warning about its future conduct; Orion Transport Ltd. was banned from operating local services. A further public inquiry has been

  199
  set for February 1995 to look into complaints about the activities of Western Scottish Buses Ltd., a Stagecoach subsidiary.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 19 December to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)Official Report, column 875, whom he saw and who accompanied him when he made his private visit to Newbury.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 10 January 1995]: I met no one on my private visit to Newbury. I was accompanied by my private secretary and the chief executive of the Highways Agency.

  Maritime Conference
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons Her Majesty's Government have withdrawn support for the specialist maritime conference of the International Labour Organisation; what representations he has received from ship-owning or crew representative bodies in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  At the recent meeting of the International Labour Organisation governing body, the Government expressed the view that maritime issues should be dealt within the mainstream of the ILO and on an equal footing with other sectors of work. The majority view was however to retain a separate maritime conference. Representations were received from the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing Review
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to issue the consultation paper on the housing review.

  Mr. Moss
  I hope to be in a position to publish the consultative paper in March.

  Fire Station (Comber)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals there are to provide a new fire station in Comber; what site is involved; what is the estimated cost for such a fire station; and what would be the implications for the existing station in Newtownards.

  Mr. Moss
  A review conducted by the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland has indicated that Comber and its surrounding area are not being provided with the appropriate standard of fire cover, and the authority is proposing to develop a new fire station in Comber to remedy the deficiency. A suitable site has been identified at Glen Link, beside the Comber bypass, which is owned by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. Retained personnel are being recruited and trained.
  200
  The estimated cost of the proposed new station is as follows:

  £

  Purchase of site.

  46,500

  Refurbishment of building etc

  176,400

  Diversion of electricity cable

  48,700

  Total

  271,600

  The new station will have no effect on the existing station in Newtownards, except that in normal circumstances Newtownards will no longer respond to fire calls from the Comber area. This will result in a reduction in the number of incidents attended by the Newtownards fire crew, but the retaining fees and drill fees paid to the Newtownards crew will remain unchanged.

  Tower Hill Hospital (Armagh)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pharmacists were advised of the meeting of the pharmacy practices committee of the Southern health and social services board to be held at the board room in Tower Hill hospital, Armagh, on 8 December 1994; how many attended; in which room this meeting was held; whether pharmacists were advised of any alternative arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  Six pharmacists were advised of the meeting. The local pharmaceutical and medical committees were also advised.

  Two pharmacists attended, together with a representative of the local medical committee.

  The meeting was held in the supplies department conference room, instead of the boardroom in Tower Hill hospital. The original venue was changed because of central heating problems. Everyone who presented at the boardroom was escorted to the new venue for the meeting.

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when funds will be allocated to the Sports Council for Northern Ireland in order that it may make financial contributions towards projects for voluntary sports clubs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ancram
  Owing to expenditure constraints and other priority demands it was not possible to make funding available to the Sports Council in 1994–95 for capital grants to voluntary sports clubs. In reaching decisions on resource allocation for 1995–96, the needs of the voluntary sports clubs will be taken into account. An announcement will be made when final decisions have been taken.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) maintained and (b) controlled nursery schools there are in each of the 26 district council areas.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information for 1993–94 is as follows:
  201

  District Council

  Maintained

  Controlled

  Total

  Antrim

  1

  1

  2

  Ards

  —

  2

  2

  Armagh

  —

  2

  2

  Ballymena

  —

  2

  2

  Ballymoney

  —

  1

  1

  Banbridge

  —

  2

  2

  Belfast

  14

  17

  31

  Carrickfergus

  —

  1

  1

  Castlereagh

  —

  3

  3

  Coleraine

  —

  2

  2

  Cookstown

  —

  1

  1

  Craigavon

  —

  3

  4

  Derry

  —

  8

  8

  Down

  2

  1

  3

  Dungannon

  —

  2

  2

  Fermanagh

  —

  —

  —

  Larne

  1

  1

  2

  Lisburn

  4

  2

  6

  Limavady

  —

  —

  —

  Magherafelt

  —

  1

  1

  Moyle

  —

  1

  1

  Newry and Mourne

  1

  2

  3

  Newtownabbey

  —

  5

  5

  North Down

  —

  3

  3

  Omagh

  —

  1

  1

  Strabane

  —

  1

  1

  Total

  24

  65

  89

WALES

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to make his housing revenue account subsidy determinations for 1995–96.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The determinations have been made by my right hon. Friend today and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  We have decided to confirm the proposal for guidelines rents and management and maintenance allowances, which were set out in my earlier answer on 30 November 1994, Official Report, columns 743–44. I have also decided to confirm the other proposals subject to some changes of detail.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many oral questions the hon. member for Leeds, East has sought to table in the current session; and how many have appeared on the Order Paper.

  Mr. Newton
  Up to and including Tuesday 10 January, the hon. Member had entered 26 questions for oral answer into the shuffle, none of which was successful.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Citizenship
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend nationality 202
  legislation to allow British women to pass on United Kingdom citizenship to their children.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No. The British Nationality Act 1981 already provides for this.

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the legislation to deal with miscarriages of justice.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  We intend to introduce a Bill this Session to establish an independent review body to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice and to refer appropriate cases to the courts. We shall introduce the Bill as soon as we can.

  Fines (Non-payment)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are in Her Majesty's prison, Armley for non-payment of fines.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 14 December, the nearest day to when the question was tabled for which figures are readily available, 11 prisoners were held in Leeds prison for failing to pay their fine.

  Executive Agencies
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on bonus payments for the chief executives of the next steps agencies which report to his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  The Directors General of the Prison Service and of the Forensic Science Service, and the chief executive of the United Kingdom Passport Agency, are eligible for bonus payments on the basis of performance measures agreed between them and the Department. The present chief executive of the Fire Service College is eligible for performance pay increases in the same way as other members of his grade.

  Rules and Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the rules and regulations governing Home Office matters which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months; and what has been the consequent reduction to his Department's manpower.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Records of changes to Home Office rules and regulations are not kept in the precise form requested, but the following are the main changes made to Home Office legislation affecting business in the last 12 months:

  the Sunday Trading Act 1994 has reduced and clarified the restrictions on Sunday Trading;

  the Shops Act 1950 has been abolished;

  the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act included amendments to the Licensing Act 1964, the Sunday Observance Act 1780, the Charities Acts 1992 and 1993 and the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963.

  These changes have not significantly affected Home Office manpower since the Home Office was not generally responsible for enforcing the legislation concerned.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his initiatives designed to combat drug abuse among young people.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Local drugs prevention teams are working with communities in different areas of the country to help prevent the spread of drugs misuse. Over 1,300 separate local initiatives have been supported, many involving young people themselves.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Judge Stephen Tumim last inspected Doncaster prison.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Judge Tumim and his inspection team have not yet inspected Doncaster prison. They are scheduled to inspect it during March 1996.

  Greater Manchester Police
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the inaccurate press release issued by his Department on 1 December 1995–96 spending allowances for the Greater Manchester police.

  Mr. Maclean
  Under the Government's proposals announced on 1 December 1994 and as stated in Home Office news release 258/94, £324.38 million will be available to the Greater Manchester police in 1995–96.

  Sentences
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about sentencing tariffs.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I receive numerous representations about maximum penalties from a variety of sources.

  Wales
  Mr. Llwyd
  Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the performance of Home Office functions in Wales.

  Mr. Howard
  Our objective is to ensure that all functions in Wales for which the Home Office has responsibility are delivered effectively and efficiently. This is fully reflected in Home Office funding which provides in Wales—as in England—appropriate resources, consistent with the Government's priorities and the need to control public spending.

  Fire Authorities
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had concerning the funding difficulties faced by fire authorities.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment receive such representations from time to time.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his assessment of the percentage of British prisons in which the use of illegal drugs use is widespread.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 enables the introduction of mandatory drug testing. This will enable an assessment of the extent of drug misuse to be made.

  Right to Silence
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect to date of changes in respect of the right to silence introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Mr. Maclean
  These provisions have not yet come into force. We intend to implement them in the spring of this year.

  Police, London
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of police constables in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  In October 1994, the most recent date for which figures are available, there were 21,183 police constables on the strength of the Metropolitan police and 679 on the strength of the Metropolitan police and 679 on the strength of the City of London police.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are assigned to work on drugs matters in London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that over 200 police officers are assigned to full-time duties on drugs-related matters; this includes officers designated to specialist drug squads arid other assigned to carry out specific work in individual divisions. Officers performing general duties may of course have to deal with any type of crime, including drug-related offences, in the course of their duties.

  Crime
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he proposes during 1995 for tackling the fear of crime.

  Mr. Maclean
  Fear of crime can reduce the quality of life for individuals and the public is right to express concern. But, it is important to distinguish between realistic concern and that debilitating anxiety that makes people afraid to participate fully in everyday life. But there are no acceptable levels of crime, and the Home Office will continue to give a high priority to tackling crime and the fear of it during 1995.

  First and foremost is the "Partners Against Crime" initiative which was launched by the Home Secretary in September 1994. The campaign encourages individual members of the public to join the police as partners in the fight against crime. Through neighbourhood watch schemes, the special constabulary, neighbourhood constables, street watch, youth action groups and crime prevention panels individuals can make a difference and

  205
  also gain a sense of empowerment, which in turn helps to reduce the fear of crime.

  We welcome and encourage the use of technology and we will shortly be assessing the bids and announcing the winners of the closed circuit television competition which the Home Secretary announced last October.

  Tackling crime is of course a matter for everyone, and the Home Office will continue to work closely with other organisations and Government Departments—such as the Department of the Environment on the single regeneration budget and the safer cities programme; and the Department of Transport, which has commissioned a national review of transport-related crime and perceptions of safety.

  Publicity material providing practical advice on measures which people can take to help keep themselves, their families and their property safe will be maintained and promulgated.

  Police (Video Cameras)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the use of video cameras by police forces during affrays.

  Mr. Maclean
  General Home Office guidelines on the use of equipment in police surveillance operations were published in 1984. A copy is in the Library. It is for individual chief constables to decide whether to use video cameras in a particular operation.

  Firearms
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the Metropolitan police have currently adopted his Department's guidance on best practice systems for administering the Firearms Acts; and if he will publish the estimated costs to the Metropolitan police of each type of licence together with the appropriate Home Office best practice cost in each case.

  Mr. Maclean
  The administration of the firearms licensing system is a matter for individual chief officers of police. However, I understand that the Metropolitan police have in nearly all cases implemented the best practice guidelines on the administration of the firearms licensing system which we issued to all chief officers of police in 1991. Where the recommendations have not been implemented, this is principally due to the organisational structure of the Metropolitan police.

  The cost to the Metropolitan police of each type of licence is not available. Costings of best practice are contained in a study undertaken in 1992 by the independent consultants Ernst and Young. A copy of their report is in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's position on the licensing of the use of bovine somatotropin in the EC.

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have made clear their view that any final decision on the licensing of bovine somatotropin should be based firmly on the 206
  statutory licensing criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. It should be for the marketplace to determine whether BST has a role to play. On the basis of the scientific evidence and advice currently available, the products concerned meet those criteria and pose no hazard to animal health or welfare of public safety. As my right hon. Friend reported to the House on 15 December 1994 therefore, Official Report, columns 793–94, at the December Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting, he voted against a presidency compromise to extend the moratorium on BST until 31 December 1999, as this was without scientific justification. The decision was, however, adopted by qualified majority.

  Dairy Products (New Zealand)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if further steps were taken to facilitate continuing access to the United Kingdom market for New Zealand(a) butter and (b) cheese after renegotiation of the conditions of United Kingdom entry into the EEC; what was (1) United Kingdom output of butter and the tonnage of imports and exports from and to (2) New Zealand, (3) the EEC Six, (4) Denmark, (5) the Irish Republic and (6) other countries and what was (i) the corresponding information for the EEC Six, (ii) the tonnage of EEC cheese dumped on world markets, (iii) the difference between the common agricultural policy price and the New Zealand export price to third markets and (iv) the cost of cheese support of all kinds to the taxpayer or consumer in (w) 1968, (x) 1979, (y) 1989, and (z) 1994 to date.

  Mr. Jack
  The United Kingdom's treaty of accession provided for the import of declining quantities of butter and cheese from New Zealand at reduced rates of import levy for the years 1973 to 1977 with the possibility, for butter but not for cheese, of continuation beyond that date. The arrangements for butter have been prolonged up to the present, by successive unanimous Community decisions relating to quantity and rate of levy. The imports of cheese were terminated at the end of 1977 in accordance with the treaty but new arrangements were made with effect from 1 January 1980 for the import of certain quantities on special terms.

  As a result of the GATT Uruguay round agreement, both arrangements are to be put on a permanent basis from 1 July 1995. The annual quantity of butter from New Zealand will be raised from its present level to 76,667 tonnes at a tariff of 86.88 ecu/100 kg, and the annual quantity of cheese will be maintained at 9,500 tonnes at tariff of 17.06 ecu/100 kg.

  Information concerning United Kingdom production of butter for years 1979 and 1989 is available from "Agriculture in the United Kingdom". Data for 1968 are not available on the same basis and estimates for 1994 are not yet available. Detailed information on imports to the United Kingdom and exports to particular countries for the years requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Trade information is published in the annual statement of trade of the United Kingdom 1968, Customs and Excise; DTI "Business Monitor" "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" 1979; CSO Business Monitor, "MA20 1989; and CSO Business Monitors", MM20 and MQ20 June 1994.

  Information on the production of butter in EU member states for 1979,1989 and 1992—latest— is published in "The Agricultural Situation in the Community"—

  207
  Commission of the European Communities— and for 1968 can be found in the FAO production yearbook for 1970. Imports and exports of butter by EU member states are published by Eurostat. The publications contain total volumes of cheese exported to third countries. A small quantity of cheese which does not receive an export refund will be included.

  There is no common agricultural policy price for cheese in the EU and information on New Zealand export prices of cheese to third countries is not readily available.

  Cheese is supported under the Community dairy regime through export refunds private storage aid for certain long keeping cheese and, until 1 August 1994, public intervention in Italy for two types of cheese. It is not possible to estimate the costs of cheese support to consumers and taxpayers without making a large number of hypothetical assumptions about alternative policies which would have obtained in the absence of the CAP, and the effects of those policies. However, EU budgetary expenditure under the CAP in respect of cheese is as follows:

  Year

  Mecu

  1968

  n/a

  1979

  17

  1989

  596

  1993

  800

  The applicable conversion rates into sterling are 1979: 0 64924, 1989: 0.65475, 1993: 0.78627.

  Source:

  FEOGA.

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Austin Michell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the difference between the guaranteed or support price for butter, cheese and lamb under the common agricultural policy and the New Zealand export price to third markets; and what is his estimate of the total cost per year in each case to United Kingdom taxpayers and consumers of the higher prices or support arrangements.

  Mr. Jack
  The current intervention price for butter is 2,718 ecu/tonne. There is no common agricultural policy price for cheese in the EU. The current basic price set for sheepmeat is 3,882.3 ecu/tonne.

  Animals inspected and certified as fit for transportation prior to export from Great Britain

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1. Immediate Slaughter

  Cattle

  150

  187

  1,014

  136

  358

  Sheep

  10,381

  154,017

  182,781

  262,647

  216,886

  Pigs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  24

  Totals

  10,531

  154,204

  183,795

  262,783

  217,268

  2. Further Fattening

  Cattle

  —

  132

  574

  323

  1,712

  Calves

  142,431

  190,683

  365,166

  234,651

  302,223

  Sheep

  11,761

  7,745

  130,775

  184,120

  275,006

  Pigs

  —

  1,321

  —

  —

  —

  Totals

  154,192

  199,881

  496,515

  419,094

  578,941

  208
  New Zealand prices of the products to third markets are not readily available.

  It is not possible to estimate the costs of agricultural support to United Kingdom consumers and taxpayers without making a large number of hypothetical assumptions about alternative policies which might obtain in the absence of the CAP, and the effects of those policies. Public expenditure in the United Kingdom under the CAP and on national grants and subsidies is given in table 9.1 of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom".

  Mr. Austin Michell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the additional cost to the consumer of all forms of agricultural support including the higher prices as a result of tariff and other restrictions on imports from third countries since 1972.

  Mr. Jack
  Any estimate would be dependent upon hypothetical assumptions about the policies which would otherwise have obtained and the effects of those policies.

  Estimates of the costs of support policies have been made in recent years by the Organisation for Economic Co—operation and Development for the EU as a whole using a particular set of assumptions. These estimates are available in OECD's annual publication "Agricultural Policies, Markets and Trade: Monitoring and Outlook Report". It should be noted, however, that the OECD figures represent an over-estimate of the savings which could be made by consumers and taxpayers because, with the abolition of agricultural support, would prices for many commodities would be higher.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hauliers were prosecuted for cruelty to animals they were exporting in each year since 1989; and how many of those prosecutions proved successful in each year.

  Mrs. Browning
  The information is not available in this detail.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will show, by type, the number of animals exported for slaughter in each year since 1985, with the expected figures for 1994.

  Mrs. Browning
  The available information is given in the following tables, excluding 1993 for which no figures were available.
  209

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1994 (to November)

  1. Immediate Slaughter

  Cattle

  175

  154

  115

  6,662

  Sheep

  186,038

  196,870

  326,777

  81,760

  Pigs

  —

  3,297

  691

  7,201

  Goats

  —

  —

  150

  1

  Totals

  186,213

  200,321

  327,733

  95,624

  2. Further Fattening

  Cattle

  284

  187

  40

  —

  Calves

  338,806

  399,599

  420,620

  500,530

  Sheep

  302,871

  576,632

  1,046,880

  966,373

  Pigs

  —

  9,963

  1,911

  11,570

  Goats

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Totals

  641,961

  986,381

  1,469,451

  1,478,475

  Source:

  Annual Reports of the Chief Veterinary Officer; ANIMO figures for 1994 January-November.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the absenteeism rate for his Department in 1991, 1992, and 1993.

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not currently available, but steps are being taken to ensure that it will be in future.

  Beef
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps were taken after the issue of Cmnd 6003—"Membership of the European Community Report on Renegotiation"—to facilitate continuing access to the United Kingdom market for imports of beef from third countries; and if he will publish (i) United Kingdom output of beef and the tonnage of imports and exports in 1968, 1979, 1989 and the current year to date from and to Argentina, Australia, the EEC Six, the Irish Republic, and other countries, (ii) the corresponding information for the EEC Six, (iii) the tonnage of EEC beef dumped on world markets, (iv) the difference between the common agricultural policy price and the Australian export price to third markets and (v) the cost of beef support of all kinds.

  Mr. Jack
  The European Union operates several concessionary import quotas providing for beef imports at reduced rates of levy or duty, including to the United Kingdom. These include a quota for frozen beef and veal; two quotas for high-quality "Hilton" beef; and a beef and veal quota for certain developing countries under the Lomé convention. The EU has also agreed new market access commitments as part of the GATT Uruguay round. These will see import tariffs generally reduced over the period 1995 to 2000.

  Information concerning United Kingdom production of beef for years 1979 and 1989 are available from agriculture in the United Kingdom. Data for 1968 are not available on the same basis and estimates for 1994 are not yet available. Detailed information on imports to the UK and exports to particular countries for the years requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Trade information is published in the annual statement of trade of the United Kingdom 1968, Customs and Excise; DTI
  210
  "Business Monitor" "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" 1979, CSO " Business Monitor", MA20 1989; and CSO "Business Monitors," MM20 and MQ20 June 1994.

  Information on the output of beef in EU member states for 1979, 1989 and 1992—latest—is published in "The Agricultural Situation in the Community"—Commission of the European Communities—and for 1968 can be found in the FAO production yearbook for 1970. Imports and exports of beef by EU member states are published by Eurostat. The publications contain total volumes of beef exported to third countries.

  Within the common agricultural policy, an annual intervention price is set for beef. In 1993–94 this was 3,216 ecu/tonne. An average Australian export price for beef to third markets in 1993, as reported to the GATT under the arrangement regarding bovine meat to which Australia is a signatory, was the equivalent of 2,243 ecu/tonne—the average of total beef and veal exports including canned products.

  It is not possible to estimate the costs of beef support to consumers and taxpayers without making a large number of hypothetical assumptions about alternative policies which would have obtained in the absence of the CAP, and the effects of those policies. Community budgetary expenditure under the CAP in respect of beef is estimated to be 3,458 MECU—£2,671 million—in 1994 (a)(b). This compares with expenditure in 1993 of 3,986 MECU—£3,134 million—(c).
  (a) Source: EAGGF guarantee, DG VI G2, early warning report 12/94.
  (b) EAGGF year runs from 16 October to 15 October.
  (c) Source: EAGGF guarantee, DG VI G2, annual financial report.

  Lamb
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the output of and tonnage of imports and exports for lamb for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) New Zealand, (c) Denmark, (d) the Republic of Ireland and (e) the EEC Six; what tonnage of EEC lamb was dumped on world markets; what was the difference between the common agricultural policy price and the New Zealand export price to third markets; and what was the cost of lamb support in (i) 1968, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1994.
  211
  Mr. Jack
  Information concerning United Kingdom production of lamb for years 1979 and 1989 are available from Agriculture in the United Kingdom. Data for 1968 are not available on the same basis and estimates for 1994 are not yet available. Trade information is published in the annual statement of trade of the United Kingdom 1968, Customs and Excise; DTI "Business Monitor" "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom" 1979; CSO "Business Monitor", MM20 and MQ20 June 1994.

  Information on the output of lamb in the EU member states for 1979, 1989 and 1992—latest—is published in "The Agricultural Situation in the Community"—Commission of the European Communities—and for 1968 can be found in the FAO production yearbook for 1970. Imports and exports of lamb by EU member states are published by Eurostat. The publications contain total volumes of lamb exported to third countries. New Zealand lamb output is published in annual FAO production yearbooks; import and export information is published annually in FAO trade yearbooks.
  212
  The basic price set for the EU sheepmeat regime is 3,882.3 ecu/tonne. The New Zealand export price to third markets is not readily available.

  It is not possible to estimate the costs of lamb support to consumers and taxpayers without making a large number of hypothetical assumptions about alternative policies which would have obtained in the absence of the CAP, and the effects of those policies. Community budgetary expenditure under the CAP in respect of the sheepmeat regime is given in the following table:

  Year

  Mecu

  1968

  n/a

  1979

  0

  1989

  1,453

  1993

  1,800

  The applicable conversion rates into sterling are 1989: 0.65475; 1993: 0.78627.

  Source:

  FEOGA.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
The Earl of Powis—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Inchcape—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Former Nationalised Industries: Comparisons
Lord Orr-Ewingasked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money they paid each week to subsidise nationalised industries in 1979–80, and how much those formerly nationalised companies paid in tax weekly in 1993–94.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, nationalised industries used to cost the taxpayer about £50 million per week in 1979–80. In 1993–94, privatised companies paid about £50 million per week to the Exchequer of which about £40 million was tax, the remainder being dividends and interest.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is very good news? However, ought it not to be more widely publicised, possibly by using a page in a newspaper—not the Guardian—to advertise such facts? We would then, perhaps, have the Opposition on our side because it would help to convert the 36 Labour MEPs who are so stubborn as to refuse to recognise just what has been achieved by that privatisation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question; it is, indeed, a very helpful one. I shall certainly continue to sing those figures from the rooftops. From what I said, it is pretty obvious that the Treasury receives something of the order of £2.5 billion per annum in tax and other receipts from privatised industries. As my noble friend will be aware, a penny on income tax yields about £2 billion. Therefore, we can see that the benefits of privatisation extend not only to consumers but also, more generally, to taxpayers.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Would not the Minister agree that to lump all nationalised industries together in that obscure way is most misleading? Will the Minister help the House by being more specific?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: What about Clause 4!
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: For instance, is it not a fact that the nationalised British Gas Corporation made substantial profits before it was privatised and was praised for its great management efficiency by independent consultants? Is the Minister aware that, in
286
1985—the year before it was privatised—that nationalised body paid into government funds £900 million? Further, can the Minister give us the figure for the privatised British Gas plc for 1993?
Lord Henley: My Lords, what is more important—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: My Lords, what is more important is the fact that the performance of British Gas has improved no end since privatisation. The number of customers per employee has risen by more than 30 per cent.; gas sales per employee have increased by about 18 per cent.; prices of gas are down by about 23 per cent., excluding VAT; and standing charges are down by 30 per cent. in real terms since privatisation. Further, disconnections are at the lowest level since records began.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, apart from British Gas, if one looks at British Steel (which at one time cost the British taxpayer £1 million per day in subsidies) it will be seen that it now produces the same tonnage of steel with half its former workforce?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Further, I can tell my noble friend that the time now taken by British Steel to produce one tonne of liquid steel is less than five hours. It was over 13 hours in 1979–80.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Minister obviously has a large number of facts at his disposal, in addition to the figures that he has already given to the House. However, will the noble Lord give us the figures regarding the assets of those industries that were written off? Is not the total amount of money involved around £6 billion that is owed to taxpayers?
Lord Henley: My Lords, privatisation proceeds have yielded some £60 billion since we started the policy of selling off. Privatisation proceeds have helped to restore public finance to good shape, thereby freeing resources for private investment. The public debt position as a result is now pretty sound. The net public sector debt is now 38; per cent. of GDP compared with 50 per cent. in 1979.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that it is refreshing to hear such outspoken support for Clause 4 and nationalisation from the Benches opposite, as we have heard today? Does he not also agree that the figures which he has given suggest that we are having a very much better return from our investment in the family silver since we sold it than when it was locked up and costing us money?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct and I think right to point out that the rhetoric from the party opposite is absolutely and totally opposed to privatisation.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the financial success of the privatised utilities is as much a consequence of their being private monopolies as any increase in efficiency? The noble Lord referred

287
to the case of British Gas. Will he confirm, for example, that the rate of productivity growth in British Gas has fallen to little more than one-tenth of the rate of the decade preceding privatisation? In these circumstances of the deteriorating growth in efficiency of British Gas, is it not grotesque that the chairman who has never competed for a job in any market in his life should receive a pay rise of 75 per cent.?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is absolute nonsense to say that the success is a result of the privatised utilities being monopolies. Their success is due to the fact that they have been freed by privatisation and put into the private sector. I give just one example. British Airways' productivity—I think even the noble Lord would accept that British Airways is not a monopoly—per employee has increased by more than 50 per cent. As the noble Lord well knows, when it comes to pay—as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made absolutely clear—we do not approve of excessive pay increases but in the private sector pay is a matter for the shareholders and not for the Government.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, will my noble friend join with me in congratulating Mr. Tony Blair on attempting to divest the Labour Party of Clause 4? Does he also recognise that it is an heroic task and that it is likely to take rather more than the next two-and-a-half years to rid the addict from the addiction—an addiction which is not wholly absent even in this House? The addiction will be there for longer than that before the Labour Party can be safely released into government.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think my noble friend is quite right to point out that on the evidence of the attitudes from the party opposite and the attitudes of their Front Bench it is going to be a positively herculean task to convert that party to give up Clause 4.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is it not unfortunate that British industry continues to be assessed by the Government and their supporters on the short-term bottom line? What investment in fixed assets was made in the relevant industries in the relevant periods?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened to me he would know that I had assessed their success very much not just in terms of the profits and proceeds to Her Majesty's Government but also the benefits to consumers. I elucidated a number of benefits to the consumers for which we are all very grateful. I could go on and give more; for example, the reduction in prices at BT—some 35 per cent. down since privatisation—and the fact that there are now 60 per cent. more pay phones than in 1984. If the noble Lord remembers that privatisation Bill, he will recall that we had a great many scare stories from the party opposite about the total disappearance of telephone kiosks in rural areas. In fact, the numbers have increased.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Since the Minister is so ignorant about British Gas perhaps I can give him the figure he refused to give to the House: namely, is he aware for instance, as he obviously is not, that in 1993
288
the privatised British Gas contributed to government funds not £900 million, as its nationalised predecessor did, but £70 million?
Lord Henley: Yes, my Lords, but I think the noble Baroness is also aware, as I made clear, that British Gas domestic prices are down by 23 per cent. excluding VAT. That is a benefit to consumers, whom the noble Baroness professes to be interested in. Standing charges are down by some 30 per cent. and disconnections are now at the lowest level since records began.

Organisation of American States
3.18 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alameinasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the United Kingdom has not applied for observer status at the Organisation of American States.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are keeping the question of applying for observer status under active consideration.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in the light of that somewhat disappointing reply is my noble friend aware that the recent summit of the Americas designated the OAS as the principal instrument for implementing the newly proposed American free trade area? Furthermore, is my noble friend aware that 25 nations already have observer status at the OAS and it hardly behoves us to be lagging behind in this matter especially in view of our new found and very welcome interest in Latin America?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am very well aware of my noble friend's great interest in Latin America; it is one which the Government share. Certainly, the OAS is now a much more effective organisation than it used to be and its role in supporting the democratic process and protecting human rights has grown. It is beginning to promote regional trade, environmental protection and technical co-operation. It is beginning to be a very good organisation. That was why I used the words "active consideration" about something to which we shall no doubt return. It is in Britain's interests that we have much closer links with Latin America. After all, our trade exports have gone up by more than 50 per cent. in the past two years.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister says about the importance of the work of the Organisation of American States, including, for example, monitoring human rights in the current situation in Haiti, can she tell the House what will determine whether we seek observer status since it is under active consideration? It would be helpful to know what is currently holding us back and what would encourage us to make a request for observer status.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the matter is under active consideration at this very moment. I am not in a position to give your Lordships a specific

289
answer today. However, I made clear in answer to my noble friend's Question that I believe it is a good thing. The permanent observer status which the noble Baroness seeks to persuade us to take up would give us even greater commitment to the region, which is changing rapidly for the better. We have an increasing influence in the region, specifically on difficult issues such as human rights, because we now play a much more active role. I hope that I shall have good news soon.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, given the numerous reasons that my noble friend the Minister has enumerated, and given also that the OAS is an organisation to which all the Latin American, Central American and North American countries belong and that 1995 has been designated by both the Foreign Office and the DTI as a year in which they will give a push to British industrial and investment activity in the region, would it not be a timely moment to give the active consideration a further push? If resources happen to be a problem, is there any reason why the task should not be covered from our embassy in Washington?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is very perspicacious. Next week at CBI headquarters we have the launch of the Latin American trade campaign by the Foreign Office and the DTI. We are considering all these matters. Certainly, we would need to take great care in our representations, even as permanent observers in the organisation. A way will be found to make sure that we do that as soon as possible.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is not a further good reason for our having an observer the fact that we still possess overseas territories in the western hemisphere, in the Caribbean?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that is obviously a further consideration. We look after both our dependent territories and other members of the Commonwealth in the Caribbean without membership of any specific organisation other than those covering the Caribbean. However, trading links between the Caribbean dependent territories and their mainland neighbours are also growing. It behoves us to see how we can help those Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean through our links with Latin America.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that great interest has been expressed in all parts of the House in this matter? Outside the House, among the business community, great importance is attached to sending an observer to the OAS. When she considers the matter within her department will my noble friend draw attention to those facts? Will she also express the importance of giving support to the new secretary general of the OAS, the former Colombian president, who took up office last September?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. We very much welcome the election of former President Gaviria as secretary general. We shall give him such support as we can. While we are not as yet permanent observers it may not be long before we become so.
290
I underline what my noble friend said about business support for the development of trade. I mentioned the increase in our trade exports over the past two years. It is also noticeable that our investment is increasing by leaps and bounds: £3.1 billion in 1991, £5.2 billion in 1992, and further increases in 1993 and 1994. I believe that, with the conference next week and all the other efforts that we are making, this is an area of great opportunity for Britain and that we should seize it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, finally, and very importantly, is the noble Baroness aware that the strong Welsh settlement in Patagonia is also very much in favour of our making such an application?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, all the reasons seem to be positive. That augurs well.

Trident
3.25 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people they estimate would be killed if only one of the 192 warheads which can be carried by a single Trident submarine were to be dropped today on the city of Hiroshima.
Lord Henley: My Lords, Britain's nuclear weapons are a deterrent against aggression. Their value is in preserving peace, not fighting wars. No useful purpose would be served by attempting to answer a hypothetical Question of this sort.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, as the noble Lord is apparently unable to answer the Question, perhaps permit me to answer it for him. Will he consider the fact that the original bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 200,000 immediately, and another 100,000 died subsequently—a total of 300,000? The bomb operated at about 15 per cent. of efficiency. Therefore, as there are 192 warheads on the Trident, each one of which is certainly no less efficient than the bomb which was dropped on Hiroshima, it is probable that any one of those warheads could wipe out Hiroshima and all its inhabitants completely, although they now number just over 1 million.
Therefore, does the Minister agree that the vessel which is traversing the globe has a lethal capacity of incredible size? What on earth is the use of the thing? Or, to use the words of another noble Lord who is not here today but who put the matter more effectively than I can, what is the bloody use of the thing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear in my original Answer, we believe that no useful purpose would be served by answering the hypothetical Question which the noble Lord asked. Perhaps I may correct one or two of the noble Lord's facts. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced as long ago as 1993, Trident will deploy with no more than 96 warheads and may have many fewer. Also, as I

291
announced yesterday, by the time Trident is fully operational the explosive power of our nuclear arsenal will be more than 25 per cent. less than it was in 1990.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question, in the form in which it has been put, is quite unanswerable, even if it is hypothetical? I speak with almost 50 years experience of the subject, some of it as chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board. I should like to say to the House simply that damage could only be due to burn, blast and radiation, and unless one knows the height of burst, the precise position and the exact nature of the buildings which now exist—and which are not those which existed when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima—and unless one also knows something about the curative power of modern medicine for the hurt which may be caused, it is quite impossible to make an estimate that has any credibility, whether it be an official government reply or the best speculation of any amateur.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can only thank the noble Lord for that most helpful piece of information. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also took considerable note of what the noble Lord had to say.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what is the lesson to be learnt from this exchange? Neither the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, nor, I am sure, the Minister, is suggesting that anything less than many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people would be killed. The fact that we cannot give a precise answer to the Question does not mean that these weapons are less terrible.
Lord Henley: My Lords, nobody said that they were not. But they serve a very useful purpose as a deterrent and they have provided for our security for over 50 years.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the deterrent is excessive? The lethality deployed is enormously overdriven. It is an enormous waste of taxpayers' money. Will he not look at the matter fairly and agree with that?
Is he aware that more accurate estimations have been made by the Japanese? Is he also aware that a reasonable, informed guess can be made? I shall be able to put that estimate in Written Questions to the noble Lord rather than taking up the time of the House this afternoon.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that it is a minimum strategic nuclear deterrent, and that is all. As I said, the explosive power of our nuclear arsenal will, when fully deployed, be some 25 per cent. less than it was in 1990. As regards costs, Trident is expected to absorb less than 2.5 per cent. of the defence budget over its procurement period. It is coming into service well under its original estimates.

Exports of Livestock
3.30 p.m.
Lord Swanseaasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take immediate steps to prohibit live exports of livestock to the Continent.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, legal advice is that it is not open to Her Majesty's Government to prohibit exports of live animals to the Continent, since to do so would contravene Article 34 and other articles of the Treaty of Rome. However, we shall continue to work hard in the European Union to achieve, Community-wide, limits on journeys to slaughter and a ban on veal crates. We have also been examining how opportunities can be created—with the help of existing grant schemes where possible—for farmers to find new domestic markets for their male calves. We trust that all interested parties will join in this initiative, including Compassion in World Farming and the RSPCA, to whom my right honourable friend outlined these plans at a constructive meeting this morning.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I can hardly say that I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer, although I do not blame him personally for its content. Does it mean that those unfortunate animals—animals have feelings—are condemned forever to endure the privations about which we read daily in the press? Does not the Treaty of Rome provide for derogation in certain cases? Is this not a case for derogation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that there are two strands to my noble friend's concern: the transport of the animals; and the conditions in which the animals are kept when they reach their destination. We believe that it is possible to transport farm animals in ways that are acceptable from a welfare point of view. The Ministry takes great care only to authorise those routes which provide, and carriers which adhere to, proper welfare standards.
The subject of veal crates has achieved some publicity recently. We are setting an example in Europe. We have banned the veal crate in this country and our efforts will continue to be directed towards achieving agreement that such crates should be banned across the European Union.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it possible for the Minister to give an assurance that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in his role as a farmer, would fully comply with such an agreement in the European Union if, as we hope, it were to be achieved?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord should see fit to comment on a Member of another place who is also a highly conscientious and able Minister. My right honourable friend very rightly distanced himself from the farm in which he has an interest when he was appointed Minister because of his ministerial office. He therefore takes no active part in the management of the farm. He has, however, made clear on repeated occasions his distaste for and disapproval of

293
veal crates. As I said, my right honourable friend and all my departmental colleagues are working to help farmers to identify domestic markets for their calves.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some very bad cases have come to light of old horses being exported from this country to the Continent, and of their being badly ill treated when they reach there? Although one hears Article 34 of the Treaty of Rome in mind, will the Government bear in mind that this situation has occurred and could occur again? Will they be vigilant about it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point aout horses. In fact, as he will know, the minimum value rules ensure that no horses are exported from this country for slaughter, although we all know that horses may be exported for sporting purposes and such like. That falls into a different category. However, we place great importance on maintaining our ability to adhere to the minimum value provisions. I am sure that that is a view which will be common to many of your Lordships.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, do the Minister and the House realise the enormity of the statement which the Minister made in his original Answer: that the House of Commons, and indeed Parliament, are not able to legislate on a matter of vital and great importance to huge numbers of British people; that they are not enabled to legislate in the face of riot and mayhem at our ports; that they are not able to legislate to prevent the enormous sums of public money being expended through the police presence at our ports and airports; and that they are not able to seek to prevent the export of animals for veal which are being brought up in disgraceful and barbarous conditions? If that is what he is saying, by God we have certainly lost our sovereignty in this country and the Government ought to be damned well ashamed of themselves.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord misunderstood my Answer. I said that we had set an example in Europe by banning veal crates ourselves. As he will know, the common agricultural policy is a means of ensuring fair competition in Europe in agricultural products. It is a regulated market. It is simply not open to us to dictate to other member states what their standards of animal welfare should be beyond the minimum standards laid down by the Community. What we now have to do is to win the debate in Europe. We have argued long and hard for improved welfare standards. We shall continue to do so; and we are making good progress.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, while accepting that my noble friend the Minister is acting on legal advice, perhaps I may ask him how he reconciles his legal advice with the specific provisions of Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome which acts by way of derogation from Article 34 to which he referred. It reads as follows:
"The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports"—
and I ask him to note the word "exports"—
294
"or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security: the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants".
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend refers to Article 36 of the treaty and specifically to the provisions on public morality and the protection of animal health. As regards public morality, the European Court of Justice has restricted the operation of that phrase to matters such as pornography. As regards the protection of animal health, there is specific Community legislation which regulates the welfare of animals in transit so that an export ban would be illegal. Any other restriction would have to accord with the general provisions of the treaty and with the directive on protection of animals during transport. In particular it would have to be proportionate and non-discriminatory. We believe that our requirement, in relation to farm animals, for resting, feeding and watering at 15-hour intervals is proportionate and fair.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, will the noble Earl state whether the Government support present research by the Hannah Institute aimed at extending indefinitely the period of lactation of cows so obviating the need for dairy cows to produce calves annually? Do the Government support that research institute financially either directly or indirectly?
Has the noble Earl seen the letter from the director of the institute in The Times of 10th January which indicated that the institute's research in that direction has gone a considerable way and is likely to be successful?
Earl Howe: My Lords, unfortunately I am unaware of that particular research programme. However, I shall write to the noble Lord with an answer.

Easter Recess
3.39 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of Business, it is expected that the Easter Recess this year will be taken during Holy Week, and that the House will resume shortly after the Easter Monday Bank Holiday. It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that, as usual, it is expected that the Whitsun Recess will be taken during the week of the late May Bank Holiday on Monday 29th May.

Select Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Inglewood be appointed to the Select Committees on Broadcasting and Procedure of the House and to the Board of Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL) in place of the Earl of Arran; and that the Earl of Lindsay be discharged from the Select Committee on Sustainable Development.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): 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.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Macaulaof Bragarmoved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Relief for non-compliance with Acts of Parliament relating to the administration of criminal justice
.—(1) The Court may, in its discretion, if it considers it to be expedient and in the interests of justice, relieve any party from the consequences of any failure to comply with the provisions of any Act relating to the administration of justice in criminal cases, provided the Court is satisfied that such failure was due to mistake, oversight or other like cause, and not being a wilful, negligent or careless omission on the part of the party seeking relief from the Court.
(2) Any relief under subsection (I) above shall be granted or refused at the discretion of the Court having heard submissions on behalf of those concerned in the proceedings, and, where granted, the Court may make such orders and impose such conditions as appear just and proper and in the interests of justice to enable the proceedings to continue.").
The noble Lord said: This is not the first time that the amendment has been put before your Lordships' House. The last time it was greeted not with disdain but with some degree of diffidence. I make no apology for proposing it again because since the Bill was last before the House there have been incidents in Scotland where, in the public eye, justice does not appear to have been done as a result of purely administrative oversights on the part of the prosecution.
The amendment in my name applies to both the prosecution and the defence. It is designed to give a degree of flexibility to the criminal law which at present exists in the civil law. I appreciate as much an anyone that in the criminal system one must protect the rights of the individual, but at the same time this Parliament has a duty to recognise public anxiety about technicalities allowing people to get away with crimes. For obvious reasons I do not care to name them, but there have been one or two cases where there has been a failure to serve a notice of penalties in the court and the court has then said, "We cannot do anything about it because there has been an administrative oversight". I can think of one major criminal case involving a £500,000 alleged fraud on the public purse in the west of Scotland where a sheriff omitted to sign the interlocutor to continue the case from one day to another. Counsel came in, quite properly, in his client's interests, when the case was called the second time, and said that the whole proceedings were incompetent because the sheriff had failed to sign the interlocutor. The case was dismissed.
296
Whether or not the person who was charged was guilty of defrauding the public authorities of £500,000 is neither here nor there. What is important is that, looking at that example, the public must say to themselves, "What kind of system do we have when pure technicalities like that can allow a person not even to stand trial?" That is why the amendment was put down.
For those Members of the Committee who are interested, I have worded the amendment carefully to deal with two situations. One is that the court is satisfied that any failure to comply with any Act of Parliament relating to criminal proceedings was due to,
"mistake, oversight or other like cause"—
in other words, that is just the way that it happened—
"and not being a wilful, negligent or careless omission".
That leaves it open to the presiding judge to say to the Crown or the defence: "Well, that was negligent and careless and you will have to bear the consequences of it by losing the prosecution". Alternatively, if it is a matter of lodging a special defence in a criminal trial that is not allowed by the court, then the person involved could take action against the solicitor.
I have worded the amendment carefully and left the whole matter to the discretion of the court. Subsection (2) states:
"Any relief under subsection (1) … shall be granted or refused at the discretion of the Court having heard submissions on behalf of those concerned in the proceedings".
The amendment then gives the court discretion to make such orders as it sees fit and proper in the interests of justice,
"to enable the proceedings to continue".
By "proceedings", I mean not only trials but, for example, proceedings in the Court of Appeal. This is purely anecdotal, but I was told recently of a person appearing in the Appeal Court who appealed against a conviction for murder. The matter is now being continued, but when the defendant appeared his solicitor was not there. I do not know whether there was legal aid, but the court continued the case. The man was expecting his solicitor to be there, and he was forced to go on with the case which was later adjourned in order to obtain notes in evidence from certain witnesses. If that had not happened, the man charged with murder—and whether or not he was guilty is neither here nor there—would have appealed against his conviction and at being forced to go on in the absence of legal representation. Incidentally, what happened was probably in contravention of the European Convention.
Those examples spring to mind. I tabled the amendment in the hope that the Government would take another look at it. I seem to remember that a former Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, indicated that perhaps there were situations where such a matter might be applicable within the criminal law, to keep the balance between the rights of the individual and the public interest. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he would clarify one matter. Subsection (1) of the amendment refers to:

297
"failure to comply with the provisions of any Act relating to the administration of justice in criminal cases".
Does the noble Lord intend to refer there to the administration of justice on both sides of the Border, or not? Quite frankly, if this were intended to refer to the administration of justice in England and Wales, we would have to consider it in the light of the law of England and Wales.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. However, the Committee will notice that the title of the Bill is the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill. It only applies to England in three sections, mainly under Clause 89. The amendment was only meant to cover the administration of justice in Scotland. Of course, if the administration of justice south of the Border should find it convenient to adopt the civilised practices of Scotland, then so much the better.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In bringing forward the amendment, the noble Lord has raised an issue of considerable significance. In effect, he is raising the question of how innocent oversights or simple mistakes should be resolved in the context of criminal proceedings. His proposal is to give a general power to grant relief by the court in every case, no matter what that failure might be.
In some respects, having been a prosecutor, I see the attraction of that, but I am concerned at the effect that the amendment might have on the general conduct of business in our courts. It is a significant feature of our system that considerable importance is placed on the observance of the detailed procedures set out both in subordinate legislation and in statute. Indeed, the consideration of matters which might lead to the conviction and imprisonment of an individual are accorded such importance that a great many detailed provisions have been deemed to merit enactment in primary rather than secondary legislation.
I would therefore be unhappy with an amendment which proposed in effect that the court should have general powers to waive observance of those procedures, albeit in circumstances where the court is satisfied that there was no wilful, negligent or careless omission on the part of the applicant. I would consider it preferable to maintain the discipline of the existing statutory procedures affecting, as they do in so many cases, the liberty of the individual. They have been set down for a purpose. It is important that all those who are involved in the criminal justice process pay particular attention to regular observance of them and ensure the attention to detail which, I am sure the noble Lord would agree, is a hallmark of the criminal justice system in Scotland.
If there are particular requirements by way of time limits or whatever that are considered to merit special dispensation, I would certainly be willing to consider making special limited provision. But in the absence of specific instances I would not like to see a general power introduced as the noble Lord suggested. However, if he has particular circumstances where he
298
believes it might be desirable to allow such a dispensation I suggest that he might return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I have given one simple example of the sheriff who failed to sign an interlocutor and effectively blocked the administration of justice in the public interest. Is it not in the public interest that there should be a general discretion for the court to rectify that omission? Why should people get away with alleged crimes because someone has made an administrative error?
There is no greater protector of the interests of the individual than myself, as noble Lords will no doubt find during this debate. Indeed several Members of the House will make it perfectly clear that the interests of the accused must always be protected. But the interests of the public equally must always be protected. In striking a balance I cannot see any reason why a general flexibility should not be built into the criminal system. However, I heard what the Minister had to say; I shall read his remarks with care. Perhaps we can resume the debate at a later stage of the Bill's passage through the House.
Lord McCluskey: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, the example that he has given is not an error by a party but an error by the court. He is saying that if the court makes an error which renders the proceedings fundamentally null the court will then consider whether or not it has been caused by, among other things, carelessness. That seems bizarre. The provision is modelled upon mistakes by parties in civil proceedings. That is where it comes from. It is not apt to cover the case that the noble Lord has mentioned.
Secondly, the obligation to sign the interlocutor in a particular way is almost certainly not based upon an Act but upon a common law provision. So while one has sympathy with the notion, it would be unfortunate if we enacted a provision which does not meet the problem and then rendered it possible for parties in other circumstances to be relieved of the consequences of their carelessness, thus making something of a shambles of the whole administration of criminal justice in Scotland.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. As my former devil master he teaches me another lesson in the administration of justice. I do not suggest for one moment that the court should be able to rectify its own mistakes. I made clear in explaining the reasons for tabling the amendment that it was a general provision. If the court makes a mistake, it would be open to the procurator fiscal or the advocate depute on behalf of the Lord Advocate to apply to the appeal court for the proceedings to continue and to rectify the error created by the judge in question. I do not see that as an insurmountable object in relation to the general provisions of the amendment.

299
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Bail conditions]:
The Earl of Mar and Kelliemoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, after ("with") insert ("or intimidate").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 seek to extend the standard condition of bail which prohibits the person on bail from interfering with witnesses or obstructing the course of justice. I wish to add the words so that the condition will subsequently read that,
"the accused does not interfere with or intimidate witnesses or victims or otherwise obstruct the course of justice whether in relation to himself or any other person".
It will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that the victims of offending behaviour are a larger group than the group of witnesses. Victims are potentially anyone connected to the receiving end of an offence. For example, aggressive action against a relative may cause a witness to alter, modify or reduce his evidence and co-operation with the investigation and subsequent prosecution. Personal experience of social work with offenders leads me to recommend that the addition to the wording of this standard condition of bail will clarify the condition.
Part of the process of working with offenders is to ensure that they understand what they agreed to when released on bail. Amid the dismal euphoria of release from custody, it is very important that any instructions given are understood. Failure will lead to a breach of bail conditions. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: I am not persuaded that this is a valuable amendment. First, the Bill as drafted refers to a condition that the accused,
"does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice".
Plainly, to intimidate a witness would be an interference within the meaning of that wording. Therefore, the words are an unnecessary elaboration.
My second and more fundamental point relates to Amendment No. 3. It refers to "victims". I trust that later today we shall discuss the matter of victims. But when you release a person on bail as an accused person, you cannot beg the question as to whether or not another person is the victim. That makes the assumption that you already have an accused and a victim whereas, to take an ordinary assault case, the person who is allegedly the victim may simply have been the loser of the battle. He may have started it. That is a very common case. The police come to the scene of a street fight. The losers are on the ground and the winners have absconded. It is assumed that the losers are the victims. In fact, they may well hve started the fight and have simply been overpowered by the others. There is therefore a deep objection in principle to using the word "victim" at this stage in a process. For that reason I urge the Committee not to accept the amendments.
Lord Monkswell: I can understand the noble and learned Lord's qualification about the use of the word "victim". Obviously, until someone is proved guilty, there is no victim, in one view of the case. The mover
300
pointed out that what was important was the perception of the accused. We need to be very careful when discussing statutes that we do not write them merely for the purposes of lawyers and professionals who can understand the convoluted verbiage quite often associated with our statutes. We have to ensure that the words that are used are understandable to (dare I say it?) the man on the Clapham omnibus, the ordinary man in the street, who may be required to adhere to requirements of statute. That is very important. I am not sure whether the wording of the amendment is right, but we need to bear in mind the purpose of it and recognise its importance.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, makes a very valid point. The Bill as it presently stands in generic terms covers victims. But it is important that the public should know that the law protects victims. Victims are one of the great subjects of discussion, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, we shall come to that at a later stage. But it should be made clear to people in the streets of the cities of this country (I extend this particular provision to England and Wales as well—it is in the streets where it matters and not in this august Chamber or in the other place—that witnesses have to face intimidation day in and day out. They have to face the consequences of giving evidence. It would be useful at least—I do not say that it would improve the present situation any more, but I suggest that if it does not do any good it will not do any harm—to accept the noble Lord's amendments. It should be made clear that people can be charged with intimidating witnesses or victims or otherwise obstructing the course of justice.
We who have practised north of the Border all know the terrible pressures that people are put under in sociological terms not to give evidence. They cannot get protection from the police because the police cannot protect every witness in every case. That would be impossible. But at least, by accepting the amendment, it would send a message to those who might intimidate or interfere with witnesses or victims that the courts will deal with them in a pretty severe manner. If it does nothing else, it will at least send a message to the community that Parliament is doing something to protect the innocents in our community who are the victims of violence, of whom there are too many these days.
4 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This amendment has behind it an entirely laudable intention; that is to say, that neither victims nor witnesses should in any circumstances be intimidated prior to the proceedings. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated, my response to the noble Earl would be that the standard conditions as described in the Bill are already sufficiently wide in compass to cover the points raised. In particular, standard condition (c) clearly sets out that the accused who is granted bail must not interfere with witnesses or seek to obstruct the course of justice. Any attempt to threaten or intimidate either a witness or a victim, who in most cases will be a

301
potential witness, would almost certainly involve breach of that condition and might also involve the commission of an offence.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord. He read from the Bill and said, "or seek to obstruct the course of justice". In fact, line 7 (on page 2 of the Bill) states:
"or otherwise obstruct the course of justice".
There is a big difference between the two: "seeking to obstruct the course of justice" and "or otherwise obstructing the course of justice".
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If it is a question of a witness being intimidated, I should have thought that it was perfectly clear to the noble Lord that that would amount to an offence under the law of Scotland. From his own experience, he will know that any accused person, or indeed any person, who has been convicted of intimidating such a witness prior to a trial can expect a fairly rigorous disposal at the hands of the courts.
Apart from the issue of the standard conditions, if it is considered desirable that there should be additional conditions to protect not just the victim, perhaps, but indeed the family of the victim, it would be open to the courts under the proposed new subsection (2) (b) (i) to impose additional conditions that it considered necessary to ensure that those standard conditions were observed. It might, for example, be appropriate to make special provisions for the family of victims to ensure that an accused liberated on bail stays away from that individual and his or her family. In every case those decisions will be taken by the court, having regard to all the information available to it and the specific circumstances of the case.
Therefore, while I share the views expressed from all sides of the Committee that we should give a proper focus to the position of victims, I do not consider that the amendment is necessary.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am a little concerned that there appears to be some dispute as to whether there is a victim. If an offence has been committed, there are distinct victims. I agree that it is questionable whether or not the accused is the offender.
Perhaps my concern stems from the social worker approach, where it has to be explained to someone who has just been placed on bail what he or she is not to do. It is at that point that I should like to have had those extra words on the bail order paper that has been handed out.
However, I have listened to what noble and learned Lords have said and I should like to consider the matter further. I shall probably come back at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Breach of bail conditions]:
Lord Fraser of Carmylliemoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 25, after ("sentence ") insert ("or disposal").
302
The noble and learned Lord said: There are minor drafting changes to the structure of subsection (4) in Amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 8. However, the main effect is to require the court, when it has exercised its powers to take into account when sentencing that the offence was committed while on bail, to state how the sentence differs from that which it would otherwise have imposed if the offence had not been committed while on bail and to give reasons for that difference.
We consider that this requirement will ensure that defendants are left in no doubt of the seriousness with which offending while on bail is regarded and how seriously they will be dealt with. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmylliemoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("regard") to end of line 27 and insert ("to—

(a) the fact that the offence was committed by him while on bail and the number of bail orders to which he was subject when the offence was committed;

(b) any previous conviction of the accused of an offence under subsection (1) (b) above; and

(c) the extent to which the sentence or disposal in respect of any previous conviction of the accused differed, by virtue of this subsection, from that which the court would have imposed but for this subsection.").

The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 2 of the Bill gives the court new powers to deal with offending while on bail. The provisions enable the court, in imposing a sentence for an offence committed while on bail, to increase that sentence up to specified maxima to reflect the seriousness with which the court regards the breach of its trust.
As the clause is drafted, however, the court would be required to have regard only to the fact that the offender was on bail at the time. In our view the court should be able to deal more severely with an offender who was subject to several bail orders at the time that the offence was committed compared with an offender who was subject to only one bail order. Similarly, the previous record of an offender in relation to bail and any previous decision by a court under the provisions of this Bill to increase a sentence for bail abuse ought to be relevant to the court's consideration of the appropriate sentence.
This amendment would provide that the courts may have regard to such additional factors in determining the sentence. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: I ask the Committee not to accept this amendment. I establish my credentials. First of all, let me say—it was inaccurately recorded in the proceedings of the Second Reading—that I sit as a bail appeal judge approximately one week in four and hear approximately 120 bail appeals on those occasions. I always take into account the matters which are specified in this amendment. I see no reason why one should not take them into account. I should be surprised if one were not entitled to do so. It would mean that I had been behaving very badly for a number of years as a judge.
Before I say anything more, let me tell the Committee that I have just got off an aeroplane at Heathrow having come back from the mud slides and gales of California,

303
where I was studying the effects of the Californian appeals system, of which I shall speak a little later. The Committee will therefore not expect from me the fluency that I have sometimes sought to profess in this Chamber and I ask Members to forgive me for that. However, on this particular matter I suggest that these amendments are entirely unnecessary for the reasons that I gave.
It is a bad principle to clutter up the statute book with matters that are entirely unnecessary. First, if we put in unnecessary enactments, we give rise to a greater possibility of error. Secondly, it causes delay. Each person who is considering bail must go through a tick list of items and discover whether or not they have all been met. Indeed, I doubt whether the new subsection (2A) is necessary or desirable for the same reasons.
I want to make a point which applies to a number of provisions in the Bill but I make it in detail only at this stage. Members of the Committee will recall that the Renton Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Renton—then Sir David Renton—was the distinguished chairman, produced a report which dealt, among other things, with over-elaboration of statutes. For example, paragraph 6.5 says,
"Another source of difficulty frequently mentioned is the tendency on the part of Parliament to try to provide for every foreseeable contingency. Because of this tendency statutes are drafted in elaborate detail which makes them difficult to understand. This has called forth criticism from a number of sources".
There is then quoted a substantial passage from the evidence of Lord Emslie and Lord Wheatley, then the Lord President and Lord Justice Clerk of the Court of Sessions for Scotland. They said that,
"Most of the problems encountered by the Courts flow directly from the tendency of Parliament to ignore the virtue of enacting broad general rules in which the principal and over-riding intention can be readily seen, and to try to legislate in detail for particular aspects of the mischief which presumably the statute is intended to curb".
The report goes on to note that that criticism does not come from the judiciary alone and mentions a number of others, including the National Farmers' Union, though I do not believe that it has any interest in this specific Bill. I shall not go into the matter in any detail. The report elaborates that point and ultimately makes recommendations to the effect that Parliament should try to avoid that kind of elaboration. That recommendation is contained in paragraph 19.41 of the report.
I urge the Government therefore to withdraw the amendment and think again about the necessity for the provision they seek to amend on the grounds that it is unnecessary, unduly complex, wasteful, will cause extra work, and flies in the face of the Renton recommendations. For those reasons we should not waste our time enacting it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I can add something to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said. The Bill, as we protested in November of last year, was produced a fortnight after the end of the consultation period—so called—on the part of the Government and here we are in January of this year, a couple of months later, discussing amendments to the Bill at the hand of the Government.
304
It was made clear at the Second Reading of the Bill that the Government had taken advice; they had consulted here and there and heard everybody who was interested before producing this magnificent Bill. As a matter of information for the Chamber, and perhaps even those in Scotland may be interested to know, can the Minister say what inspired the amendment? Was it pressure from certain sources—for example, the police? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the Committee as to what is behind it.
Having said that, on this side of the Chamber we are in favour of punishing people who commit crimes while they are on bail, and that must be looked at in context. But why do we see an amendment within a couple of months of the Bill being introduced in your Lordships' Chamber?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar. I find it difficult to understand the purpose of the amendment. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, began his speech the example that immediately occurred to me was the one he cited; namely, the views of the Renton Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, unhappily, is not in his place and if he were here I am sure that he would say exactly what we have said during this debate on the amendment.
Perhaps the Minister will agree to look at the matter again between now and Report stage. There is no issue of substance involved, but it is totally pointless to add these words to the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, these are exactly the issues which a judge will take into account when deciding matters of this sort. It is cluttering up the statute book for no clear purpose. I shall be grateful, therefore, if the Minister will at least say that he will look at the matter again between now and Report stage to decide whether or not the amendment is necessary.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes: I see a similarity between what was said on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 by the Minister and what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The Government argued against Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis that, while the proposal may be desirable it was not necessary. What was already present covered the point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that he, as a judge, is already able to do the things which the amendment purports to be making possible for the first time. If the noble and learned Lord is correct, that he can quite properly do these things, then the argument can be put forward that the amendment is not necessary to make it possible for the noble and learned Lord to do what he is already doing.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am a little surprised that this matter creates some controversy. The clause gives the courts a new power to deal with those who offend while on bail. I understand the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to say that he considers it desirable that he, as a judge, should be entitled to take into account a wide range of factors.

305
Our concern was that the way the new provision is drafted at present restricts him in the number of factors that he can take into account. We therefore considered it desirable to take away that restriction and allow judges to take account of the full range of factors. That was the reason the amendment was tabled.
I am happy to look at the matter again if it is considered to be unnecessary and accordingly I shall not press it. I believe that the amendment is necessary but I am prepared to withdraw it at this stage and return to it at a later stage.
Lord McCluskey: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws the amendment perhaps he will note that my complaint is not so much about the amendment, though it introduces unnecessary elaboration. My real complaint concerns the proposed subsection (2A). I should have tabled an amendment to illustrate that but was too busy to think of all the necessary details. Perhaps the Minister will bear in mind that my real complaint is that we do not need it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand what the noble and learned Lord says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, leave out lines 28 to 31.
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 6 is tabled in order to draw attention to a specific set of circumstances. The Committee will see on page 2, lines 28 to 31, that the provision provides that,
"The court shall not … have regard to the fact that the subsequent offence was committed while the accused was on bail unless that fact is libelled in the indictment".
Clause 2 therefore amends Section 3 of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. That section creates certain offences; namely, breach of bail conditions in one shape or form—failure to appear, or something of that kind. Clause 3(4) of the 1980 Act allows a person who is charged with a serious offence on indictment to be charged on the same indictment with a breach of bail. In many cases the bail was granted not in connection with the serious offence which he is now facing on indictment but in connection with a different offence.
The inevitable result, therefore, of charging the breach of bail in the same indictment as the serious charge is to disclose to the jury hearing the case of the serious charge that the accused is facing, or has faced, another and different charge or charges. That is contrary to the principle that when a person faces trial the jury should not be given any information showing or tending to show that he has faced, or is to face, any other criminal charge.
There are one or two minor exceptions to that general principle. For example, a person may be charged under certain circumstances with loitering, being a known thief. That necessarily discloses that he is a known thief and therefore has previous convictions. He might be described as a reputed thief. But these exceptions are few. The normal practice is evidenced in road traffic cases. If a person is charged with dangerous driving, or drunk driving, and he is also charged with driving while
306
disqualified, the charge of driving while disqualified is put on a separate indictment or complaint. That is so that the question as to whether he was driving dangerously or driving while under the influence of drink is looked at dispassionately, without the man having been given a bad name in the sense that it is disclosed to the court that he has previous disqualifications. Accordingly, the two charges are kept entirely separate and the previous disqualification is not disclosed.
My purpose is to draw attention to the fact that these provisions, which have certainly been in force since 1980 and are only being modified in this provision, are offensive to the general principle that one should not disclose previous convictions when one charges a person with an offence. This is a very important point. I have learnt that California has now moved, under Proposition 115, to what is called truth in evidence whereby the previous convictions of an accused person are disclosed before guilt is determined. We do not want to get into that situation, which is a desperately bad one. This provision seems to be a tiny step in that direction, although if it goes no further, it would perhaps be acceptable. The Government should reconsider the whole position in relation to disclosing previous offences when charging people with an offence along with a bail offence.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister answers, I am rather puzzled by the subsection. I can see the point of it, but what does the phrase "having committed an offence while on bail" mean? Does it mean that he has been found guilty of an offence? It is a simple question which begs an answer.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said, and I understand his more general concern about what is contained within the new provision. The effect of Amendment No. 6 would be to remove the provision in the new subsection (2B) which requires the court, in sentencing for the subsequent offence, to have regard to the fact that the offence was committed while on bail only where the fact that the defendant was on bail at the time of the offence had been libelled on the indictment or, as the case may be, specified in the complaint. In effect, and on its own, this would prevent the accused from being given notice that new subsection (2A) might apply. Subsection (2A) provides that where a breach of bail has occurred by the commission of an offence the accused will not be guilty of an offence under the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. In these circumstances it will not be open to the prosecution to libel on the indictment or specify on the charge that an offence of breaching a condition of bail has occurred. Subsection (2B) provides that bail should be libelled or specified in the complaint and provides the accused with an opportunity under Section 67 or Section 312 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act to challenge the fact. Failure to do so would mean that the fact was admitted.
While I said I understood the noble and learned Lord's general intention, Amendments Nos. 6 and 9 do not seem to achieve what he intends. The effect of the second amendment is that where the principal offence

307
was proceeding on indictment and an offence of breaching a bail condition applied, the prosecution would have to proceed with an indictment separate from the principal one. Under the provisions of the Bill this would apply in those cases where a breach of bail conditions occurred through the accused not turning up as requested, interfering with witnesses, and so on, or not making himself available for the purposes of inquiries. The provisions proposed by the amendment would not apply to the offence committed while on bail. Nor is any provision made for proceedings which are held under summary procedure.
While I shall want to consider carefully what the noble and learned Lord had to say—I shall certainly do so before the next stage—I invite him at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I shall certainly do that. I accept that these amendments and many others are technically defective. I am not a draftsman. I was trying to draw attention to the general principle. Perhaps I should have linked this aspect expressly with the amendment to which the Minister referred. Amendment No. 9 says:
"It shall not be competent to include in any indictment a charge under this section, but such charge may be included in a separate indictment".
So long as the principle is clear—the Minister has plainly understood the point that I was seeking to make and has undertaken to consider it—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall not move Amendment No. 9 in due course.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmylliemoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 35, after ("sentence ") insert ("or disposal").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 4, I spoke also to Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmylliemoved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert:
("(2D) Where the sentence or disposal in respect of the subsequent offence is, by virtue of subsection (2A) above, different from that which the court would have imposed but for that subsection, the court shall state the extent of and the reasons for that difference.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Similarly, in speaking to Amendment No. 4, I spoke also to Amendment No. 8. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I shall make only a short contribution to this part of the debate but I wish to draw attention to the fact that the amendments we have debated increase the sentencing powers of the court quite considerably. The Law Society of Scotland and the Glasgow Bar Association have expressed concern about the powers being given to the court in terms of Clause
308
2(1) and new subsection (2C), if that is not too technical. Those noble Lords following the Bill will know what I am talking about.
An important question is raised. If the country is to take such a serious view, and quite properly, of crimes committed while on bail, there should be a right to a separate trial. The question has been raised—it is not one I particularly agree with—as to whether in Scotland we should introduce a right to trial by jury rather than the summary procedure in view of the effects on the individual concerned. I should have thought that the deterrent value of the present Bail etc. (Scotland) Act has been to some extent to undermine. What might be better is, rather than, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said in relation to Clause 1, constricting the court by putting into statute what the court can or cannot do, to leave it open to the court to exercise its common law powers to impose such sentence as it deems appropriate in the circumstances revealed to the court regarding the commission of the offence.
It appears that this clause is tinkering with criminal legislation. If it is felt necessary in the public interest to impose more severe sentences, let the court deal with it within the flexibility of the common law of Scotland rather than get ourselves tied up in administrative or legislative procedure. I know the trouble one gets into south of the Border in trying to define intent and murder and that kind of thing, because there they are hidebound by statute. Let us free the courts to deal with people who offend on bail by imposing sentences which the court sees fit in the particular circumstances, and allow the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal to tell the Scottish public whether or not a sentence was a proper one. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: One of the main effects of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 was to move from the previous practice of "money bail" to the grant of bail on conditions. A primary purpose of these conditions is to ensure the appearance of the accused as requested for any diet. An additional purpose of the 1980 Act, however, was to address the problem of those on bail committing further offences.
During the 1980s, as recording practices by the police improved, it became clearer that the scale of offending while on bail was both significant and growing. The noble Lord will be aware of a very widespread concern in Scotland over that abuse of bail. It caused additional work for the police and there was undoubtedly an increase in public concern.
This clause builds on the 1980 Act provisions by increasing the penalties which may be imposed for bail abuse and by introducing a new power for the courts to adjust the sentence which they would otherwise have imposed for an offence if it had been committed while the accused was on bail. At present where an offence is committed while on bail a penalty may be imposed for a breach of bail conditions. The impact of such a penalty for bail abuse may, however, be lost on the offender especially if any sentence is made to run concurrently.

309
Accordingly, this clause provides that, where the court considers it appropriate, it may—and it is no more than "may"—impose a higher penalty for an offence than it would otherwise have done, where the offence was committed while on bail. Where the sentence is so increased the court must state the degree of difference and the reasons for the increase. We believe that that will leave the offender and others granted bail in no doubt whatever how seriously bail abuse is to be treated.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can support this important improvement in the provisions as regards bail and will recognise that they will indeed help tackle the growing problem of bail abuse which has caused so much concern in Scotland.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: There is no doubt that there is concern both in the public and the police mind. We read in the newspapers about chief constables complaining of crimes being committed while people are on bail, of the softness of the courts in letting people out on bail, and so forth. I can quite see where that opinion comes from. It must be very frustrating for police officers to see people who they think should not be out on bail, walking about the streets.
I still wonder whether it is correct to put a statutory limitation on the power of the courts rather than just leave the matter to the common law power of the courts in Scotland to deal with the gravity of the case as and when necessary. It may very well be that the sentences referred to at new subsection (2C) of Clause 2(4) will not be sufficient for the court to deal effectively with the offence and the fact that the person was on bail. However, like most of the movers of amendments on the Marshalled List today, I do not intend to take the matter any further at this stage. I hope those who are interested will note what the Minister has said.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [No bail in homicide or rape proceedings after previous conviction of such offences.]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ("or
(e) serious sexual assault").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, it may be appropriate to deal with Amendment No. 11 at the same time. As regards Amendment No. 10, I find myself in a bit of a quandary because I have given notice that I intend to oppose the Question that this clause stands part of the Bill. To put it in legal terms, perhaps I may present what I have to say on an esto basis on the assumption that this clause will stand part of the Bill. I suggest to the Committee that it might be appropriate to include the words, "or serious sexual assault".
This is quite an important issue which has become more prominent in recent years. I hope that those noble Lords in the Chamber who have experience of dealing with the victims of assault within the domestic area will contribute to this particular part of the debate. This matter is raised on behalf of abused wives in particular,
310
although we are now finding out that there are also abused husbands, but they do not come to notice quite so much as abused wives.
The point behind this amendment is that because the definition of rape is so constricted in Scottish law, if this clause is to remain, the courts should be obliged to take notice of serious sexual assault which falls short of rape. In other words, in the case of an assault or an indecent assault on a wife or partner, whatever the phrase is these days, the courts should be able to take into account a serious sexual assault falling short of attempted rape.
Amendment No.11 raises the question of a person being charged with any offence which includes serious sexual assault. I appreciate that this may raise a fundamental issue—no doubt it will appear later in the debates—that if a person has been charged with an assault, that does not mean that he is guilty. That may undermine the basic assumption of innocence within our law.
I put the amendment before the Committee. It has been suggested by those who want to hear the Government's response. I do not move it with any particular enthusiasm because I am a defender of the presumption of innocence. For example, a husband is often charged with assaulting his wife or partner, but by the time the case comes before the court various developments have taken place such as intimidation, and the wife changes her mind. The amendment is really for the protection of the individual in the interim period between the alleged assault and the trial. We have our own time-scale in Scotland which ensures speedy trials for the category of offences in the proposed new Section 28A(1) where such offenders should not be allowed bail. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: I certainly would not want to take any technical objection to the amendment for reasons which I have already given in describing my own amendments. I do not believe that one can talk about serious sexual assault. It does not have a meaning. One of the difficulties is that one would have to confine the matter to very specified crimes if one were to go ahead in this way.
The point raised by Amendment No. '11 is one of principle. I seriously doubt the wisdom of proceeding with that particular amendment because, if one is exercising a discretion in relation to bail, the prosecutor would bring to the attention of the bail judge the fact that the accused faces several charges. That may be taken into account in the exercise of discretion. But if this amendment were to be carried, it would make it mandatory for the court to refuse bail simply because a person had been charged with such an offence. I should have thought that that was obnoxious in principle and that the amendment should not be accepted for that reason. Accordingly, I oppose Amendment No. 11.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: For the very reasons which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has given, I wish to resist Amendment No. 11, although I have some sympathy with the intention of Amendment No. 10. I find the position of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, somewhat curious. On the one hand, he says that he does not want Clause 3 to stand part of the Bill,

311
but at the same time, by moving these amendments from the Opposition Front Bench, it appears that he wants to extend its scope yet further. I leave the noble Lord to resolve that dilemma for himself.
To follow what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that this is not just a technical quibble about drafting. There is no term "serious sexual assault". If we are to deprive people of their right to bail, we must be absolutely specific as to what those offences are.
For those reasons, I do not think that there is any real possibility of the noble Lord redrafting the amendment to provide the type of definition that will be necessary. In any event, however, given its defective character at present and given the point of principle that is objected to with regard to Amendment No. 11, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment No. 10 and not to move Amendment No 11.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have been called a lot of things in my day; but this is the first time that I have been called "an unresolved dilemma" and that I have found out that I am "defective" in character. Nonetheless, I am sure that the Minister used those expressions in the best of spirits. In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I should have thought that the use of the word "serious" is subjective. If a prosecutor is to be responsible for framing charges against people, clearly the court would take into account the nature of the complaint or the indictment against that person when considering whether the charge fell within that context.
As I said earlier, I have reservations about Amendment No. 11 because of the presumption of innocence argument. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on that matter, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 10.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill. The short point is that the amendment which this clause makes to the 1975 Act is totally unnecessary. To paraphrase it, it says that if a person has previously been convicted of murder, attempted murder, culpable homicide (or manslaughter, as the same crime is known in England), rape or attempted rape and has previously been convicted of one or other of those crimes and is brought before a court and charged with attempted murder or culpable homicide or rape or attempted rape, he shall not be granted bail.
On Second Reading, at col. No. 568 of Hansard, I asked the Minister whether he could give me any instance where circumstances of that kind obtained and bail had been granted. He did not answer at that stage. No doubt he has been very busy conducting his researches since then, so I hope that he will answer that question today. My impression is that the clause is
312
entirely unnecessary and that no judge in his right mind—many of us are in our right minds—would grant bail in such circumstances. All that the clause does is to clutter up the statute book with provisions which are simply not necessary. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister has managed to dig out such a case. If he has, I am sure that the circumstances must have been very special indeed and I hope that he will tell us about them. If he has not found any such case, surely the sensible thing to do is to abandon the provision altogether.
In our jurisdiction, removing the discretion of a judge is a very serious constitutional step. In California, and in the United States generally under the Sentencing Reform Act and a number of other provisions specific to particular states, judicial discretion has been whittled down until it hardly exists in relation to a great many matters. The situation is becoming serious. We do not want to go in that direction for the reasons that I shall have to explain later. We must be careful about saying to judges who deal with bail, and in particular to High Court judges, "You can have no discretion in a matter of this kind". I ask the Minister whether there is any evidence that this provision is necessary and I oppose the Question that Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Likewise, I have given notice that I intend to oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. I thoroughly endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said. The provision seems to put some form of restriction on the judge granting bail rather than extending the circumstances in which bail should be refused. Some time ago the case of Smith v. Her Majesty's Advocate laid down the circumstances in which bail should be refused; but, as far as I can recall, nobody bothers with it any more. Perhaps the provision is a way of statutorily trying to redefine what a judge should do. However, the judge must always be the master of the instance in balancing the public and private interests in every case that comes before him. As the noble and learned Lord said, the clause seems an unnecessary restriction on the judges' rights.
When I read Clause 3, I was concerned about new Section 28A(1) (b) and the question of culpable homicide, which is the Scottish equivalent of manslaughter. I know that that provision will be qualified by new Section 28A(2) (b) (i) which states that the person must have been sentenced to imprisonment. However, let us consider current developments in life and the case of a husband who kills his dying wife or the wife who kills her dying husband. If a husband smothers his wife who has only two weeks left to live, he will quite properly be charged with culpable homicide. The court may impose a sentence—in the public interest, as it sees it—of two years' imprisonment, taking into account all the tragic circumstances of the case. I use that as one example. But is that person, who has killed on humane grounds, to be denied by statute the right to bail? When hearing a bail appeal in circumstances of that kind—we have heard about such cases recently—is the court to be

313
restricted in the hearing of evidence concerning certificates from the accused person's doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist or an expert in post-traumatic stress disorder? If the Bill stands as it is, a court could not take such information into account.
I bow to the experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who said that he has served as a bail judge for many years. But surely a court would have to say to the counsel or solicitor presenting an application for bail on behalf of someone in such tragic circumstances, who may have been wrongly incarcerated by the trial judge, "I am sorry. I understand what happened and that your wife was suffering badly and that you wanted to end her life in order to prevent her suffering any further, but I am afraid that the Government have introduced a statute which means that I cannot do anything about it and you will have to go to prison and stay there until your appeal is heard".
I am not making a carping point. I am citing that as an example of why the Government might like to reconsider this provision. They might like to ask themselves whether culpable homicide at least should be taken out of the categories of those proceedings where a person has been charged or convicted. Indeed, the provisions go even further because new Section 28A(1) states,
"charged with or convicted of … culpable homicide".
That means that the sympathetic spouse who has ended his partner's agonised life and who has been charged by the prosecutor has to languish in prison until the trial takes place and that a court has no power to release that person in the interests of humanity, if of nothing else, even where there is no risk to the community.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord knows of many such cases. He must have read cases during his time in the Crown Office and in his present office with which he must have had considerable sympathy, and which must have raised questions as to whether the person should have been charged at all. In many cases—to use a colloquialism which is a piece of nonsense—someone walks free from court. No one ever walks free from court once he has been convicted; he has a conviction. I ask the Minister to look again at the provision. Depending upon his answer, we may look at the matter in a different light on Report.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While I understand clearly what the noble and learned Lord said about the discretion invested in Scotland's judges, the law of Scotland already provides that the offences of murder and treason are not bailable. In those circumstances the discretion is already circumscribed. That has been the statutory position in Scotland since the Bail (Scotland) Act 1888. My understanding is that before the passage of that Act there was an extensive list of offences for which bail was not to be permitted. They were generally those offences which attracted capital punishment. Murder is not bailable in Scotland, because we regard it as the most serious of crimes, and it is for that reason, and for the protection of the public, that the law provides that persons charged with murder should not be released on bail.
314
The provisions of Clause 3 seek to extend those principles to cases where a person has previously been convicted of one of the very serious offences specified, and subsequently faces similar serious charges. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, described a graphic and moving case of a man who might have done away with his wife in circumstances which might not ordinarily attract a custodial sentence. However, what needs to be remembered is that that same individual, before the provisions of the clause would be attracted, would have had previously to have committed one of those very serious offences. With respect to him, it is unlikely, to say the least, that the problem he has described would arise.
Clause 3 seeks to provide assurance to the public that, where a person has previously been convicted of a serious offence, and is then charged with further offending of a serious nature, he will not be eligible for bail. While the exercise of the grant of bail must reflect the presumption of innocence of the accused and the specific circumstances of the case, the refusal of bail must also be considered where there is a risk to the public. We believe that in the circumstances envisaged in Clause 3 the risks to the public are such as to require the accused to be remanded in custody.
The noble and learned Lord has asked me mischievously whether I have been able to trace a case of someone who has been convicted of one of those serious offences, charged subsequently, and granted bail. In posing the question, I have no doubt that he knew the answer. I am not aware of any such case. At worst, it seems to me that he is saying that the clause is unnecessary, and that he, as a bail judge, could not envisage circumstances in which he would wish to apply a discretion. So far as he and I are aware, there has been no case where a judge has exercised a discretion and allowed bail. There is a limited list where the discretion is already restricted. We are making this small addition to it. It may be in one view unnecessary, nevertheless, it provides assurance to the public in Scotland. It has been widely welcomed, and I should like to see the clause retained on the face of the Bill.
Lord McCluskey: The Minister mistakes the affability of my manner. I was not being in the least mischievous in raising the point. It was, and remains, a serious point. If there has been no case—I do not know the answer, but the Minister presumably has researched and found no case—in which a person with a previous conviction of the kind specified here has ever been granted bail, then the provision is entirely unnecessary. It is gesture legislation. It has nothing to do with anything real. We should not be engaged in such a thing. The law of Scotland is more serious than to be just a kind of football which is kicked around to make gestures in whatever direction. I do not know in what direction they are made, but I just do not understand it. It is not a mischievous point; it is a real point; it is a substantial point.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I did not intend to indicate that I thought that it was not a serious point.

315
When I used the word "mischievously" that was to indicate that I thought the noble and learned Lord knew perfectly well the outcome of my researches.
Lord McCluskey: Having read the Scotsman recently, the noble and learned Lord will know that sometimes such epithets are attributed to him when he has not even used them. So he must be careful when he does use them. In relation to the point about discretion, I suggest respectfully that the Minister's answer is not a sound one. The provision to which he refers is now contained in Section 26 of the 1975 Act, but it dates back to the 19th century. It states that all crimes and offences except murder and treason shall be bailable.
There may be exceptions to that, but it is a technical matter into which I shall not go. That of course imposes a limitation on a judge's discretion in relation to a specified charge of murder or treason. One can understand that, but to go from that position where judges always enjoyed discretion to saying, "You shall have no more discretion", is to take a significant step.
I do not know what consultation there was about this matter. I was one of the judges— judge A or judge B, I cannot remember—who figured in the bail report. I answered a great many interesting questions asked by researchers, but I do not recall being asked about that matter. I do not know what support there is. I do not know where this provision comes from. It is entirely unnecessary. It is unsound in principle. I ask the Government to consider carefully whether they want to press ahead with this pointless piece of unprincipled legislation.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may follow up what the noble and learned Lord has just said. Is the provision being introduced in the light of experience in England and Wales? If so, where can we find the statistics which suggest that people who fall within the categories described in Section 28A(1) do not abide by their bail conditions? It would be interesting to know. The more I look at Section 28A(1), the more I see it as a restriction on the right of the judge to exercise his judgment on behalf of the community.
I am not sure what statistics there are in the Crown Office, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could supply them. But do we know how many have been charged and convicted of attempted murder in the past year; and how many cases of attempted murder have been reduced to severe injury? Everyone knows—it goes without saying—that one can go to the prosecutor and say, "All right, forget the attempted murder, we will plead to severe injury". Down goes the charge to severe injury and in some cases the person does not even go to prison. If this provision remains, he will stay in prison on a charge which the Crown may have overstated. We have had discussions about that before. A person has been kept in prison on a charge of attempted murder which never sees the light of day in a court. I am at one with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in asking the Minister to take the matter away and look at it.
316
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, suggested that I have knee-jerk reactions to the Bill. I am too old to have knee-jerk reactions, physically or legally. I do not have knee-jerk reactions and must make clear, as I did on Second Reading, that any contributions from this side of the Committee are not made in any carping or destructive sense. We are trying to be constructive because when the government change, as will be the case in the not-too-distant future, we shall be faced with the same problems. We hope to have the same degree of co-operation from the Minister in opposition as we are trying to give him now.
I ask the Minister to be reasonable. I know that he has a reputation for being reasonable, compassionate and sympathetic. I ask him to take the matter away and think about it.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On Second Reading I asked those Members discussing the Bill from the point of view of lawyers not to forget the public. Having heard the discussion today, I believe that the public would be horrified to know that in such extreme circumstances someone could be granted bail. They would be even more horrified if someone were granted bail and offended again. It is not much comfort to know that all judges in their senses would never grant such an application. Although judges would never grant bail in such circumstances, it would be of great comfort to the public to know that they could not do so—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness why the public would be reassured. We are told that there is no evidence to show that bail has ever been granted in such circumstances. Therefore, we are discussing a non-existent problem. I can understand the political purpose, which is to demonstrate that one is being tough on crime, but there is no serious legal purpose in the proposal.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: People are extremely anxious about law and order and bail and therefore that argument does not wash. The fact that it has never happened is not the point. This slight addition to the Bill would give the public considerable reassurance. I do not believe that it would cause a great deal of trouble to judges or to anyone else. It is not a large addition; it is merely an enlargement of the circumstances. I speak as a layman but I believe that Members of the Committee are disregarding the way people feel. The fact that judges have never granted such an application and never would is not a great comfort. Indeed, I can imagine the newspaper headlines!
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. She speaks of public anxiety. The offences listed are attempted murder; culpable homicide, which is causing the death of another person by an unlawful act; rape; or attempted rape. Fortunately, those offences are not a regular feature of life in Scotland. I agree that people are anxious when such crimes take place and follow them with interest. However, people in Scotland, England and Wales are anxious about the multiplicity of crimes that affect their domain and their households both personally and

317
physically. They are concerned, for example, with burglaries. But there is no mention of people who break into houses. They are the people who should be locked up. If we are to be vindictive let us legislate that way but let us get down to the core of crime in the community. The four offences listed are not the core of crime and anxiety in the community. The simple things in life have the most devastating effect on ordinary people. If we are to accept constriction, then let us extend it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I suggest that when the noble Lord goes home he talks to a few people in the street and asks whether they believe that it should be possible for bail to be granted in these circumstances. I believe that he will find that their views are not those that he has expressed.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may be allowed the indulgence of saying a few words in response to what the noble Baroness said. I agree that the view of lay people who are not lawyers is extremely important. The law must be comprehensible and, in a sense, it must make gestures. However, we enact a provision in Parliament in order to counter a mischief. When judges look at the interpretation of a statute, they ask, "What was the mischief at which this was directed?". That is the approach I take. The answer is that there is no mischief because nothing is happening that we want to stop and nothing is failing to happen that we want to promote. Therefore, it is pure. One might as well enact Clause 56 on the basis that wickedness is bad. It is silly to make gesture enactments of that kind. One would then be doing what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, distinctly said should not be done; that is, cluttering up the statute book with unnecessary legislation. This is an important point. I cannot imagine that if the clause is carried today there will be dancing in the streets of Govan.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: We have probably said all there is to say about the clause. I share the view of my noble friend Lady Carnegy. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, asked what was the mischief. Clearly, the mischief against which the clause is directed is that there should be no possibility whatever. At present there is a possibility that a man who has been convicted of rape in Scotland and is later charged again with rape can be given bail. I believe that if I asked the women of Govan whether they believe it right that a person previously convicted of rape and charged again with that offence should be out on bail they would give a simple, unequivocal answer. I believe that it is just as well to give them the reassurance that there is no possibility of that by including the provision as drafted on the face of the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In the light of the discussion about Govan, I wonder what the people there would say when asked, "This person has been charged with housebreaking and has previously been convicted of that. Do you believe that in any circumstances he should be granted bail?". I suspect that the noble and learned Lord will know the answer to that question. Are
318
we really going to start legislating on this basis? It is a non-existent problem. I fear that it is being proposed exclusively for party political reasons and for no other.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not accept that argument. It is a reassurance that can be given to women who not only have never voted Conservative but have no intention of doing so. The provision is such that they will be reassured that there is no possibility of bail being granted. For that reason, it is desirable that it should be on the face of the Bill. The worst criticism that can be directed against it is that it is unnecessary. I do not accept that. If the discretion will never be exercised by a judge, it is proper that Parliament should put that beyond doubt and provide a specific enactment to that effect.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Right of prosecutor to seek review of grant of bail]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert ("and to his solicitor if known").
The noble Lord said: The amendment proposes the addition of the words "and to his solicitor if known" in order to ensure that the accused's solicitor is provided with a copy of the prosecution's application for a review of the decision to grant bail. One would assume that in most cases where someone is applying for a review of a refusal to grant bail there would be a designated solicitor. Certainly, it would not take a great deal to find out who was representing the accused.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, we must be careful not to run a one-sided justice system in Scotland; or, indeed, in England and Wales. There must be a balance between the individual and the community. Any person whose bail is being reviewed by the court at the instance of the prosecutor should, if possible, have full legal representation and be able to consult at the earliest possible opportunity. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): I accept that it may well be desirable for a person granted bail to obtain appropriate legal advice in the circumstances envisaged in the clause. However, the amendment falls into the same category of the unnecessary about which we have heard a good deal this afternoon. In practice, by intimation to the solicitor, that would be a way of intimating to the accused.
It is also the case that, in practice, where a solicitor is known to be acting, the procurator fiscal would intimate the application to that solicitor. While I accept that it is desirable that intimation should be made to a solicitor where such a solicitor is acting, I do not believe that it is necessary for that provision to be put on the face of the Bill. In the circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I note with interest the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. However, Members of the Committee will have noted that the amendment was carefully phrased so as to refer,
"to his solicitor if known".

319
It appears to me that, for practical purposes, it is better if an accused person is represented by a solicitor from the outset. That saves a good deal of complicated court procedures later on. While I argued the other way around in relation to the last clause, on this occasion I believe that the Bill would be none the worse for the inclusion of the amendment which does not put any obligation on the Crown to seek out the solicitor. Indeed, the phrase "if known" has been chosen carefully. If a review was taking place it would, perhaps, be up to the accused to tell the authorities the name of his solicitor. That seems to be quite a practical way of ensuring that we do not have unnecessary miscarriages of justice and all the things that we hear about these days. I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord said. I shall not press the amendment to a Division at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Bail pending appeal]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferrymoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert:
(" "(1A) The High Court shall not admit a convicted person to bail under subsection (1) above unless—

(a) where he is the appellant and has not lodged a note of appeal in accordance with section 233(1) (a) of this Act, the application for bail states reasons why it should be granted and sets out the proposed grounds of appeal; or

(b) where the Lord Advocate is the appellant, the application for bail states reasons why it should be granted;

and, in either case, the High Court considers there to be exceptional circumstances justifying admitting the convicted person to bail.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment corrects a defect in Clause 5 which would have the effect of requiring an offender who applies for bail pending appeal to state the grounds of appeal even where the appeal is made by the Lord Advocate. The amendment corrects that defect by restricting the requirement to state grounds of appeal to applications for bail where the applicant is also the appellant. Clause 5 will continue to require the applicant for bail to state the reasons for his application, whether he is the appellant or the appeal is raised by the Lord Advocate. It is, essentially, a technical matter. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: We now have before us another curious situation. I merely raise the question: why has such an amendment been tabled to the Bill when, according to the statements made on Second Reading, the legislation arose out of great consultation among all the interested people in Scotland? However, here we have another major amendment. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us what inspired it?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The inspiration behind the amendment is that the way in which the legislation is drafted at present would produce a nonsense.
320
Therefore, in order to remove the possibility of the statute book containing something which would plainly be incorrect, the amendment has been tabled.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Can the noble and learned Lord say why this Chamber has been presented with a Bill containing a "nonsense"?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As the noble Lord knows, mistakes can occur in drafting. It is important that such matters should be resolved. Certainly, amendments tabled by Members of the Committee have indeed highlighted some drafting problems. I should have thought that one of the purposes of a Committee stage is precisely to identify such matters and to put them right, so that the legislation which goes forward to another place will be in a better condition than it was when it entered this Chamber.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may join in the debate. It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, does not, perhaps, appreciate the tremendous pressures that parliamentary draftsmen are under when they prepare legislation, not least in circumstances where the Bill has to be presented at an early stage in a Session.
While I address the matter now before the Committee, perhaps I may also deal with Clause 5 so that I need not speak separately on the Question that the clause stand part. For the reasons that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate gave, the amendment improves the provision. I accept that fact. But what does the clause then seek to do? It seeks to put into statutory form that which is already the practice of the court. I said that on Second Reading. There seemed to be some silent challenge to my remarks—namely, that there was a Practice Note. I have that note with me. It is dated 18th March 1994 and states:
"Although section 238(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 enables an appellant to apply for bail when he has lodged written intimation of his intention to appeal, an application for interim liberation in the case of an appeal against conviction can normally be considered only when the note of appeal containing grounds of appeal has been lodged".
That is the Practice Note of the Lord Justice General and it is the one that we follow. Let it be noted that those decisions are made by judges of the High Court in relation to such matters. I also said on Second Reading—and I need not go into it in great detail—that when Lord Wheatley gave the decision in Smith in 1982 he expressed himself in the same terms and said:
"Finally, I am regularly asked to grant interim liberation pending appeals. If the appeal is against sentence alone, no technical problem arises. If the appeal is against conviction the appellant has first of all to lodge a note of intention to appeal and later on a note of appeal which contains the grounds of appeal. An application for interim liberation can only be properly considered when the grounds of appeal have been lodged, and it is at that point that such an application should be made".
I apologise for misleading the Committee. It is possible that some of those applications are considered by other people and not just High Court judges. That was an error on my part.

321
However, if that is the practice of the court and that is the decision which was intended to be followed even before the Practice Note made it the correct practice, the simple point is that the provision is entirely unnecessary. I would not object to one or two unnecessary provisions. Perhaps Ministers like to have them for one reason or another. It is not for me to speculate. But when we see that provision after provision on the question of bail is quite unnecessary and is simply enacting the current practice of the court, one has to ask: what are Ministers trying to do? They are filling the statute book with unnecessary provisions for no proper, sensible purpose.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is certainly not my desire to fill the statute book with a large number of unnecessary pieces of legislation; nor, indeed, would it be my desire to see matters dealt with by statute where they can, with due solemnity, be dealt with by means of a practice direction. But, as the noble and learned Lord knows, a problem arose earlier last year in connection with a case where, despite what was said in 1982 by the Lord Justice Clerk Lord Wheatley, bail was granted. Of course a practice note was then issued. However, the Government thought that it was desirable that the proper position—the position which actually applies in these cases, and with which therefore accused persons and their advisers have to comply—should be set out clearly on the face of the criminal statute which applies, and that in those circumstances it was desirable to introduce this provision. For that reason it seems to me that this clause cannot really be described as being, in the circumstances, unnecessary. It sets out, with what I should have thought was due solemnity, the particular provisions relating to an important matter; that is, the circumstances which have to be fulfilled before someone can appeal.
Lord McCluskey: May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether we are to understand from what he has said about this, and from what has been said about other such clauses, that the Ministers now in office and bringing forward this Bill are departing from what was recommended by the Renton Commission on the basis of the evidence placed before it and submissions made to it by the then Lord Justice General and the then Lord Justice Clerk, because they made it absolutely plain that it is wrong to enact in great detail to cover every possible situation? One simply makes unnecessary complications. Why is this necessary when one sees that the provision which is now put forward leaves to the Court a discretion but introduces the notion of discretion to be exercised in exceptional circumstances? That is just unnecessary complication and I do not see any point in it.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I think the difference between the noble and learned Lord and myself rests on whether or not this is something which is necessary and desirable. I would say that it is desirable that the circumstances in which someone can appeal should be set out clearly on the face of the statute. Indeed the position as it is at present is slightly misleading because it does not appear on the statute, whereas the matter is clearly dealt with in the case of the summary position.
322
However, the position in the solemn area is not clearly stated on the face of the statute. One has to recognise the fact that people could be misled. For that reason where other matters in relation to appeals are dealt with in the statute in a technical way it seems to us that the correct technical position should be set out on the face of the statute so that everyone—judges and everyone else—may be clear what the relevant provisions are. It is for that reason—not because we have departed from any other principle—that we think that this particular provision should be included in the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: Having spoken to this matter, I have nothing further to add except to say that the amendment which is being proposed under this clause is one which takes away a perfectly simple provision—a provision contained now in Section 238 of the 1975 Act which states:
"The High Court may, if it seems fit, on the application of an appellant, admit the appellant to bail pending the determination of his appeal".
That is a classic example of stating the general principle and letting the court regulate its own practice. I just do not see the need for what is being done. I have not been persuaded by anything the noble and learned Lord has said, but I do not propose to oppose this Question.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Mar and Kelliemoved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Victim or complainer to be informed if accused is granted bail
The prosecutor shall be obliged to inform the victim or complainer if the accused is granted bail in terms of section 1 of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.").
The noble Earl said: I rise to move Amendment No. 14 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 81; 82, 129 and 131. I should say that the inspiration for these amendments comes from myself and also from discussions with Victim Support Scotland and indeed from my one time employment with SACRO. Amendment No. 14 has the purpose of ensuring that victims of offending behaviour are kept informed of the whereabouts of the offender when he is on bail. At the present time the victim is kept in the dark about the decision of the court, unless the victim attends the court or makes diligent inquiry, or worse, meets the accused in the street.
Considering the reluctant part normally played by the victim, I think it is reasonable that efforts should be made to keep the victim in the picture. This is especially so at the pre-trial stage when it is easy for overt or subtle pressure to be exerted upon victims, victims' families and especially victims' witnesses. I believe that this amendment would enhance the court service sufficient to outweigh the additional work involved.

323
Amendment No. 129 is designed to establish an additional and most worthwhile task for the court service. At present victims' households and victims' witnesses are being treated less well by the courts than is possible. Let me go back to first principles. There has been some form of criminal justice system in Scotland for as long as there have been inhabitants. In differing ways parties in dispute turned to a third party to arbitrate. A system evolved which enabled the victim to be able to report the offence to a public body which then relieved the victim of any need to seek personal revenge. Now we have a sophisticated and professional court service which aims to establish what the accused did or did not do and to deal with that offender in what is hoped to be the most useful and beneficial manner. The marginalisation of the victim manifests itself in a lack of information and lack of contact by the court service. What is needed is a system of liaison with the victim so that there is no doubt about what is happening next, whether the case will go to court, and, if so, when and what will happen.
When the victim is a witness there is a need for a good sympathetic briefing about what will happen and how it will happen. During and after the trial there should be an in-courthouse witness support scheme. I believe it would be worthwhile to put a victim liaison scheme into operation using both the professional staff and properly funded volunteers. Such a scheme would be voluntary in its uptake by victims but should be offered to all.
The purpose of Amendment No. 131 is to place a duty on the procurator fiscal's office to inform the complainer or victim of the progress of the case against the accused. For the victim, the offence committed against him or her, whether it is an assault upon the person or a family member or whether it be a violation of his home or personal space, is likely to have been sufficiently traumatic in itself. Then comes the post-incident investigation and the court process where the emphasis will be placed on securing the conviction of the accused. Attendance at court is one of the last ambitions of most people in Scotland. There is a general lack of knowledge of how the courts work. For victim witnesses in particular this strange process can be a very unnerving experience during which they must relive the incident. While there are few ways around the emotional difficulties of that, there is every reason to expect that such witnesses will be cared for by the court system.
With regard to Amendment No. 81, I believe it would be helpful if the court in general and the offender in particular were made aware of the effect of the offending behaviour on victims. The Committee will be aware that being a victim takes many different forms. While it is fairly obvious what the effects of personal assault can be, it is less clear what the results may be from, say, deception, violation of the home or theft of possessions. It is likely that the result will be an increased sense of insecurity, a reluctance to trust others, the victim wondering who did it and generally staying in the house rather than going out for leisure purposes. That latter point may well extend to all the other homes in the street.
324
When it comes to offences which do not have personal victims, the effects are morale-sapping for the community. Seeing someone profit from illegal or immoral activity can drive down personal standards. Seeing public or corporate property being destroyed by vandalism leads to the comment "What's the point?" and creates an atmosphere of hopelessness for many people.
The provision of a statement about the effect of the offence would be an enhancement in at least two ways. First, the balance of concern for the victim would be addressed; and, secondly, the statement would constitute a useful start to the social work process as part of any order that the court may impose on the accused.
Finally, in relation to Amendment No. 82, I believe that it would be most beneficial if the making of a compensation order were to become the normal or mandatory practice for offences against the person and against personal property. The basis for that change would be the recognition that there are very few victims who are unaffected by the offence committed against them. The main thrust of this new sentencing priority would be to compensate the victim for the distress, hurt feeling, demoralisation and restriction which the offence has caused rather than to compensate for insurable loss.
There are certain circumstances where such a compensation order would be inappropriate. Here I have in mind a punch-up between established rivals. I am concentrating on the innocent victim rather than the loser among protagonists.
The overall effect of the amendment would be to institutionalise the balance of care for victims and to focus the offender's attention on why his or her offending behaviour is unacceptable and its consequences. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I step in where angels fear to tread to say that when I saw the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 14, I thought that this was the least that we could do for someone who was in such a position. I was thinking particularly of a woman who was alone with children in the house. I thought that it might be possible to obtain a court order to restrain the accused from approaching the house or the area.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, has elaborated on the proposal. However, it seems to me that a minimum could be done to give the victim an indication of where the accused was, whether he had been given bail and what restraints had been placed on him during the bail period. It must be obvious that, for example, a woman on her own with children must be terrified that a person who had assaulted her might be free to roam about without her knowing what had happened at the court.

325
I believe that, at least as a commonsense approach, the Government should consider the amendment or perhaps come up with a simpler series of amendments to meet most of the points made by the noble Earl.
Lord Windlesham: In supporting the amendments—from south of the Border—I declare an interest because I am the president of Victim Support.
A great deal has been done recently to enhance the position of the victim in criminal proceedings, but there is ample room for further progress. After several years Victim Support has been successful in persuading the Home Office in England and Wales to agree to the systematic provision in each Crown Court centre of a professionally trained person, supported by volunteers, to assist victims and witnesses and, in fatal cases, the relatives of victims in the courts.
That began as a voluntary initiative, initially funded by a charitable foundation. After lengthy negotiation over a period of years the Home Office agreed to fund the programme. Recently the Home Secretary announced that he would extend it to all 80 Crown Court centres. Therefore, in about 20 or 30 Crown Court centres Victim Support is now running a full-time provision of the type envisaged in Amendment No. 129 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie.
I should like to ask the Minister of State what has been done in Scotland.
Lord McCluskey: It will be appreciated that the amendments cannot sensibly all be discussed at the same time. In my opinion—and of course Members of the Committee will form their own view—the amendment with which we are now dealing is quite different in character from the amendments which relate to the treatment of victims at a later stage in the proceedings when they have been identified as victims. Those raise entirely different points and must be dealt with separately.
Amendment No. 14 deals with a situation which arises when an accused person is given bail. The amendment requires the prosecutor to inform the victim or complainer if the accused is granted bail. The point that I made earlier that at that stage one cannot conclude that there is necessarily a victim obtains here. The noble Earl said that if an offence had been committed there must be a victim, but at that stage we do not even know whether an offence has been committed. The first object in a criminal trial is to show that an offence has been committed and then to bring home criminal responsibility to the person in the dock. It is only logical that at that stage one cannot properly talk in legal terms about a victim, although I understand that people who have been the subject of an attack of whatever kind will not engage in such niceties. However, we must do so when dealing with questions of bail. Therefore, we cannot assume at that stage that a person is a victim.
We have to recognise that it would be massively expensive and an administrative nightmare to try to intimate to every person who is a complainer whether bail has been granted. In Scotland we are already conscious that the fiscal service is massively
326
overworked and has far too much to do. If it had to do this as well that would create enormous additional problems.
There is a further point. At the stage when bail is sought, if there is reason to suppose that the person who seeks bail may approach the person who is claiming to be injured, the fiscal can properly ask for a condition to be attached to the bail order preventing such an approach. The court will commonly grant that; it will not commonly be opposed.
Therefore, I suggest that Amendment No. 14 is not sound. I shall address the other matters in due course when we reach them.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Perhaps I may add a word from the English point of view following what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said. English practice is exactly as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, described. If a bail application is made and it is thought that there is a possibility of the accused person approaching any witness—because at that time the victim is only a witness—it can be a condition of bail either that the accused does not contact that witness or, sometimes, does not go within a certain area where the accused might run into that witness.
That condition is then enforced by the police because it would be a breach of bail and consequently an arrestable matter if the person either approaches the victim or goes into that area. Not infrequently such matters come before the Crown Court as the result of an arrest, or a Bench warrant is issued because there is some evidence that the person is breaching the bail condition or is likely to do so. I suggest that it is much better to leave the matter to the judiciary to handle in that way through the police force rather than to impose what would be a difficult administrative, and, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, an expensive burden on someone.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I regret it if the grouping has caused some difficulty. I had some understanding that the grouping had been agreed. Possibly the noble and learned Lord was not aware of that agreement. That being so, it is always open to any noble Lord to deal with a matter when we come to it. Accordingly, in those circumstances, I propose to seek to deal only with those matters spoken to by the noble Earl in moving Amendment No. 14.
The amendment obliges the prosecutor to inform the victim of the granting of bail. I listened with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord said about the conditions that might be attached which would seem to parallel the way in which matters are handled south of the Border. However, this is not just a matter of imposing a condition to keep an accused person away from one against whom it is alleged he committed an offence. It is to oblige the prosecutor to inform the victim of the granting of bail. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Windlesham that we accept that victims who wish to be informed should be given information about the progress of the case. That might include the circumstances in which bail was granted. However, we object to the straitjacket that the provision

327
imposes. While we consider it desirable that such information should be given if it is wanted, there is within the provision no opportunity for flexibility.
I say to the noble Lord, if he is not already aware, that all Scottish police forces have a policy of providing information to victims. The force guidelines generally give individual officers a discretion as to the level of information to be provided to the victim. Officers make their own assessment of the victim's vulnerability and the severity of the offence. However, the noble Lord may not be aware that the Crown Office has commissioned research into information needs of victims. I can advise the Committee that the results of that research will be available shortly. Preliminary indications are that research has found that a significant number of victims are already given information on bail hearing. I am sure that that will be welcomed.
More generally, the Crown Office is actively considering how best to achieve better communication with victims on all aspects of the criminal process.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, may wish to return to victim impact statements at a later stage. However, the noble Earl made some reference to them, and they are contained within his amendment. I fully accept the principle that the effect of an offence on the victim or victims is a relevant and important consideration in sentencing. It is an important means of determining the gravity of the offence and thus an important means of determining the appropriate sentence. That is why procedures already exist to bring the relevant information to the attention of the court. I should have thought that in most cases where such information is properly to be brought before the courts, in Scotland the procurator fiscal or the advocate depute will have that information available, given our system—not least of precognoscing witnesses; and almost invariably the victim will be one of those who has been precognosced. However, I may have to discuss later whether it is desirable to provide an impact statement in quite the form the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, suggested.
I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me for one moment. I seek to extract what I wish to say from those issues on which I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, intended to speak.
I believe that the next amendment which was spoken to related to confiscation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may be of some help to the noble and learned Lord. We have got ourselves into a slightly confused position. It is no responsibility of the noble and learned Lord. It seems to me that it is better if we deal with Amendment No. 14 first, and the other matters separately. Otherwise we shall get into an intolerably confused series of debates.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion. The noble and learned Lord,
328
Lord McCluskey, and the noble Earl had separate amendments dealing with impact statements. Perhaps we may deal with those in a different context.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may add a word of explanation. Unfortunately, because of my absence, I was entirely unaware of the grouping. Had I been consulted, I should certainly have suggested the removal of Amendment No. 14. from the grouping. I believe that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is one which has the approval of the Committee.
Lord Windlesham: I do not dissent from that. However, before we leave the issue, perhaps I may repeat the question in case the Minister of State requires notice. It will give him time to consider it before reaching Clause 48. I should like an answer to the question as to whether there are plans in Scotland to provide full time staff to support the victim during court proceedings. That is referred to in paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 129. Is that happening now? If so, in which criminal courts? If it is not, what is planned for the future? I look forward to the answer to those questions at the appropriate time.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The grouping seems to have been too wide. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 6 [Lists of potential jurors]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 16, leave out ("for") and insert ("after").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to Clause 6 of the Bill. It is designed to ensure that not only a juror's address but also his occupation is disclosed in the list of potential jurors.
The purpose underlying the amendment is that the occupation of prospective jurors should be included in the list of assize people. That gives a useful guide to the defence to ascertain which jurors to challenge or indeed not to challenge. For example, as the Law Society of Scotland has pointed out, it may or may not be inappropriate for a social worker to serve on a jury in a child abuse case; or for a chartered accountant to serve on a fraud case on which he might impose his own views on the facts and indeed his own experience.
Jurors are told that they should be masters of fact. That does not imply that they should be expert witnesses. For that reason it is helpful to know the occupation of jurors in order to ascertain whether the distinction between being a juror and an expert is blurred. I am sure that both noble and learned Lords opposite know that it is sometimes counter-productive to challenge a juror because jurors become suspicious that the defence may be up to something if it opposes a person being called for no apparent reason. I know that the practice in the courts has been improved. I believe that all prospective jurors are now given an address by the clerk of the court, outwith the presence of the accused or anyone else, to say, "You've been called for jury service. If your name is called out and someone

329
objects to you being called, don't worry about it, it's nothing against you personally". The jury is given that address and I sometimes wonder whether it is helpful or counterproductive.
If we do not leave the right to challenge three jurors, I hesitate to mention it but we may be in the O.J. Simpson scenario—to use a cliché from television. The accused may have to be served formally with a list of the potential jurors, say, 14 days before the trial. At the moment, in practice, as the Committee knows, in the High Court in Scotland or the sheriff court in the sheriff and jury proceedings, one is handed a list of potential jurors. The clerk of court will read out, "Numbers 51 to 95 today" and one is presented with the list. It may include Joe Bloggs, blacksmith, Jimmy Smith, bus driver and perhaps someone unemployed. One goes through the list and tries to assess whether those people might have a valuable input into the case.
However, if the occupation of the juror is hidden from the accused and his representatives we may be faced with a situation where there is a demand for the list of jurors to be given to the accused and his representatives early on so that they may make investigations as to who are on the list. That could be socially damaging and might have on-costs to the legal aid system. You may come to the court with a list of jurors and no one knows who is who, so you may ask for the court to be adjourned because you have just been handed the list of jurors—Joe Bloggs, Jimmy Smith and so on—and you want to find out who they are and what their prejudices might be, depending on the type of case. You may be adding to the costs of the legal aid system. I do not say that legal aid will be granted—and judging by the pronouncements of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today in relation to England it is highly unlikely that it will be—but I raise the question also in the European context because people are entitled to know who is sitting in judgment of them and what is their occupation.
I am not quite sure of the objective behind the removal of the occupation. What social or legal function does it serve? For example, if you are sitting in a case of a robbery and you see: "J. Smith, security officer", you can bet your last dollar that "security officer" means retired policeman. Ergo, you say, "Objection". No questions are asked, you just say: "No, I don't want you on the jury". The chap does not take offence because he has been told about it and if he is a former policeman he would probably know why there is an objection to him anyway.
If it is a journalist, he has read all the background to the case. Let us take the current proceedings in the south and assume that the West trial—if it ever gets on—is taken in Scotland. There may be a journalist from—I shall not name any newspaper, there may be some interest in it—a tabloid who had covered all the background to the case, heard all the rumours, the gossip and innuendo. The defence has no notice of that person's involvement and if he does not disclose it and say to the clerk of court, "Look, I know all about this case, I have my own preconceived views as to the guilt or innocence of the person in the dock", then there could be real problems.
330
To erode the right of the challenge to a juror may create more problems than it removes. I have heard of no juror who has taken exception to being refused jury service; in fact, most people I know are delighted when there is an objection because they do not wish to serve on a jury. I am sure that we all know from our practice in court that serving on a jury can be a terrifying and responsible experience. In my submission, this is an unnecessary deletion from the rights of the accused, as are some of the other provisions in the Bill to which we will come in due course. Accordingly, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The purpose of Clause 6 is to improve the selection of juries so that they are more representative of the population as a whole. As I think the noble Lord will readily admit, it is common practice for defence agents or counsel to object to potential jurors simply on the basis of their occupation. We do not believe that an occupation per se should be sufficient justification for an objection. It may result in those in certain occupations being deprived altogether of their opportunity to serve on juries.
The first of the two amendments would alter Clause 6 to reinstate the requirement to indicate a juror's occupation on the list of potential jurors. In my view, there is no practical requirement for a juror's occupation to be published on that list and I accordingly urge the Committee not to accept the amendments.
There are six other amendments in the group, but I understand that they are essentially consequential on the earlier ones.
To some extent I accept that if Clause 8 is to be part of the Bill and if the right of peremptory challenge is to be removed, the issue of occupation may not be as acute as I believe it to be at present. Nevertheless, I see no practical reason for having an occupation published on the list. Accordingly, I invite the Committee to resist the amendments.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for what I hesitate to call an explanation, if I may say so with the greatest respect. What is the reason for this legislation? It exists in England and Wales, I understand, and I am not sure what effect it has had. If I am being tried, why should I not know whether the person sitting on the jury is a former policeman? Why should I not know, if I am charged with a white-collar or blue-collar crime, whether the person who will try me is an accountant who would bring his expertise to deliberations in the jury room?
I do not know why this proposal is made, except to be a mirror image of what is happening in England. If I am wrong about what is happening there then, of course, I apologise, but it is a dangerous situation. Can the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate give an undertaking in regard to informing the representatives of the accused in serious cases in Scotland in the solemn procedure before a jury in the sheriff court or the High Court? They need not necessarily give that undertaking today because I have only just raised the point.

331
Will either of the noble and learned Lords the Lord Advocate or Lord Fraser of Carmyllie write to me with an undertaking or explanation as to what will happen once the designation of jurors is removed? Will the defence solicitors or the accused be given an early list of the people who have been cited to attend the court? If not, then what is the position in the long term where people may become involved in a jury trial who have knowledge or insight into the case? That may be particularly important in drugs cases. The defence may find out about it after the trial is over. Someone may say: "I will tell you who was on that jury—Joe Smith, who was a pal of so-and-so who did this and that". That may sound unlikely but that is the way it happens.
There is then an appeal and the defence will tell the Appeal Court, "We didn't know who the jurors were, the Crown would not tell us. We were presented with the list on the morning of the trial and didn't have time to investigate it". As counsel for the defence I may stand up and say to the judge, "Wait a minute, I have just been given this list of people supposed to be the peers of my accused. I want to know more about them. Would you kindly adjourn the trial?" You can imagine what would be the response from the court. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, might give an indication. We are entering very dangerous waters at the moment. I should like to have an undertaking from the Minister that the list of assize which will be served on the accused if this particular clause goes through will be served perhaps 14 days before the date of the trial.
One other consequence is that people who are simply going about their business who have their name on the list of jurors may very well be harassed, spoken to, and so on, which does not happen at the moment. I have never known a case—perhaps the noble and learned Lord will tell us whether he knows of one—which has had to be adjourned to consider the status of a juror. I can see the far-reaching effects of this particular provision. All sorts of legal points could be taken, perhaps even hampering the course of justice. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not know whether there is any proposal—nor would we have one—to give a list of the assize at an earlier date. I have to say to the noble Lord that he is making a mountain out of a molehill. The law of England has existed for many centuries. Jury trials have been held here for a very long time. The occupation of prospective jurors has never been shown.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: With respect, I am not interested in that statement. I asked the question and have received an answer, but it is of no relevance.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord says that he is not interested in the reply. He asked a specific question and it is very unfortunate that he got the wrong answer, but that is nevertheless the state of play in England.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I take the point. I may have scored an own goal on this occasion, but that is
332
another matter. The law of Scotland has also existed for a long time. We do not need any lessons from the law of England and Wales if there is any distinction between these two. In the meantime, I—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, if that is what he intends to do, perhaps I may ask him this. We have heard that this has been the case in the law of England for a very long time. We have had the description of the occupation in Scotland. If in effect it means that people are being challenged because they have the wrong occupation, is it not the case that we are then doing less well in England? I am new to this subject, but it seems to me that the noble Lord's argument is rather unreasonable. If it is a handicap to people to have certain occupations because other people will challenge them and they will not get to be on juries, is that not a bad thing?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It may be a case of negative discrimination because of a particular job. I accept that. But certainly those of us who have practised in the courts in the past know that it is required to have the designation on the list of jurors. I am not sure how much investigation is done in England when the English counsel or solicitors are given a list of potential jurors. That may be a matter that we can investigate between now and Report stage.
There are always apparently good reasons for objecting to particular people in particular cases. It is down to the judgment of the people involved. They decide whether or not a person in a particular occupation should serve on the jury. I really cannot see where this particular amendment is leading the criminal process in Scotland or what benefit it will have. However, I have heard what the Minister has to say. What he said about not giving notice to the defence will no doubt be noted in other quarters, and we shall return to the matter at Report stage. In the meantime—
Lord McCluskey: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment: I shall speak on matters to do with juries in connection with Clause 8 rather than this particular matter. But I ask Members of the Committee to bear in mind that the lessons to be learnt by England from Scotland or by Scotland from England may be many, but in the field of juries in criminal trials they are virtually none. The reason is that although both countries have jury systems, the English had a jury of 12 and required a unanimous verdict. The Scots have always had a jury of 15 and required a simple majority verdict. The English now have a qualified majority verdict of 10:2. These differences are so fundamental that one should not make easy comparisons across the Border. There are very few lessons to be learnt in this field by either side from the other. We must live with our own traditions and modify them in the light of modern requirements.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Jury service]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: We have discussed more than once in the course of the proceedings so far the question of a presumption of innocence. There is a view that the mere fact that a person has been charged with an offence and permitted bail subject to the constrictions which the Minister intends to impose in the light of the previous section in the Act should deprive him of his civil rights in the community. Again, it may very well be that there is a European context to this and that he may be being deprived of his rights as a citizen. The amendment represents a short proposition which may or may not appeal to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 7(2) (a) of the Bill adds to the categories of persons disqualified from jury service those on bail in connection with criminal proceedings anywhere in the United Kingdom. I make this point with some hesitation in view of the last intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Our proposal is based on a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in England and Wales. However, we have decided to include this in the Bill not simply on that basis. Before this Bill, in our paper on juries and verdicts, we included it as a proposal. Following on the consultation and the views that we received on it in Scotland, we decided that it should be included in the Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, that a person on bail has, and should continue to have, the benefit of the presumption of innocence. However, the justification for disqualification is not that those on bail might have committed an offence. Rather it is that they have been accused of committing an offence and are still subject to criminal proceedings, and that that might improperly affect their attitude to the proceedings in which they would be contributing to the verdict.
It does not seem right in the interests of justice that such people should be asked to serve as members of the jury. With that short explanation to the noble Lord as to how we arrived at this particular proposal, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I entirely support the noble and learned Lord the Minister in this particular regard, and indeed for the reasons that he and the Royal Commission have given. I was a prosecutor for a number of years, from 1964 to 1971, in the High Court. The way it worked in those days was that if the police knew that a person was on bail, or whatever, the police would come to the advocate depute, and the advocate depute, exercising the right which the Government are about to take away, would then simply intimate to the court that he objected without cause shown to the person. The person who was thus on bail did not serve. That seemed to be an eminently sensible way to go about the matter. I entirely support this provision because it is quite wrong that a person who is himself facing criminal proceedings should be asked to adjudicate judicially upon somebody else's guilt or innocence.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I find that a strange proposition. It almost amounts to a form of secret justice
334
when people are put on a jury list and some police officer, prejudiced for or against the accused, comes to the prosecutor, or indeed to the defence, and says, "By the way, do you know that he is up on a charge of (whatever it might be)? Would you mind objecting to him?". If we are getting to that point, it is a very dangerous state of affairs. But I am not sure whether that was what the noble and learned Lord was suggesting.
Lord McCluskey: I am suggesting that on the jury there may be people whose minds are so affected by some event that they are not able to act judicially. It is exactly on a par with another case in which I, as a judge, felt able to excuse a serving juror when it emerged, during the course of the case—it was a murder trial—that her mother had been murdered. That person could not bear to look at the photographs or bear to think about the matter. Of course, she should have intimated that at an earlier stage, but she did not. Once into the trial, when she realised it, she did so. That person was unfit to continue as a juror because personal circumstances affected his or her capacity to act judicially. The same must apply to a person who is out on bail. It is not a question of secret vetting by the police; it is a question of fitness to act as a juror.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps we can discuss that point at greater length on another occasion. Does it mean that if I have an argument with my wife in the morning before I leave home, having been called as a juror, I can go to the judge and say, "By the way, I have had a pretty bad morning—it started off badly and can only get worse—and so I cannot apply myself to this case. Would you please excuse me?"? That seems an extraordinary proposition. But perhaps we will come back to it at some other time. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 8 [Challenges to jurors]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, leave out line 17.
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment in relation to the peremptory challenge of jurors. Basically, the amendment refers to what we have already discussed; namely, that the peremptory challenge should not be abolished. My information is that the Thomson Report held that the peremptory challenge should be continued unless good reason were given for this particular part of the Bill by the Government. The Government have to look at the matter very carefully to consider whether it is in the interest of justice. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: It will be observed from the Marshalled List that I gave notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 8 stand part of the Bill. But Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 run together and I shall therefore address the whole matter in dealing with Amendment No. 17.

335
First, let me remind the Committee that at Second Reading I made some observations about this matter (Official Report, 29/11/94; col. 566). The position is that prior to 1980 there were five peremptory challenges; in other words, either party—although it was almost invariably the defence—could exercise the right, without cause shown, to say "I object". The juror would not then proceed to enter the witness box. Administratively, the position is different from that in England. What happened was that the clerk of the court would pull a number out of a box—say, number 123—and everyone knew who it was. Then he would call, "Mrs. Elizabeth Jones". At that stage the defence counsel would say, "Object", and the clerk would simply say, "Mrs. Jones, please remain in your seat". So it was done and always is done with reasonable dignity and the least offence to people.
There were five peremptory challenges. One will find the history of the matter narrated in the Thomson Report (Command paper 6218 of October 1975, paragraph 51.28). The Thomson Committee recommended reduction of the jury in Scotland from 15 to 12. That recommendation has never been acted upon. In that context the committee suggested the reduction of the peremptory challenges from five to two. So, logically, for 15 jurors it follows that it would recommend three peremptory challenges.
That matter was dealt with by that very distinguished committee. I gave an indication of its membership when I spoke at Second Reading. Therefore I need not repeat it. Let me refer to paragraph 51.30, which is what the committee found:
"The overwhelming view of our witnesses who submitted evidence on this issue was in favour of the retention of the peremptory challenge although some suggested that the number of challenges should be reduced".
At paragraph 51.31 it said:
"We agree that peremptory challenge is difficult to justify in principle but we think that it should be retained in order to restrict as far as possible the use of the challenge on cause shown".
So the recommendations were made on that basis.
In 1980 the Government came forward with a Bill and a proposal to reduce the number of peremptory challenges from five to one. At that time in this Chamber
I asked that the number should not be five but three. The Government rejected that proposal. Then, in another place, the Government accepted that proposal. Accordingly, the 1980 Act confirmed that the number of peremptory challenges was to be three.
I do not want to quote at great length from what was said in the Committee in the other place but the Minister, Mr. Rifkind, said that Mr. Ewing—now the noble Lord, Lord Ewing—had asked the Government to have a rethink. He said:
"The Government have done so. The Government's original proposal was that there should be only one peremptory challenge. An amendment was tabled … which proposed three challenges … Three challenges is a balanced compromise between those who hold different points of view. It would be unwise to disturb that compromise now".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/7/80; cols. 628-629.]
336
Therefore, in 1980 the Government's view was that the number should be three. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who was the Minister responsible, accepted that in this Chamber at a later stage.
To echo what has already been said in an earlier debate, there are good reasons for objecting to jurors. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred to some of them. Even the address discloses the risk that the juror may have heard some of the gossip. He may live in the neighbourhood. One wants to know that. He may have lived in the same area as a previous, notorious case, possibly of the same kind in public imagination, involving the same wrongdoer. The name of the juror, particularly in parts of Scotland, may suggest ethnic, religious or even football associations that might lead to prejudice. I do not make any light-hearted remark about this risk. I know cases in which, if one is acting for the defence, it is extremely important to avoid having people of a different religious persuasion involved in the case. In my experience there have been many cases in which counsel have come to a sensible view that there are too many jurors of one sex on the jury or too many jurors of a certain age on the jury.
I see no reason to abolish the peremptory challenge which now exists. There is in circulation an apocryphal story about jurors in England carrying a copy of the Financial Times under their arm and wearing a tie and thus being objected to. I should like to know whether that ever happened or whether it is just a story invented for some particular purpose.
I am concerned about this matter. I shall be told that the practice in England tells me otherwise, but for good reasons I do not believe that the practice in England is very relevant. I believe that what will happen is that, if the defence wants to object to a person because that person's name is Riley or because that person lives in Govan or if counsel and agents want to object because that person is of a particular sex or age or for some such reason, but there is not cause shown, the objection will nonetheless be taken and a good deal of time will be wasted.
I cannot see any point in that. If the defence indicates that it is going to object, then, in order to save time and to have the case proceed, the Crown will tend to agree. Under the new provision the court then has no option and the juror will be stood down. It is silly to move in that direction—away from a compromise which followed the recommendation of an extremely experienced committee.
I know of no evidence of abuse of the system as it currently exists. In all seriousness, I say—I have said it before and repeat it—that I have more experience of appearing in the High Court in Scotland than any other serving judge or participating advocate with the possible exception of one or two who are now full-time lawyers acting for the defence. I have sat for 10 years in the criminal courts. I was a prosecutor and solicitor-general for 12 years. I acted for the defence over the rest of my career. I have no evidence whatever of abuse of the right of peremptory challenge. If the Minister knows of abuse of that right, I hope that he will tell us about it.

337
I know that if we give a right of peremptory challenge, such as exists in the 1980 legislation, more jurors will need to be brought to court—not many, but a few. That is not in itself a bad thing. It is important that members of the public should come into court from time to time and see what the court does, even if their involvement is the modest one of attending for the purpose of balloting a jury and then being told their services are no longer required. I do not believe that most people would regard that as an improper waste of their time. For those reasons, I intend to oppose the Question that Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill, but I support Amendment No. 18.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The issue is an important one, as the speeches of Members of the Committee made clear. I start from the basic principle which I am sure most Members accept. The basis of jury selection in Scotland, as in England and Wales, is one of random selection. We are dealing with a principle that people who will form a jury and judge somebody should be selected randomly and in that way one obtains a fair system.
That is subject to one important point, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, alluded—that is, that there can be good reasons why specific individuals should not serve on a jury. I do not need to debate whether all the examples he gave would be examples of good reason. I accept that there may be cases where it would be wholly inappropriate for a specific person to sit on a jury. For example, if the person happened to come from the house next door to where the victim was killed, that would be a very good reason not to have that person serving on the jury.
In that situation the Bill allows that matter to be aired, either by way of objection on "cause shown", or indeed where the matter is so patently obvious that the prosecution accepts the position in terms of the provision to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred—that is, subsection (3) (a).
There is no doubt that the provision allows for the position to be properly regulated where reasoned objection can be made. At present the situation exists where the defence—it is usually the defence—uses objections to remove people from jury service often for no obvious reason. For example, it may be because the person is a teacher. One has seen that happen on many occasions. There are all sorts of reasons why teachers may or may not make desirable members of a jury. But for that to be done on a regular basis, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, accepts happens, is wrong in principle. It is wrong that people who have chosen a specific occupation, or who happen to live in a district of the town when it is not associated with the crime, or who happen to have some other characteristic which the defence thinks makes them an unsuitable or perhaps disadvantageous jury member, should be removed from the jury automatically by the use of such objection. In that situation one is running the risk of skewing the selection of jurors in a way which is irrational, as the Thomson Committee said, and difficult to defend in principle.
338
I ask the Committee what its reaction would be if the Crown were to use its right of objection in that entirely random way. People would immediately object that the Crown were trying to take a view of who should sit on a jury, which is wholly unacceptable. Except where proper cause can be shown, the basic rule should be that people who are selected on a random basis should serve; where a proper reason for them not serving can be shown, then that matter can be dealt with by the courts.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, counselled against looking rashly at the experience in England and Wales. Nonetheless, what has changed in the years since 1980 is that we can look at the experience of England and Wales. I accept that the mechanics and so forth are slightly different. But the basic position has been that, despite forebodings as to the difficulties which would be caused when the peremptory challenges were removed, in practice the system works perfectly well. In fact, as I understand it, there are few occasions where time-consuming objections are taken to jurors.
This provision therefore rests on a good basic principle; that is, that the basic test should be random selection subject to reasoned objections in appropriate cases. That is the correct principle. Experience in England and Wales shows that that can work. The objections today are misconceived. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the amendment and in due course to provide that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: Before my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate sits down, he spoke of "random selection". Perhaps I can give an example, though not necessarily a good one.
Unfortunately, farming has a high record of industrial accidents. I feel that I could end up in court on an offence under Health and Safety Executive provisions, which may go to trial. As a person involved—forgive me quoting an industry in which I happen to be involved—I would not be too happy for a farm worker on a similar farm acting as a member of the jury in my case. That may or may not happen.
Is there anything in the words used by my noble and learned friend, or has the procurator fiscal or some other individual any powers in his original selection of 15 or 20 persons, to weed out those who, in his opinion, may be influential in a specific case that is coming to trial? Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the law; but that is my question.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The simple answer to the question posed by my noble friend is that it would not be possible for the procurator fiscal or anyone else to weed out people in the way in which he suggests. Unfortunately, the position is that it is unlikely that my noble friend would be the only person whose trial would be down for hearing at a particular sitting. There would be a whole lot of cases. People would be summoned as potential jurors in a whole range of cases. The kind of approach which my noble friend suggests would not be possible.

339
Furthermore, my noble friend has put forward a case where he conceives that having a farm worker serving on the jury might be objectionable for the reason which he stated. I can see that that might be so, but that is exactly the kind of case where one could point to a legitimate possible ground for objection to that person serving as a juror. That could be brought forward; and if the court thought it was appropriate in the circumstances, the juror would be removed from the jury.
The Earl of Balfour: I am sorry to rise again but I thought that we were no longer going to require jurors to declare their employment. Am I correct?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: That is indeed so. But it might come out. In the particular circumstances one might know the employment from the address or it might otherwise be known. I am assuming that for some reason the occupation is known. The point of principle is that where it is known, and there is an objection which can be legitimately taken, even after the Bill goes through, that is provided for. I do not think that I need to go any further on the matter.
Lord McCluskey: For me, the Lord Advocate needs to go a good deal further. I have already said—and he has not responded to my point —that the Thomson Committee was the most distinguished committee on criminal procedure in Scotland this century. It heard evidence from every legal body and all kinds of bodies, including policemen. The vast majority recommended retention of this right. The Thomson Committee recommended retention of it. The Government keep coming forward and saying no; and they do not explain why. They have to explain why.
There is another point. In a recent case it was obvious to me, although it so happened that the defence were not in the least interested in the composition of a jury and were paying no attention to who went into the jury box, that one of the persons who was shambling forward was half-witted. No one looked at him. I have no right of objection or I would have said "Don't let that person sit". This person shambled forward and took his place. No one objected. On the next day he did not turn up. He did not turn up because he had no money. He had walked six or seven miles home. He then set off walking the following morning and did not know where the court was. Supposing I had had a power to object, or I had been counsel and had looked around and seen this person coming up, I would have said, "I must get him off the jury. I do not want that person sitting in judgment on my client". What cause would I show under Section 130(4)? "My Lord, I object to this person on the ground that he looks a right dimwit". I cannot do that. One should give the right of peremptory challenge to cover all these situations.
I will not accept from the Lord Advocate that I know perfectly well that the defence use objections for no obvious reasons. The reasons may not be obvious to the Lord Advocate, who I think had a very modest defence practice in his day, but the defence do not have to stand up and give reasons. That is the whole point. They made
340
a peremptory challenge and the fact that a fiscal does not understand or the Lord Advocate does not understand why the objection was made does not mean to say that there was not a good reason. They do not do it for fun. I do not know whether they object to teachers. In my time I objected to many teachers as jurors when I practised in the civil courts because it was always thought in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, when there were quite a number of these cases, that teachers would somehow dominate the jury room. That was the belief at that time. We did not want anyone dominating the jury room so all teachers were removed from juries. I do not think that was true in criminal cases. It was certainly not my experience. No justification is being given for departing from the recommendation of the Thomson Committee for the practice that has obtained in Scotland for centuries.
The Lord Advocate makes the point of principle that the selection of jurors is random. It is not. First, jurors may be removed on cause shown. Secondly, they may be removed under Section 133:
"The court shall have power to excuse any juror from serving on any trial, the grounds of such excuse being stated in open court".
So they may be removed on cause shown, they may be excused, or they may be taken away for reasons specified in Section 134. There are all kinds of reasons for getting jurors out. Selection is never 100 per cent. random.
Furthermore, on the point of bringing numbers to court, because there exists the possibility of objection on the ground of cause shown, on the ground of excuse to be stated in open court, or on the ground of unfitness by reason of this, that or the next thing, it follows that one has to bring more jurors than one actually needs. That covers the point of peremptory challenge. For all those reasons I urge the Government to do what they did in 1980 and think again. It is arrogant of the Government to come forward with this proposal on these inadequate grounds, given the whole background to this matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am still not absolutely clear what the noble and learned Lord is saying. He quoted the example of a person who was clearly a dimwit and said that he could not do anything about it. However, as I read the Notes on Clauses, if the prosecution and the defence agree that the person is clearly a dimwit, he will not be a juror. It is obvious that that is covered. What we are talking about is the motivation of people to get rid of potential jurors on various grounds which may well be trivial. When it is obvious, is it not covered? I have not read the Thomson Report—I am sure it is a brilliant document—but this is a simple point on which we need to be clear.
Lord McCluskey: The judgment that one makes in the course of the few seconds that it may take a person to walk from the back of the court to the front of the court may not be one that is shared on all sides of the Bar. The defence might think that they cannot have that person because he looks as if he is not up to it. The Crown might say otherwise. I have known that to happen. If one gets agreement, that is fine. But if there is no agreement, what then? There is nothing wrong

341
with the right of peremptory challenge. It may be difficult to justify in principle. I know precisely who wrote those words into the report. It was a person with a considerable degree of logic in his mind. But the simple fact of the matter is that it does no harm and I know of no reason to suppose that it is abused. I wish someone would give me an example of real abuse. I have never known one.
Lord Stewartby: I am sure that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate does not need any support from me but perhaps I may offer it nonetheless. I came in to listen to the debate because I was particularly concerned to hear the arguments which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would put forward. I defer to his great experience and knowledge but there is a non-lawyer's view about this which ought to be briefly stated.
Whether or not peremptory challenge is abused in practice—there is a difference of opinion on this between my noble and learned friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—it is clearly open to abuse. As an ordinary citizen it seems basically wrong, particularly in a jury system where the verdict is by majority and is not unanimous, that the defence ought to be able to pick and choose the composition of the jury.
I find that very offensive. If this matter comes to a Division, I shall support the Government with enthusiasm.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may come in very briefly to support that point. Although I have not done jury service in Scotland, I have done it in England. I attended court on four days on the trot and I was surprised that each time I came forward for jury service I was objected to by the defence who said, "We do not like the look of that fellow". I did not understand what was happening until some of my colleagues said to me, "If you turn up dressed like that you will never get on a jury. Try not shaving for two or three days, turn up looking extremely scruffy and you will get on a jury".
I followed that advice, and I was immediately allowed on the next jury with, I must say, deeply unsatisfactory results for other reasons. There were a number of people on that jury who would never find in favour of police or Crown evidence whatever the evidence before them. They had all been selected by the process which has been referred to. I agree with my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and object to this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This has been a very interesting debate on an amendment which I thought would produce a short debate. The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Stewartby and Lord Pearson, have been very informative in showing what life is all about at the sharp end of jury practice, so to speak. As the Committee will know, we are not allowed to have the privilege of serving as jurors.
When I was listening to the debate I wrote down two words, one of which was "why". No one in this Chamber can ignore what has been presented to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in support of his argument as an experienced High Court judge and
342
who is one of the senior judges in Scotland. We have no other here. Why should his plea he rejected by the Government? All he is asking the Government to do is to go away and think about this matter again. They should forget about England and Wales. We are running our own legal system in Scotland within the Act of Union. That is one of the few rights which we have left. Perhaps we shall get others back in a few years' time.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, "We do not want to take up time-consuming objections". I do not know how often the noble and learned Lord has acted as defence counsel. There is a small amount of time needed to object. The clerk of the court pulls a little ticket out of a glass, tells counsel at the table "number 44", one looks at the list and says, "Not on; forget it". The clerk of the court says to the potential juror, "You need not come". That probably takes about 10 seconds. Therefore, in the course of a jury trial with three objections being taken, we are talking about 30 seconds to a minute of the court's time being taken up by the challenges. It is not a time-consuming objection at all.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has quite properly pointed out, if we do away with the right of objection, we shall go into the investigative procedure. Then we shall come to stupid arguments about cause shown. That is built into the criminal system in Scotland at the moment. I hope that I shall be supported in this matter. It operates through the goodwill of the defence and the Crown. The Crown comes to the defence and says, "By the way, that chap is on a charge of attempted murder". The police tell the Advocate Depute who then tells the defence who, 99 times out of 100, will say, "Just forget him and take him off the list". There are various ways of getting off a jury list which no doubt we all know. One can go to the clerk of the court and tell him that you are a journalist and know about the case. You can tell him this or that, and you will be excused.
What is important is that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated yesterday, there are going to be inroads made into the legal aid system. I do not know what the package is going to be. There is going to be a Green Paper for England and Wales. I do not know what is going to happen in Scotland, but judging by the Government's performance we shall get a mirror image in Scotland. Who is going to pay the representatives for the time-consuming arguments about what constitutes "cause shown"? Although I have not researched this matter because I did not expect it to come up to the extent that it has today, to my knowledge no one in the criminal courts has defined what "cause shown" means.
If one takes away the job description of the person who has been cited as a juror and merely puts it down to investigation as to whether he is a proper prospective juror, one will perhaps get into real trouble. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate wants to get involved in time-consuming exercises, there is no more time-consuming exercise than three lawyers and a judge discussing what "cause shown" means. If this Bill goes through in its present form, no doubt that will be done.

343
The courts in England, Scotland and Wales operate on the goodwill of everyone involved. For example, if I am told by my instructing solicitor that juror X has a bad reputation for whatever it might be, and that there are 10 witnesses who can speak to it, do I then go to the judge and say, "I am objecting to this man on cause shown"? The judge then says, "Show me the cause" because that is what "cause shown" means. I say to the judge, "I shall show you the cause. I have 10 witnesses outside who will tell you what Mr. Smith's propensities are either for the police, against them or for the accused, against certain kinds of offences" and all the rest of it. It is ridiculous to take this step at this stage with no reason.
We never get answers from the Government, but I should like to know why this provision is being made within the Scottish legal system. I should like to know where it comes from. It does not come from the Thomson Committee, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey has already indicated. To my knowledge, no one has ever challenged the status of that committee to say that it was composed of a bunch of legal Rambos, so to speak, who did not know what they were talking about. It was a very distinguished committee, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated. Its views have been taken very seriously and it is hoped that that will always be so. Can the Minister tell the Committee where the demand comes from?
Arising from the debate is the parallel point which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, raised. Will this measure apply to civil jury trials in Scotland? It is a while since I took part in one because civil jury trials in Scotland are a protected species. My recollection is that as regards the list of jurors for civil trials, everyone knows what occupations they follow. If I am wrong, I shall stand corrected.
If we are going to change the system for criminal cases, there must be change for one reason and one reason only—that is to say, that the knowledge on the part of the defence of the occupation of a prospective juror who may be "prejudiced" by his occupation against a particular kind of crime is the reason why the measure is being removed. It does not matter to leave it as regards civil matters. I say with some diffidence that it is part of the, "You have got to get the criminals convicted" mentality which pervades this Government's thinking. I suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate takes heed of the wise counsel which he has been given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and thinks about this matter again.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I always listen with the greatest care to what is said by noble Lords and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Rightly and understandably, he has drawn attention to the position which was adopted in the Thomson Committee Report.
The Thomson Committee recognised that in principle it was difficult to justify a system of objections which were not based on cause shown. I start from the position—I do not blink from this at all—that the basic principle which underlies the selection of jurors in Scotland is that of random selection. Although I am, of course, aware of the qualifications, that is nonetheless
344
the basic principle and I believe that it is proper. Because I believe that it is a proper basic principle, it seems to me that it should be departed from only where the reasons for doing so can be explained and justified. Where that can be done, jurors should be excused; otherwise, the correct basic principle is that they should not be.
Since the Thomson Committee reported, we have had—I do not hesitate to say this—the experience of a reform in England where peremptory challenge has been abolished, so we have been able to use that experience to judge what would happen if a similar reform took place in Scotland. That information was not available to the Thomson Committee, but we can now use it to test its judgment on the matter.
In addition to that, the Government have had available to them the results of consultation on this subject. Although not all the judges were in favour of a change, the great majority of High Court judges were in favour of the provision which is embodied in the Bill. Therefore, it certainly is not the case that the Government's position on this matter was unsupported on consultation. Indeed, although there was not a great majority, the majority of those who were consulted were in favour of the change. I say that that amounts to a perfectly proper basis for the Government bringing forward this proposal—
Lord McCluskey: On a point of information, is the Lord Advocate saying that the majority of judges in the High Court signified their support for this proposal?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: That is my understanding. However, I shall, of course, look into the matter and write to the noble and learned Lord if that turns out not to be the case. My understanding is that of those who replied, the majority were in favour of the proposal. Perhaps that is a more correct way of putting it; I shall have to check. Basically, the position is as I have stated it.
The noble and learned Lord asked about the potential juror who is half-witted. That matter was usefully drawn to our attention during consultation. It was precisely to deal with such situations that the provision was introduced. I believe that that is a practical way of dealing with the situation along the lines that were indicated by my noble friend Lady Carnegy.
Therefore, although one can imagine difficult situations, I believe that the provisions will work perfectly satisfactorily in practice. I say that partly because we can look to the position in England and Wales where we know that, in practice, the system has worked satisfactorily despite forebodings. What has happened in England and Wales does not bear out the idea that there might be long and time-consuming objections based on cause shown. It is easy to think that that might happen, but practice in England suggests that it does not.
I accept that in due course such points might arise in certain cases and that the question, "What is a proper cause shown?" may be discussed, a ruling eventually given, and that practice will settle down on the basis of that. I accept that, but I believe that the reform that we are introducing is right in principle.

345
As the Committee will know, at the moment objections are taken because the defence conceives that particular categories of people might be less satisfactory as jurors from the defence point of view. Given that the peremptory objection is available, I do not blame the defence for using it in that way, but I say that it is wrong in principle and that what we are doing is right. Therefore, I adhere to the clause as it stands.
Lord McCluskey: Does not the noble and learned Lord recognise that the House of Lords is a very dangerous place in which to say that a thing should be abolished if it is not justified in principle? If there is one institution in our country which is not justified in principle, it is the House of Lords which is dominated by hereditary Peers. If the Minister wants some worthwhile work to do, perhaps he should include in the Bill a clause saying that the House of Lords should be abolished and justify that in precisely the same way.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have heard the Lord Advocate's answers to the various questions that have been asked, but another issue arises. The noble and learned Lord said that the majority of judges who had responded were in favour of the provision. May I ask: responded to what?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: To consultation.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: May we see the questionnaire and the answers? Could they be placed in the Library so that we can see which judges responded? Did the respondents include temporary judges, the College of Justice, and sheriffs who undertake 90 per cent. of the jury trials in Scotland? If I may say so, it appears to be fairly useless information at the moment. If the Lord Advocate writes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord
McCluskey, perhaps he will send me a copy of the letter.
In dealing with the reformation of the law in Scotland it is worth remembering that this is about the tenth such Bill in about 10 years. Who speaks for the judges on such Bills? The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is a Member of this House and in due course we shall have among us the welcome addition of the Lord President of the Court of Session but, up to now, what canvassing of the judges has been done, and in what form?
I am sure that those who are interested in the jury system will not be impressed one whit by the Lord Advocate saying that if something is all right for England and Wales, it is all right for Scotland. We have had plenty of that already politically and we do not want any more. Our system is working efficiently at the moment and does not need any further amendment or tinkering of this nature. I am sure that all those who are involved in the administration of justice in Scotland will read the report of this debate with interest. We shall return to the matter at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
346
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: I have nothing to add in relation to this matter.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Gene Therapy
6.58 p.m.
Lord Colwynrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for further initiatives in gene therapy that will help protect the United Kingdom's ability to contribute to new treatments and maintain its pre-eminence in medical research.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for giving me this opportunity to discuss the current situation in gene therapy. I have re-read the debate in this House on 11 th May last year when the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, drew our attention to the problems and ethical considerations of genetic manipulation. He mentioned briefly the involvement of the pharmacological industry and it is this aspect I wish to address. I should declare that I am a director of a pharmaceutical company whose work on drug delivery and diagnostics will inevitably influence and be influenced by advances in gene therapy. I am also president of the Huntington's Disease Association.
The multi-billion dollar biotechnological industry has made significant advances in the past 20 years. By the 1980s it had developed to the point where genetic changes could be made to cells in the human body via a variety of delivery vehicles which allowed the insertion of DNA directly into the cell. The appeal of biotechnology today is the concept and possible reality of gene therapy assisting in the quest for total disease management.
September 1994 marked the fourth anniversary of the first therapeutic gene therapy procedure performed in humans and today the recipients are thriving. The progress of genetic therapy is remarkable. There are currently 63 ongoing trials in the US alone. There is worldwide interest in gene therapy among patients, the public and politicians. There is acceptance that the clinical strategies and regulatory framework are in place and that the complex ethical considerations are being addressed. If there were ever any doubt about the ability of gene therapy to change the medical and financial foundations of the healthcare system one need only have been witness to the unprecedented interest generated from within some of the major healthcare corporations in 1994.

347
Pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and Co., Schering and Plough, Rhone Poulenc Rorer, Glaxo, SmithKline Beecham, Pfizer Inc. and Hoffman LaRoche have realised that they need to be involved now if they want to be associated with the realisation that gene therapy offers the opportunity to cure disease at its origin while improving the quality of life, reducing health costs and developing new preventive practices.
Gene therapy offers access to new clinical markets and global opportunities. Some financial forecasts predict a market size of between 2.8 billion and 5.8 billion dollars by 2000, growing to 50 billion dollars by 2010. However, success will depend on having the correct blend of core competencies and technologies to complete the cellular puzzle. Once each of those core technologies has been developed and incorporated into one system specific for a particular disease, gene therapy will have the ability to influence the treatment of most of the major diseases that affect us today. For example, cystic fibrosis is the most common genetic defect in Caucasians and is under serious frontal attack from the scientific community worldwide.
CF gene therapy studies are but one excellent example of how quickly development takes place in gene therapy and may go some way towards explaining the unprecedented number of collaborative agreements entered into recently by major pharmaceutical companies. This brings to light the need for a concentrated gene therapy effort within the UK. Recent substantial investment in the gene therapy technology by governments and major pharmaceutical companies around the world must now encourage the British Government to set in place a structure and foundation, outside that already in place, that not only attracts core competencies and technologies to the UK but ensures that they remain in the UK for the benefit of all British citizens.
The White Paper Realising Our Potential concluded:
"The United Kingdom must continue to play an active part in international scientific and technological activity at all levels whether this involves individual scientists, companies or Government. As the newly-emergent nations begin to contribute to extending the knowledge base on which the technologies of the future will depend, this country's world share of total scientific research will inevitably be reduced".
With certain exceptions the UK has been slow to pick up on commercial opportunities in biotechnology development and there is still much technology in laboratories throughout the UK that has not been adequately supported or exploited.
It seems to me that the admirable conclusion of the White Paper is being ignored. This country's world share of total scientific research has already been reduced and the "brain drain" of core competencies and technologies is increasingly evident. We cannot expect to remain competitive, let alone maintain world class scientific researchers and technologies when other countries have already realised the commercial potential of gene therapy and in doing so have committed extraordinary numbers of scientific staff and financial resources to its successful development.
348
The Medical Research Council strategy for gene therapy is being advanced through two related programmes; first, the human genome mapping project, and, secondly, the initiative on the genetic approach to human health. Such strategies are commendable but they are not long-term solutions to the dilemmas facing UK gene therapy today. The UK cannot afford to await the outcomes of under-funded research programmes and training initiatives while other countries provide extraordinary amounts of finance for research programmes being undertaken by an already established base. The UK must become more commercially oriented so as to drive the projects to commercial success. In order to achieve that the UK Government, together with industry, must be encouraged to commit more funding to programmes to bring them into line with the USA, the rest of Europe and other newly emerging nations. Currently, the MRC allocates some £21 million for development and inheritance programmes, a portion of those funds being used to exploit the potential for clinical research and industrial application arising from rapid development in gene therapy.
Pharmaceutical companies are entering into alliances with gene therapy companies to focus on specific diseases. Recently Rhone Poulenc Rorer has aligned itself with a number of companies and could potentially spend 1 billion dollars by 2000. The alliance includes a mix of American and French partners as well as private companies and public institutions. That strategy ensures that all the requisite technologies are housed under one umbrella for the ultimate benefit of the company.
Gene mapping was initiated in the USA. In 1988–89 funding amounted to £41.3 million. The operating budget for 1992 was £110 million and for 1993 £113.8 million. Outside Europe and the USA, Japan is the only other country to have a human genome programme with a budget of £20 million or more for 1992. Other countries with smaller programmes include Canada, the Soviet Union, South Korea, New Zealand and Australia.
Singapore is another recent entrant into the field of biotechnology. Its government have launched a number of initiatives and made funding and investment available to biotechnological companies, ensuring that scientists from around the world will be attracted to work in Singapore.
Gene therapy is still in its infancy in this country, but, as illustrated by the rapid development of gene therapy for the treatment of CF, there is sufficient preliminary data within the industry to suggest that it is a powerful technology for the treatment of disease. We must strive to see that difficulties are overcome and that the combined efforts of scientific institutions, pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies, government and industry ensure that the technologies remain in the UK.
Initiatives by the MRC have seen the establishment of the clinical research initiative with centres at Nottingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff, in addition to the recently established clinical sciences centre. The MRC was also fundamentally responsible for the development of the Sanger centre and for the establishment of the European Bioinformatics Institute at Hixton Park, Cambridge.

349
The technology transfer group brings researchers together with industrialists and venture capitalists by increasing the scientific community's awareness of research opportunities and the MRC collaborative centre has been allowed increased flexibility to enable it to start up new companies to pursue scientific knowledge derived by the MRC. The MRC has therefore undertaken many initiatives in the area of gene therapy and continues to implement the recommendations of the White Paper by bringing science and industry closer together. But can it truly develop the UK's international competitiveness with its limited financial resources and wide charter?
In the MRC's 1994 Scientific Strategy, the secretary of the council, Dai Rees, stated:
"While I would naturally wish for more funding, constraints on public expenditure are a fact of life and we must make the best of what we are given from the public purse and increase our income from other sources whenever we can".
That is an intolerable situation, implying that the MRC must strive to compete internationally while being tied down by lack of funds.
A report commissioned by the Office of Science and Technology to "identify areas in human genome research important for investment in the UK to benefit both basic science and commercial opportunity" concluded:
"There is an urgent need to investigate the ways in which the setting up of venture capital funded companies for gene discovery can be facilitated. Such companies should be able to access and exploit genetic and physical mapping technology in the UK or exploit it by another mechanism that leverages all appropriate technology".
As matters stand, the MRC cannot possibly be expected to fund all areas of research. At present the MRC is not, and will never be, in a position to provide a co-ordinated approach to gene therapy in the UK. If the UK wishes to remain competitive at an international level it must successfully and immediately put in place a co-ordinated network, together with a financial plan, that will ensure the UK becomes and remains competitive by maintaining and attracting key scientists and technologies.
In Canada, the networks of centres of excellence have been established by the federal government through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Being an important part of Canada's science base, the centres bring together researchers from across the country in co-ordinated fashion to exchange ideas and knowledge, to facilitate the transfer of technology to industry, and to develop new approaches to new problems.
As an example, Neuroscience Inc.—a co-ordinated affiliation of five universities and individual investigators—has formed a partnership with MDS Ventures to allow investors to participate in the growth and development of neuroscience businesses and enterprises in Canada and internationally. Joint financing by the government and the institutions raised approximately 75 million Canadian dollars. This kind of initiative should be a pointer to the UK Government that there are a number of other bodies, both private and public, which are co-ordinating and funding different
350
research and development areas by bringing them together in a co-ordinated fashion in order to gain a competitive advantage.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will see that the US, France, Canada, Japan and Singapore have all realised the need for an appropriately funded and co-ordinated approach to the problems that face the development of gene therapy today. Those countries have been quick to recognise and back programmes that have potentially enormous returns for money invested.
I conclude by making a few suggestions as to how the UK could align itself with the rest of the world with respect to gene therapy. The UK has a history of leading the pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries with products in the top 20 selling pharmaceuticals and potential blockbuster products and technologies under development. Very significant export earnings have been derived and a co-ordinated gene therapy approach could produce similar benefits.
The importance of biotechnology investment in the UK was recently reiterated by the establishment of the inward investment team, designed to encourage US and Japanese companies to invest in the UK. However, as the UK already has a network of world recognised scientists and technologies, we should also be actively encouraging domestic investment to ensure that scientists and technologies remain within British control and are brought together in a co-ordinated fashion, supported by comparative global funding. That strategy will ensure that the application of these technologies leads to the successful development of important gene therapy products within the UK, eventually impacting on the wealth of the nation and the health of its citizens.
The UK must establish a multi-layered highly co-ordinated organisation to draw on all the expertise and current research that is available and being undertaken. Scientists and technologies must be maintained and kept in the UK and potential partners must have access to them and show a willingness to share developments and experience in order to emphasise the commercialisation of findings. The attraction for the partners is the recognition that commercial success will be achieved by collaborating with others.
Fundamental support led by government in a drive towards successful gene therapy application will ensure that greater investment is attracted from industry. World-recognised scientists and their technologies will simply not remain in, or be attracted to, the UK unless they have suitable domestic financial support—either private or public—together with first-class facilities to ensure that they can fully develop technologies to a commercially exploitable stage.
I apologise for rushing through my speech. When I arrived an hour ago I had to cut out more than half of my 35-minute speech. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are to take part in the debate. I look forward to

351
hearing what they have to say, in particular my noble friend the Minister. I am grateful to her for being here tonight to answer my Question.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, before addressing what the noble Lord said, and this Question, perhaps I may draw a distinction between somatic gene therapy and germline therapy. The former cures sick people and is an extension of ordinary Hippocratic procedures. As regards human relations, it has been familiar for thousands of years. It involves ordinary doctors doing ordinary things with new understandings and new technologies. Germline therapy on the other hand alters the heredity of a given strain of human beings in permanency. There is a consensus—and we may be grateful for it—that somatic therapy has no ethical obstacle in its way; that it is to be welcomed and worked for by all concerned as hard and as fast as they can. On the other hand, there is a consensus that germline therapy should not be contemplated for a long time; until there has been further time to examine the ethical and even ontological content of such a procedure.
It struck me that a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, was familiar. The technology is new and it is hard for this country to catch up and keep up with it. That is partly because we are not as big as some of the other countries and because during the past 15 years governments have prided themselves on not hindering companies, but not helping them either.
I believe that the noble Lord is right in saying that in this area, as in others, there would be a case for more government intervention, a government point of contact and a government ring-holding, in order to help corporations to agree on what they can do together and to reach civilised disagreement on what they want to compete over. They are all familiar concepts. The Government do not do enough.
However, I believe that in this area that would be exceptionally difficult. In this country genetic technology is not developed by a number of British corporations which are registered here, have all their shareholders here and sell all their products here. It is among the most internationalised of all the hi-tech industrial enterprises one can think of. The role of a British government in helping British corporations and those portions of, for instance, American-owned corporations which function in Britain needs to be compared with the potential role of other governments doing the same thing in other countries.
The noble Lord gave certain figures that looked hazy and implied that more was being spent per capita by the French taxpayers, possibly even the Singaporean taxpayers, than is paid by the British taxpayers to help these things come about. If that can be established, there is certainly a case for Britain to do as well as or better than our commercial competitors.
I wish to raise a particular aspect, which is patenting. I never know whether to say "paytent" or "pattent". I believe that I am old enough to say "paytent" but perhaps I should adopt the more recent American pronunciation "pattent". Noble Lords who are interested
352
will remember that a year or two ago a fearful situation developed in which an American corporation started to claim, and made progress towards obtaining, a patent on healthy human genes in living human bodies. That would have had the effect that anyone anywhere who wished to correct a defect in gene X in a certain position on a certain sequence in the chromosome, whatever means or technique they used, would have to pay a royalty to the company which first identified the position and coding purpose of the gene.
That was taken to the American Patent Office, which initially smiled on it to such an extent that our own Medical Research Council, backed by the Government, had to take up a defensive position and say in effect, "If you do this we shall do it too, and therefore we cannot proclaim in an unqualified manner that we think it is an absurd, a faintly monstrous idea to patent living cells in living bodies walking about the world. In this the Americans, with us regretfully going along behind, differed sharply with most of the continental countries, which under French conceptual leadership instantly took up an absolute position against any such notion.
When the time came for decision the American Patent Office said, "No, you can't do that. It is absurd. You are supposed to patent inventions, and you certainly didn't invent those genes walking about the world in all those human bodies".
There has since been a renewed attempt by American interests to obtain an American patent. It has been made in particular by corporations which come forward and say, "You had better give the patent to us, otherwise our employees who did the work and made the discovery will leave us and leave the country, and go to work somewhere else where they can get a patent". If I understand rightly, the American Patent Office is now facing that problem and wondering what to do. Once again, it is possible that they will agree to issue patents to many different applicants who have discovered the position and function of many different genes in the human body.
If that were to happen, the question is: what would the British Government do about it? Would they be forced to go back into the position they tentatively occupied a year or two ago of saying, "Well, we've got to do it too"? Or would they stand with the French Government, and with the European Commission, and say, "Let the heavens fall, but we will not permit such an absurdity in our country"? It may be hard to answer that now, but it is an interesting question.
Equally, what financial effect do our Government expect the patenting of healthy genes in the manner that I have described to have on the therapies when they become available? It could be quite crippling, and it would certainly be very broad. Another scenario is the following; what about patenting the means of carrying a healthy gene from a healthy person to an unhealthy person? As noble Lords will know, the way that one corrects an unhealthy gene is by flooding it with healthy genes from the same position on a healthy chromosome in another individual. It is obviously legitimate for an inventor or company to patent a means of carrying a healthy gene from one individual to another. But it is not very difficult to find those means; the difficulty is

353
to find what gene does what. Still, in the future there is no doubt a legitimate field for this sort of patenting of somatic gene therapy, even if it is a rather smaller one.
How in the view of the Government, will the development of patents in this field impose an unacceptable financial burden on our health service and, indeed, on the provision of medical treatment, whether public or private, in this or in other countries of the world?
7.22 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, for his formidable and wide-ranging speech and review of the field. I should like to emphasise concerns in two areas; namely, the need for an appropriate regulatory framework and the problems surrounding patents. Having just listened to the most interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I realise that it is extremely difficult in such a very short debate to make a very meaningful contribution on the subject of patents. However, I shall try to do so.
It is my impression that things are moving so fast in the field that it will not be enough in the future to react on a case by case basis. Given the considerable disagreements and complications of patenting and the fact that so much is now at stake, I do not believe that even the well-managed market place will be a suitable forum from which to expect an acceptable outcome—acceptable that is, in part, to the public, which in this field may at present have exaggerated hopes, fears and expectations.
Part of the process of reassurance and education can really only be achieved by the presumption of open and flexible discussion and decision-making, whenever possible. The Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place is providing an excellent forum for the expression of views and a snapshot of current opinion; but it will probably be another year at best before the Government's reaction to that committee is published. Things are moving so fast that major action should not wait until then.
It is already a year since the authoritative Nuffield Council on Bioethics in its report "Genetic Screening, Ethical Issues" recommended that a central co-ordinating body be established. The MRC's excellent gene therapy advisory committee can give advice, co-ordinate data and research and also create policies; but it is not a regulatory body that can provide an enforceable framework of minimum standards and best practice, against which developments can be measured and shaped.
I know that the organisation called the Genetic Interest Group supports the creation of such a regulatory body. The group is an influential umbrella organisation of over 100 charities, voluntary organisations and support groups for various genetic conditions trying to co-ordinate common action.
Perhaps I may offer a relatively minor recent instance of the sort of problems that are arising. About a month ago, according to an account in the Independent newspaper, a firm was launching a postal service test for the cystic fibrosis gene. That was not a cure, but was
354
to indicate if the subject was a carrier. A counselling service was to be provided by telephone. According to the article, the Department of Health was not told in advance about the new service and so, naturally, a spokesman for it could not give a very useful reaction or recommendation to the development. Someone was then quoted on behalf of the firm saying that, in many ways, the test could have been offered over the past three years, concluding that the block has been lack of mechanisms within the NHS. Even if that article is not completely accurate, it highlights just the sort of problems that are capable of arising.
Perhaps I may take that example a little further. What happens if another firm offers a similar but cheaper test, but without the counselling? Will the original firm be compelled to drop the counselling in order to survive? What happens if another firm offers a very much cheaper test which later turns out to have an unacceptable rate of false positives?
How and when are we at least going to set minimum standards, and how will they be enforced? I hope that the answer is, "as soon as possible". If the regulatory authority has to be as comprehensive as the HFEA (the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority), so be it. Given the very much wider subject matter, it is desirable that it should be more proactive and encouraging. Part of the need for such a body is to reassure the public at this stage that a sensible and responsive body is in place, with habits of openness.
Perhaps I may now turn to the patent aspects. I shall start with a small but completely different example from the same article in the Independent of 9th December of last year, which reads:
"The gene for a human hormone which eases labour during childbirth is now the property of a research institute at Melbourne University. The first objection to the patenting of a human gene was rejected yesterday by the Munich-based European Patent Office. A board upheld the university's patent on the gene, in the face of objections by the Greens in the European Parliament that it was ethically unacceptable".
I have no further information on that particular case. But that, again, is an example of the sort of situation that is arising.
One of the most valuable aspects of patents is in creating certainty and, as far as possible these days, international certainty. Presumably on the subject of gene patenting we are trying to proceed in step with our European partners. It appears to me that conflicting interests are already becoming so entrenched, and so much is at stake, that it will become more impossible to unscramble things into any form of sense the longer the situation is unresolved. It is said that these gene patenting issues have already created a climate of mutual distrust among scientists.
Perhaps I may give a last example of a discovery, announced last September by an American university, of one of the most eagerly awaited genes for breast cancer, apparently the first gene for a lethal disease affecting large numbers of people. It should be said that it is responsible for only 5 per cent. of breast cancer. Pre-existing arrangements, despite the American university and some small British involvement, have led to a large American pharmaceutical company becoming,

355
quite legally, the beneficiary of the patent—this to the considerable dismay and disapproval of publicly-funded scientists. The diagnostic test may not be ready for two years, but it has been estimated in the specialist media that the cost per test might be as much as £600. All sorts of questions arise, not least the affordability of such tests to the NHS. That is just the beginning.
As against that exploitable gene patent, there are many so called "orphan" diseases which may benefit from gene therapy but which are so numerically small that it will never be commercially worth while to follow down that path. They need some sort of regulatory encouragement.
As far as patents are concerned, I hope that the Government, and in particular the Department of Health, can give a lead on this and announce that they are prepared to argue—as it is perfectly respectable to do—that the human genome is not to be regarded as a patentable invention but a natural phenomenon and that an unreasonable monopoly will not be created.
I hope the department will accept that it is more convincing now, rather than later, to warn hopeful biotech companies that the sort of excessive monopoly pricing that is associated with drug patenting will not be accepted in gene therapy. This is the sort of area that an effective regulatory body could be created to control. I hope that the department could also take a lead in offering that as an international example.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend on his Question and on the way in which he introduced it. He has the advantage of understanding many of the medical implications of these very complex issues which are so difficult for the average layman to understand and grasp. I also agree with his emphasis on the need for unrelenting effort in the research field in order that the United Kingdom can maintain its pre-eminence in this area, and also with the necessary follow-up on commercial development. In this context, I welcome the joint initiative by the health and industry departments to which my noble friend referred, which is known as "Prescribe UK" and which was launched last December. It aims to encourage pharmaceutical and biotech inward investment in the United Kingdom. That reminds us that the United Kingdom is among the world's leaders in invention and scientific exports and that we have a strong science base.
I also welcome the announcement about the establishment of a new national forum which is to be chaired by Professor Michael Peckham, the NHS director of research and development, and which is intended to bring together major funders of health research including the MRC, charities, universities and industry.
My interest in this subject dates from the well informed discussions we had in your Lordships' House on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill a few years ago in which I was very much involved. However, I must also declare an interest in that I am now a director
356
of SmithKline Beecham, a company which is doing vital research into the application of genomics to drug discovery and diagnostics development.
Within the time constraints of this short debate I should like to concentrate my remarks on the implications that this rapidly developing technology will have in the area of medical ethics and human rights protection. This has already been touched upon, but there is no doubt that these scientific advances will revolutionise healthcare and offer disturbing as well as exciting new choices for everyone concerned. I therefore wish to urge the Government to ensure that in any work they support and encourage they will insist upon the highest ethical standards being maintained, and that they should give consideration to the regulatory framework as the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, also insisted. Indeed, it might well be appropriate to reconvene the Warnock Committee or create a successor to it in order to keep hand in hand with the scientific progress the consideration of the human and social issues.
I would be glad to hear the views of my noble friend the Minister on that matter and indeed on the Nuffield Foundation recommendations. It is by no means too soon for that given that, for example, prospective genetic profiling for disease risk already has the necessary testing procedures in place and commercial development is proceeding rapidly.
It is interesting to note in the international field that the Council of Europe is tackling the issue with a draft bio-ethics convention which will be debated by the parliamentary assembly at our next plenary session at the beginning of next month. I was also interested to note that at the forthcoming International Parliamentary Union international conference to be held at the end of March one of the topics to be discussed is bio-ethics and its implications worldwide for human rights protection. I feel sure that there are a number of other international and learned bodies giving consideration to that issue and that we in this country will not lag behind.
In conclusion I repeat that these are indeed exciting vistas for the future of medicine and that here in the United Kingdom we have the opportunity to be at the forefront of development and that it is an opportunity we should not lose. Yet in conquering this new world of genetic knowledge, as we can already define ethical, legal, social and economic issues of stunning complexity, we ignore these issues at our peril.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, for introducing this interesting subject this evening in his Question. I congratulate him particularly in making a précis of his speech in such an authoritative way that he conveyed much information in half the time he had expected to take. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for identifying the subject of our debate so precisely this evening and for concentrating our attention simply on somatic genes. As was also emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, we should consider those matters particularly in relation to conquering disease.

357
I think we are all aware of the pre-eminence of the UK in this particular area. I shall just mention one field which is of particular interest to me—the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, touched on this—and that is the whole area of in vitro fertilisation and embryo therapy. Without trespassing into the difficult ethical ground which some of us considered earlier last year with regard to some of the amendments to the criminal justice Bill—which is now the criminal justice Act—and some of the other more difficult subjects we embarked on then, I should say that the whole question of pre-implantation embryo selection has been one of the most important areas where this country has led genetic development.
I emphasise that some of the developments in which we have led the world have focused more on the abilities of our scientists than on the technology that they have used. In introducing this debate, the noble Lord—and other speakers—referred to cystic fibrosis as one of the particular triumphs. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, in passing—perhaps his remarks were slightly contracted as regards this matter—referred to the brain drain of some of our scientists who are involved in this field.
I believe the Government must be conscious of the need to preserve our pre-eminence in this field. Over the past six months there has been great concern that some of the scientists who are working most prominently in these fields have left. I draw particular attention to Professor Bob Williamson of St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, who was at the forefront of the development of the work of identifying the cystic fibrosis gene. He is one of those who has decided to leave this country. Some publicity was devoted to this. I cannot forbear but to mention to the Minister one of the reasons which Bob Williamson was quoted as giving for leaving. He said that he could no longer work in a pure scientific atmosphere which depended on co-operation—that is precisely the kind of co-operation to which several noble Lords have referred this evening—in what he described as the competitive and bureaucratic nightmare of the new health service. That is obviously a particular viewpoint; but I must say that I, from a lay position, support that viewpoint. However, there is a more general anxiety among the medical establishment about the lack of clinical geneticists to develop some of the work which is being done in the laboratory.
The Medical Research Council, in recent evidence to the Science and Technology Committee in another place—to which the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, referred—said that:
"the number of clinical geneticists in the UK is very small and this is a matter of considerable concern".
That is an issue which needs to be addressed at a national level. The whole area of manpower and pre-eminence in scientific excellence, and particularly in relation to individual scientists, is a further question upon which I should like the Minister's comments when she replies.
As has been said, we have been slow to pick up on some of the biotechnologies which have been developed. That is something about which we should be very concerned. I shall be very interested to hear the
358
Minister's response to the collaborative arrangements suggested by the noble Lord who introduced the Question between commercial companies and research funding councils such as the Medical Research Council and the Government themselves. Clearly, from what has been said, underfunding of work in this field, particularly in comparison with some of our international competitors, is one of the concerns about which those who have looked at the subject in detail feel most strongly.
I was particularly interested that the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, suggested that this form of underfunding was a particular threat in the area of long-term solutions to some of the problems being addressed.
I should also like to support the suggestion which came from both the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and which has been mentioned previously in your Lordships House, about the need for developing a further regulatory body beyond those which now exist and perhaps, as the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, suggested, depending on the somewhat controversial it must be admitted but nonetheless practically very successful example of the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority. If something in that field could be expanded and developed, it might be of great national importance.
I am aware that this is a very closely timed debate and that the Minister must be given time to respond in some detail to all the various points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. All I would say in conclusion is that on 11th May last year your Lordships had an interesting debate, introduced on that occasion by my noble friend Lord Kennet, about the whole area of human genetic manipulation in which there was agreement on all sides of the House that our record in this country on this subject is extremely good. There was also a concern that we need to develop a more succinct and precise national strategy so that we could have co-ordinated investment both in people and in technologies to see that our pre-eminence continues. I very much hope that when the Minister replies she will be able to give some indication that that will happen.
7.42 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colwyn for drawing to the attention of your Lordships' House one of the most interesting and exciting areas of medical research. It is an area in which this country makes a significant contribution. As my noble friend indicated, genetic research has the potential to produce a quantum change in the practice of medicine. Our hope is that by building on the links between developments in basic science, NHS research and development and best clinical practice that research will bring major advances to the diagnosis and, eventually, to the treatment of a wide range of serious diseases for the benefit of the NHS and its patients.
My noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, were right to highlight the ethical aspects of this work. In order to ensure that the Government had the very best advice, in 1992 the

359
Clothier Committee was set up to consider the ethics of gene therapy and to examine not only its potentials but some of the dilemmas it presents. I believe that as my very distinguished predecessor, my noble friend was instrumental in setting up that committee.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—surely one of the clearest and most knowledgeable people on this subject—the committee took the view that somatic gene therapy, which only alters the patient's individual body cells, does not in itself raise new ethical challenges. As such we feel that it should be regarded as research and should be subject to the already accepted ethical codes. However, modification of the germ line—changing the genes which are transmitted to future generations—was not considered acceptable. I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing the distinction so clearly and explaining the significance between the two.
Later that year, the Government announced their agreement in principle to the main recommendations of the Clothier Report. This led, after public and professional consultation, to the establishment in 1993 of the gene therapy advisory committee under the chairmanship of Professor Dame June Lloyd. Three members of that committee are ethicists, so the field is well covered, and one is a lawyer. The committee's remit is to consider all aspects of gene therapy research. It does that by carrying out a case-by-case review of individual protocols.
I understand the reservations that have been expressed tonight and that there are those who want that committee to have a stronger statutory base. However, we believe that it is working well. As a committee it works closely with the Medicines Control Agency which has responsibility for overseeing all clinical trials in patients.
In such a rapidly evolving field it is important to have a system which is flexible enough to accommodate rapid changes in research and clinical practice. The gene therapy advisory committee is therefore a non-statutory body. However, it has been made clear to researchers that no study involving human subjects should proceed without prior approval from the committee.
Last year a number of clinical trials began which the Government hope will result in successful clinical interventions. A total of 10 protocols were approved. These are exciting developments since they deal with severely disabling conditions such as cystic fibrosis—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Colwyn—three forms of cancer and severe immune deficiency. Protocols are still under review for breast cancer and a form of leukaemia.
The main responsibility for government-funded research into human genetics lies with the Medical Research Council. The MRC spends around £12 million a year on the human genome project, whose main aim is to link specific diseases to the gene responsible. This important project is too large for any one organisation, and requires national and international collaboration. Apart from the MRC, support for genome research in the UK is also provided by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund as well as other charities, such as the Cancer Research Campaign.
360
The UK has also been particularly successful in attracting funds from the EC human genome analysis programme, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hooper.
Taking this work together, the UK has a thoroughly credible national genome programme. This is borne out by a bibliometric analysis conducted in 1990 which showed that apart from the USA—which spends approximately 10 times as much as this country—the UK leads the world. This lead is the result of the very good UK basic science, allied to the clinical environment provided by the NHS. It is a combination which has attracted leading scientists to our country from other parts of the world.
As my noble friend Lord Colwyn mentioned, the Government's White Paper Realising our Potential strongly promotes a UK science base which is linked to wealth creation. That link, which noble Lords have highlighted this evening, is crucial. The Department of Health's research and development strategy is also a step forward in developing a rational response to anticipating developments.
Two years ago the MRC set up a second major programme of genetic research to complement work on the human genome mapping project. That programme is called the genetic approach to human health and is designed to take the fruits of genome research into health care. Initiatives include work to improve understanding of the gene products which are responsible for dysfunction, the development of new screening tests, better methods of genetic counselling and the development of somatic gene therapy.
The potential for gene therapy in treating disease is being actively pursued by MRC groups in Edinburgh, London and Birmingham. Those multi-disciplinary groups have the expertise to bring laboratory-based research through to a defined clinical goal.
The MRC also has an industrial advisory group to identify opportunities for collaborative research, and as clinical trials are further expanded, the MRC will work through this group and with the pharmaceutical industry to encourage a further scaling up of materials needed for clinical trials.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn mentioned the need to raise venture capital. The MRC has set up three new companies to exploit genetic research including Therexsys, the UK's first company dedicated to gene therapy.
There is a need for skilled researchers. To meet that need the council funds researchers to visit overseas laboratories in order to learn new techniques and supports a small number of Ph.D students in that area.
Perhaps I may address the general issue that has been raised not only by my noble friend but by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I refer to the question of the brain drain. I think that that catchphrase is now obsolete and that in fact we ought to recast it as the "brain gain". In the past 14 years far more academic staff have moved to this country than have left it. In 1993 there was a net inflow of staff at all levels of academic posts with the exception of that of a reader/senior lecturer where there was a small net outflow. Flows in and out are very

361
small. However, an independent report by the science and engineering policy studies unit entitled The Migration of Scientists and Engineers, confirms the indications from an earlier study and from university statistics that the brain drain is not a cause for concern.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Baroness to ask for clarification of those figures. First, are those figures for all scientific research or for all medical research, or just for genetic research? Secondly, do they take any account of where those people are coming from? If the outflow is all to the United States, and the inflow is all from Tanzania, it is not so interesting.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, very high calibre scientists are attracted to this country. This report covered a wider area than simply geneticists. It covered engineers and other scientists. I shall certainly send a copy to the noble Lord if he would like to have a look at it. I believe that there is a common belief in this country that scientists are leaving in droves and that we attract very few. That is not the case. In the past two years the director of the British Postgraduate Medical Foundation reported that we have attracted more world-class scientists from as far afield as Australia and the United States than we have lost. Therefore we are quite convinced that there is a brain gain.
The MRC has set up a gene therapy co-ordinating committee to oversee national activities, to develop policy with other sponsors and industry, to advise the community on issues pertinent to gene therapy, and to assist in the co-ordination of data from clinical trials. That committee includes nominated representatives from major research centres, industry and the medical research charities, from the health departments and the Medicines Control Agency.
The Department of Health keeps in close touch with MRC developments in genetic research through the concordat between the department and the MRC. Under that arrangement there is regular contact about all aspects of work including genetics. I believe that the post of Professor Michael Peckham, the Director of Research and Development, was very skilfully negotiated by my noble friend Lady Hooper through your Lordships' House. It was a suggestion by your Lordships. It has proved to be a very successful post. I think that many of the fears that have been expressed tonight are not founded, because Professor Peckham's whole responsibility is to co-ordinate research within the country. I believe that he does that extremely well.
Professor Peckham commissioned a genetics research advisory group under the chairmanship of Professor Martin Bobrow, Professor of Paediatric Research at Guy's Hospital to provide an informed view of the possible implications of genetic research for the NHS over the next five to 10 years. Its report is due to be published shortly.
The report discusses anticipated advances in areas such as diagnosis and screening, gene therapy, and genetic techniques and laboratory services. The report also considers the impact of those advances on genetic services in the NHS, including the importance of
362
adequate provision for counselling, and the implications of genetic testing as it becomes more available in general practice.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn has acknowledged the potential contribution of genetic research to human health and the wider implications that it has in social and economic terms. The report reflects that view and the view of the Government's White Paper, Realising our Potential, which emphasises that advances in research and development should benefit quality of life and contribute to wealth creation. Advances in genetic research offer the prospect of considerable gain, not only for the NHS and its patients but also, as has been highlighted tonight, for the British pharmaceutical and healthcare industries, with the attendant benefits of employment, exports and national income. Those prospects are being currently explored by a number of initiatives arising from the White Paper including the technology foresight programme which will be published in the spring.
Currently the main impact of genetic research is on inherited diseases such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, haemophilia and Huntington's disease. It is our hope that an increasing programme of work on the genetics of common diseases will enable progress to be made in tackling disorders such as diabetes, hypertension, asthma, coronary artery disease and several forms of cancer. The Department of Health's research and development strategy is currently exploring a range of practical and ethical aspects of genetic research. Last July the NHS research and development programme published its priorities for cancer which gave a high priority to such work.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Craigavon, raised the issue of the patenting of genes and the implications of that for research. The Government's view is that information discovered on the structure of genomes should be freely available to researchers in the field. Lack of access would delay progress in research. However, that should not preclude industry from obtaining patents on novel inventions derived from gene analysis and other genome work. Without such protection there would be no incentive for industry to invest the large sums of money required to bring such inventions to the market to the benefit of patient care.
The noble Lord, Lord Craigavon, also raised the point of commercial genetic screening tests. That is a matter wider than we anticipated this evening. I shall be delighted to write to him on that subject.
In conclusion, the United Kingdom enjoys a worldwide reputation in the field of genetic research. Through the work I have described your Lordships will have had a feel for the way our country is taking forward this work into an exciting area of medical research with potential benefits for the nation's health and wealth. The first clinical trials are already under way and results from the research groups are encouraging, suggesting that further trials are not far off.
Through MRC funding, the essential support of many of the research charities, and the work of the NHS research and development programme, the Government are confident that the system of oversight for UK gene therapy research will encourage and above all assist

363
researchers making progress to the target of achieving real and lasting benefits for patients. The mechanisms that I have described will allow the development of that important field of medical research to proceed in a climate of public, parliamentary and professional reassurance. The future looks bright.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that we adjourn during pleasure for two minutes until eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 to 8 p.m.]

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee.
Clause 10 [Judicial examination]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have already given notice that I move that Clause 10 do not stand part of the Bill. This is quite an important matter in the administration of justice in Scotland. As we understand it, the proposal means that at an early stage in the proceedings the Crown will have an opportunity to cross-examine an accused person who may well not know, and in 99 cases out of 100 will not know, what the evidence against him may be.
At the moment limits are placed upon the questions which may be asked in the presence of the sheriff as to whether an accused person wishes to present a denial, an explanation, a justification or a comment. Questions may be asked about any extra-judicial confession that the accused may or may not have made to the police. So he is given an early opportunity to deal with that, which is fair enough.
However, the problem under Clause 10 is that in the proceedings the accused's solicitor has only limited rights to intervene in the judicial examination. People keep talking about the right to silence. I have always held the view that, since the judicial examination process was brought into the law of Scotland, to say that there is a right to silence is a misnomer. In any event the Government's proposal in Clause 10 will transform the judicial examination into an inquisitorial procedure which is inappropriate to the adversarial system we have. It would give the Crown an early bite at the accused to try to get him to admit to whatever charge he might face. If that happens, then, apart from allowing the right to obtain an admission from the accused, there will have to be the right for the accused's solicitor to cross-examine.
There is also a major problem that if the object of the exercise is to elicit an admission from the accused, then any questions directed towards him to elicit that admission must necessarily rest on information in the possession of the prosecutor which indicates that the accused is guilty of the offence as charged.
In most cases the accused will not have an opportunity to see any of the evidence against him. What may happen is that if his solicitor is doing his job
364
properly he will object to the line of questioning on the basis that he does not have in his possession the material on which the question which seeks to elicit an admission is based. The solicitor will then ask for a continuation of the case. That seems an unnecessary extension of the judicial examination procedure which is not welcome anyway in Scotland, but it is there. I oppose the Motion that Clause 10 stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, in opposing Clause 10. I am not a lawyer but as a former prison social worker I am reasonably familiar with some of the people who will be the subject of a judicial examination. My understanding is that at such an examination neither the accused nor his solicitor (nor necessarily the prosecutor) is always in possession of all the charges. That seems an unsuitable moment for the prosecutor to attempt to elicit any admissions. Bearing in mind that the alleged event may have taken place some time before or that there could have been considerable drama in the days prior to the judicial examination, a period for reflection and for advice to be taken is needed before any admissions are sought.
I can see that Clause 10 conforms to the overall thrust of the Bill, being a modification designed to increase the possibility of conviction. I fear that it may lead to the possibility of wrongful conviction which would be a wholly unacceptable outcome.
Lord McCluskey: In my opinion, the speeches made in support of the Motion that Clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill are based upon a misunderstanding. First, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, referred to the right of silence. I wish to quote a passage from paragraph 4.16 of Scottish Law Commission Paper 130. It puts the point rather better than I could. It states:
"The first principle is sometimes referred to as 'the right of silence'. We find this an unhelpful expression and would adopt the observations of Lord Mustill in a recent case".
There follows a quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill:
"This expression arouses strong but unfocused feelings. In truth it does not denote any single right, but rather refers to a disparate group of immunities, which differ in nature, origin, incidence and importance, and also as to the extent to which they have already been encroached upon by statute".
It is very important always, when talking about the right of silence, to distinguish between the right of an accused person to remain silent under examination by the police, his right to remain silent once he has been charged—a very significant stage in the criminal process in Scotland—and his right to remain silent when he is in court. Section 20A relates to stage two when he has passed from the hands of the police. By charging him the Lord Advocate or his depute has in effect put the person in the custody of the court. That person is then brought before the sheriff.
The purpose of Section 20A which was explained in the Thomson Committee and in debates on the 1980 Bill was effectively to allow the person to be brought before the sheriff, and therefore there was protection for him. He was to be given an opportunity to explain matters averred in the charge. That is putting it very shortly. In

365
essence what happens is that at that stage a petition has been prepared which specifies that he, on a particular date, in a particular place, in a particular manner, did certain things to certain people. That is usual standard wording.
The procurator fiscal is therefore quite entitled to say to him: "Do you deny being in Sauchiehall Street? Do you deny being in the company of A and B, who are also mentioned in the petition? Do you deny being in possession of a knife?", or matters which are averred in the charge. It seems to me that there was a slight misdrafting of the provision initially. It should have contained the word "admission". The fiscal ought to be able to say: "Do you admit being in Sauchiehall Street on such and such an occasion? Do you admit that you were in the company of X, Y, and Z? Do you admit that?". If the accused would have answered to the first question, "I deny it", he can say, "I don't admit it". It is exactly the same situation. I see nothing to worry about here. There is no extension of the power of the fiscal. Apart from anything else, Section 20A contains in subsection (2) the provision that,
"the prosecutor shall, in framing questions … have regard to the following principles:
(a) the questions should not be designed to challenge the truth of anything said by the accused".
So the purpose of the questioning is not designed to secure an admission. It is to ask the accused if he is making an admission. He has a choice of three answers. He can say, "I admit it", "I deny it", or "I decline to answer". Accordingly, it appears to me the amendment is essentially technical in character. It does not expand the powers of the procurator fiscal. It invades no part of the right of silence, of which I am a strong defender. I would support the provision as simply a technical provision designed to clarify matters in the existing legislation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, first, for his very clear and lucid explanation of the broad group of rights and immunities that are too readily put together under the single heading of a right to silence. I would similarly like to adopt the language that he used in describing this amendment as simply technical. However, because there has been considerable discussion of this matter, particularly in Scotland, it is clear that some commentators have misunderstood the scope of what is being proposed. It may be helpful if I explain a little of what lies behind our thinking.
What this clause will not do is transform a procedure into something radically different to what it is now. The problem, as the noble and learned Lord said, is that at present a procurator fiscal may ask at judicial examination questions directed towards eliciting any denial, explanation, justification or comment from the accused about the charge against him. While this does not explicitly exclude questions designed to establish whether the accused admits any of the accusations or facts averred, that is the way the law has been interpreted in practice.
The consequence of the restriction is simply that, rather than ask an accused person a straightforward question along the lines that the noble and learned Lord
366
indicated as to whether he did something, was present at the scene of a crime, or was in possession of a particular weapon, the procurator fiscal must frame such questions in a negative form, for example, by asking the accused whether he denies exactly the same accusations or facts.
While that need not prevent a skilled prosecutor asking the questions he considers important, it does result in those questions being asked in a stilted and unnatural form which is likely to be more difficult for an accused person to understand, and even more difficult for a jury to understand when it considers the transcript of the examination at a subsequent trial. The change proposed in this clause is simply designed to make the proceedings more straightforward and intelligible. I emphasise that there is nothing sinister or extending in the provisions that we bring forward.
There are two things which this clause does not do, contrary to what has been suggested. First, it does not require the accused to break his silence if he wishes not to, or to incriminate himself. If the accused chooses not to answer questions he may do so, as very many accused persons do now. If he chooses to answer, his answers need not be any more incriminating than they would be under the current law. After all, he may refuse to admit, which may be less incriminating than a failure to deny.
Secondly, it will not enable procurators fiscal to engage in cross-examination or to attempt to drag confessions out of the accused. Subsection (2) of Section 20A prohibits the procurator fiscal from asking leading questions, reiterating questions the accused has refused to answer, or challenging the truth of what the accused has already said. Those restrictions will continue to apply to all questioning by the procurator fiscal as will the duty placed on the sheriff to ensure that all questions are fairly put to, and understood by, the accused.
On the last point, I believe it should be possible for the sheriff to discharge his duty rather more easily. It will be easier for the accused to understand what is going on.
I have taken a moment or two to explain this matter because there has been serious misunderstanding of what is proposed. I hope that as a result of this short debate on the clause it will now be understood exactly what limited amendment is proposed.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. In relation to judicial examination, part of the problem within legal circles in Scotland is the use of the word "eliciting" in relation to admission. That can be phrased whichever way you like subject to the provisions of the Act as it presently stands. But to the layman it must mean that the procurator fiscal will, to put it in colloquial terms, "have a go" at the accused within the limits of the Act to see whether he will confess to what he has been charged with. That is a very dangerous inroad into the fairness of the criminal justice system in Scotland. It merits further consideration by the Government, perhaps taking account of what the various groups involved in the administration of criminal justice in Scotland have to say about it.

367
It is very difficult to look at this clause and say that it is not sinister. It certainly carries a sinister implication. If it will not make much difference to the law as it stands, why are the Government bothering with it? I know that it has been explained by the Minister and no doubt it will be read in the quarters that are involved in the administration of criminal justice in Scotland. Speaking for myself, with respect I am not convinced by the justification put forward for this step in the administration of criminal justice in Scotland.
I shall read with interest—I shall no doubt be regaled about it by various people—what has been said in the Chamber tonight.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of prosecutor to investigate lines of defence
.—(1) In section 20A of the 1975 Act, after subsection (3), there shall be inserted—
"(3A) The accused, before being asked any question by the prosecutor, shall be told by the sheriff that, if he answers any question in such a way as to disclose a line of defence (as for example alibi, incrimination, or the consent of an alleged victim), being a line of defence which is capable of being investigated at that time, the prosecutor will then be under a legal duty to investigate that line of defence thoroughly and as soon as is reasonably practicable".
(2) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) After any examination under this section has been completed it shall be the duty of the prosecutor, as soon as is reasonably practicable, personally or through his officers or officers of police, to investigate thoroughly any line of defence which is capable of being investigated at that time, provided it is a line of defence which has been disclosed by the accused in answer to any questions put to him by the prosecutor, and it shall be the duty of the prosecutor to disclose the full results of that investigation to the accused not later than the date of service of the indictment under section 70 of this Act.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: Section 20A which we have just been discussing was inserted by Section 6(2) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. It allowed questioning by the procurator fiscal at judicial examination. It included certain provisos. I refer in particular to the proviso contained in Section 20A(1) (a):
"Provided that the particular aims of the line of questions under this paragraph shall be to determine:
(1) whether any account which the accused can give ostensibly discloses a category of defence (as for example alibi, incrimination or the consent of an alleged victim)".
It goes on to say:
"and the nature and particulars of that offence".
So, if the procurator fiscal asks an accused person a question based upon the charge in the petition, which asserts that the accused was in Sauchiehall Street on a particular date at a particular time, and the accused replies, "I am perfectly willing to answer that question, I was not there", the procurator fiscal is then entitled to ask him, "Well, if you weren't there, would you be willing to tell us where you were?". He might also add, "Would you be willing to tell us who you were with?" and so on. In other words, he is entitled to ask the nature and particulars of a defence alibi. That seems to me to be entirely sensible and it has been accepted in practice since the Act came into force in 1981.
368
However, if one now looks at the source of this particular provision—namely, the Thomson Committee report—one finds that it is dealt with on page 43 in paragraph 8.14. That paragraph is concerned with the objects of judicial examination. It says:
"We consider that there are three objects … a. to afford to an accused at the earliest possible stage in the judicial process an opportunity of stating his position as regards the charge against him".
So it was conceived by Thomson in favour of the accused person. I continue from that paragraph, reading in short:
"There are matters, such as an embarrassing alibi, which an accused could disclose at this stage in the knowledge that, if investigation of the alibi satisfied the procurator fiscal of his innocence, he would be saved from any public disclosure of his private affairs".
I shall not read the rest of the paragraph; but the essence of the matter there and at paragraph 8.18, which is in similar vein, is to the effect that the accused who chooses to say, "I have an alibi" and gives the details of it can expect the procurator fiscal to investigate that alibi. If he gives a sound alibi, that is the time to do it, early on. The procurator fiscal has the resources to do it at that particular stage.
I have now looked at what happens in practice. I fear that in practice that ideal is not always followed. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will recall one case about which I wrote to him. For a number of reasons I shall not go into the details of that case. In essence, an accused person, having given the police at the time of his arrest a very limited account of his alibi, three days later at judicial examination gave a rather more detailed account. For administrative reasons, or by some kind of oversight, the second and much more detailed account was not investigated. In the event, he came to trial with a large number of alibi witnesses. I presided at the trial and so I can say that the jury, which took four minutes to acquit him, was thoroughly convinced of the soundness of the alibi that he advanced in respect of that particular charge.
I am concerned to bring the statute into line with the intentions which were expressed by Thomson and indeed by Ministers in this House in the debates on the 1980 Bill. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, in the light of his experience in general and of the occasional case that may go wrong, will not find that a difficult matter to deal with in principle.
So far as concerns the details of it, I put forward two aspects: first, that the sheriff will tell the accused of the duty which the later subsection places upon the prosecutor; namely, a duty to examine the background of the alleged special defence of incrimination or alibi. It is an encouragement to the accused for the sheriff to say to him, "Look, they are going to ask you questions. You do not have to answer them. But if you have an alibi or some such defence, tell us. The procurator fiscal has a statutory duty to investigate it". That is an encouragement to people at an early stage to come out with their account of where they have been or any other account that they choose to put before the court. I accept the whole point that was made earlier; namely, that an accused person does not know in great detail with what he is charged or what the evidence is against him. But

369
he knows if he was not there; and if he was there and saw the offence committed by somebody else or some such matter he can say, "Look, I don't have the resources to investigate this, but you do. This is the story; you investigate it." I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising the matter in this amendment. The thrust of his amendment is entirely acceptable to the Government. Indeed, we are very grateful to him for bringing it forward. I can be brief in reply because the noble and learned Lord explained the genesis of the judicial examination procedure and pointed out that it was designed, for example, to elicit alibis or give an opportunity to the accused to put forward an alibi. Obviously, it must have been envisaged that that should be investigated. For my part, I accept that that is entirely right.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned a particular case—and there are probably others—where what I would regard as the appropriate duty has not been fulfilled. It is entirely helpful in working out the system of judicial examination that the quid pro quo, so to speak, on the part of the procurator fiscal should be put on the face of the statute. So I am entirely happy in following the general thrust of the amendment. It seems to me that, as the noble and learned Lord envisaged, it might very well be a provision which would show to the accused person the advantage of taking that opportunity to put forward at an early stage an alibi which could be investigated and as a result the charge might be withdrawn. That, of course, would not always be so.
I do not feel able to accept the full detail of the provision as regards the duty which is envisaged on the part of the prosecutor to disclose in all cases the full results of the investigation. I should want to look a little more closely at that matter. I fully accept that, if the investigation discovers evidence or material that may be of assistance to the accused, the procurator fiscal should consider himself—he should already do so—under a duty to make such evidence or material known to the defence. Procurators fiscal are given general instructions to that effect.
There may be cases where no evidence is found or where in revealing a particular matter—for example, the fact that supposed witnesses in support of the alibi had indicated that they had been put under pressure by the accused—danger to witnesses might result if the full nature of the investigation were revealed. I feel that a blanket duty of this kind would not be acceptable.
However, as I said, I am entirely happy with the general thrust. If the noble and learned Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment on this occasion I shall undertake in due course to bring forward an amendment along similar lines when we have had a further chance to examine the matter.
Lord McCluskey: I am happy to accept the reply of the Lord Advocate on that point. I am conscious of the fact that when I put in the final part of the sentence,
"it shall be the duty of the prosecutor to disclose the full results",
370
I was going too far. In Scotland we do not want to end up with the situation where "statutory" means that a solemn duty is laid upon the Lord Advocate or his staff to disclose everything that an investigation reveals.
It is difficult to draw a line, particularly in a statute. Where we can avoid the need for that in Scotland lies in the fact that it is the tradition for the Lord Advocate, the Crown Office, to act as Ministers of justice. I believe that we will be able to found upon that. The Lord Advocate may consider couching his amendment in terms of a duty on the procurator fiscal to disclose such results of the investigation as appear to him to be reasonable and proper in all the circumstances. I have no doubt that some such formulation would meet my concerns. I am happy that the Government are willing in principle to accept the point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 20:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Video recording of police Interviews with suspects
.—(1) In any solemn criminal proceedings there shall, where practicable, be available to the defence and to the prosecution, a video record of the police interviews with the accused.
(2) The video record shall be—

(a) recorded on standard equipment approved for the purpose; and

(b) sealed by two officers upon completion of the interviews and signed by the same two officers who declare that the video record has not been damaged or tampered with.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 20 seeks to bring into focus the question of the tape recording of suspects or accused persons in police stations. It is tabled bearing in mind that in 1988 an experiment began on tape recording—not video recording—in police stations. The Criminal Justice Act 1980 allowed the police to detain people for up to six hours while they were being questioned. However, the second report of the Thomson Committee said that interrogation of suspects in police stations must be recorded on tape. I do not know how far that experiment has gone. The last figures with which I was provided were that in 1991–92 the procurator fiscal received 15,060 tapes from the police. That is a mere fraction of the reported cases, which numbered nearly 900,000 in 1991, and it was supposed to be a rolling programme of recording interviews of suspects in police custody.
The then Secretary of State for Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind, said at that time in 1980,
"The Government's view quite firmly and quite clearly is that, if the tape recording experiments which are presently being conducted in Dundee and Falkirk are shown to produce no insuperable difficulties, it is our firm intention to implement these proposals at the earliest opportunity".
He went on to say that he did not see the question of resources as being of any significance in implementing the question of tape recording. That was in 1980 and refers to sound tape recording. The amendment seeks to obtain information from the Government as to what facilities are available in police stations throughout

371
Scotland to interview people on video tape in serious cases. I am informed that out of 569 police stations in Scotland—on the question of sound tape recording pure and simple—only 129 stations actually possessed the facility to record an interview between the police and the suspect.
Amendment No. 20 is in the nature of a probing amendment to ask the Government—I do not expect an instant answer this evening but certainly between now and the Report stage of the Bill—to inform the Chamber of the state of play in relation to the question of facilities, first, for sound tape recording and, secondly, for video tape recording within police stations in Scotland. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: If the Government are seriously considering this amendment, perhaps I can once again make a small appeal. I ask that clauses covering roughly the same subject be put together. Amendment No. 20, introducing this clause, should perhaps be attached to Clause 20, which deals with video surveillance and recordings.
While I am on my feet perhaps I can ask whether, with today's advances in technology, in the case of a police interview about which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, spoke, we are necessarily using the right word. I may be entirely wrong, but there is also the question of cassettes with audio recordings as well as video recordings, which is vision recording. That should perhaps be considered in the legislation. I know that I am on dangerous ground and I am not awfully well up on these subjects. However, that is what I wanted to say.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: To whichever matter one attaches Amendment No. 20, it is clearly a probing amendment. Though I cannot give the noble Lord the detail for which he asks in relation to the numbers of police stations and so forth, I am happy to write to him between now and Report. However, Members of the Committee who are involved in criminal trials will be aware, certainly in solemn procedure, that it has become very much the case that tape recordings are available of police interviews. They are extremely helpful in eliminating from trials much sterile discussion which used to take place as to what was or was not said at the time of an interview. That has been generally beneficial to the conduct of prosecutions and the interests of justice in Scotland.
It is of course the case that not all police stations possess such recording facilities; it is not necessary that all should. However, it is necessary that equipment should be available in various areas of the country where it can be used conveniently.
With regard to video recording, in one sense that seems to be the logical development, and the position is that technology has now advanced sufficiently to allow for interviews to be recorded on video cassettes. They provide a further benefit in that they may portray the demeanour of the suspect and the interviewers. To that extent they allow a clearer assessment to be made of the fairness of the interviews.
372
The use of video recording equipment at such interviews is a recent development. A pilot exercise was carried out in one Scottish police force over a period of six months. The conclusions from that exercise—it was a limited one—suggested that video recording provided additional safeguards, both to the suspect and to the police. It also had one further benefit; that is, it helped senior officers to see how the interviewers conducted the questioning and so forth, enabling them to help improve standards in that way. Where video recordings have been made, and where they are to be used, they have been made available to the defence and the prosecution.
As far as we can see, there is no need to put any arrangements on a statutory basis. We think that we should examine further, in the light of the experience so far, what the benefits would be of the wider use of video recording. For that reason we envisage that we may wish to commission a wider investigation than has been possible so far to assess exactly the value of the benefits obtained from the use of video recording.
I therefore say to the noble Lord that I shall write to him with the details. I can assure him that the matter of the possible introduction of video recording is one which is being considered.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I look forward to receiving his letter with the full details. I shall not pursue the question of which area the exercise was carried out in because I do not think that that would be productive. But no doubt some statistics will be provided to those interested in that aspect of the law. One of the problems which we all recognise is that, whether in sound or in vision, there will always be the complaint that the suspect was primed to do what he did on tape, either visually or otherwise. But that is a matter for juries to determine or judges sitting alone. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Agreement of evidence]:
8.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 21, it may be for the convenience of the Committee to know that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 22 to 25.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferrymoved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 36, leave out from ("(1)") to ("and") in line 39 and insert ("subject to subsection (1A) below, the prosecutor and the accused shall each identify any facts which are facts—

(a) which he would, apart from this section, be seeking to prove;

(b) which he considers unlikely to be disputed by the other party; and

(c) in proof of which he does not wish to lead oral evidence,").

The noble and learned Lord said: There are four government amendments to the clause, Amendments Nos. 21, 26, 28 and 29. The creation of the new duty envisaged in terms of Clause 11 for agreement on evidence is not intended to have the effect of preventing

373
important oral evidence—for example, that of the victim—from being heard. Amendments Nos. 21 and 28 are designed to make that matter explicit.
Amendments Nos. 26 and 29 make it clear that each party is under a duty to take reasonable steps to agree the facts that one party identified. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: In the light of the information that, if Amendment No. 21 is agreed to, we cannot consider certain other amendments, I shall address the Committee on Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25. These are fairly small amendments but, looking at the Bill itself, the Committee will appreciate that the new Section 84A of the 1975 Act lays upon the prosecutor and the accused a duty each to,
"identify any facts which he would otherwise be seeking to prove which he considers are unlikely to be disputed by the other party".
There are three features of that provision which I should like to pick up on. First, the duty imposed should be imposed upon the prosecutor but not upon an accused person. It is a possible infringement of the right of silence to impose upon an accused person a solemn duty to identify facts which he is seeking to prove and which he considers are unlikely to be disputed. It is not a serious inroad but nonetheless a real one.
I also note that, although that duty is created in these peremptory terms, no sanction is imposed for breach of it. Perhaps the Lord Advocate can tell me in terms what sanction will be imposed on an accused person who is called upon to identify a fact which he seeks to prove and which he thinks is unlikely to be disputed. I do not follow that. It may be that I have not properly read Section 84 of the 1975 Act. My Amendment No. 22 seeks to remove the obligation on an accused person to seek to identify such facts. I shall refer to that later on when I move the new clause which I suggest should take the place of this provision.
The background to this is the Scottish Law Commission report to which I have already referred. I draw attention in particular to paragraph 4.27 of that document. Again, it is unnecessary to go into the latter in great detail, but the Scottish Law Commission considered the very point as to whether the duty should be imposed upon an accused person. Paragraph 4.27 states:
"We considered whether it should be possible for the defence to operate the new procedure"—
the new procedure being identification of facts for challenge or not—
"and decided that it should not for two reasons. First, there are advantages which we have mentioned in placing the initiative on the prosecution. Secondly, in a case where the defence wished to propose that certain facts or documents should not be disputed at the trial, there should be no difficulty in discussing with the prosecutor the framing of a minute of admission".
That passage recognises the reality that if the defence want to agree something, they will take the initiative and come forward and say, "Look, we do not want to stop these witnesses going on holiday. Here are six of them who all say this. Would you agree to that?" The Crown
374
would investigate and, unless there were some strong reason, would agree. The passage goes on to recommend in paragraph 4.28:
"We therefore recommend that responsibility for initiating the procedure described in the following recommendation should lie with the prosecutor".
The general thrust of this is that the prosecutor should take the initiative.
In paragraphs 4.17, 4.20 and 4.21 the same document deals with the possible infringement of the right of silence. I mention that because the Law Commission sees it in the context of the European Convention on Human Rights. From reading paragraph 4.21, it is clear that careful thought and extensive consultation would be required before any reforms of this kind could be recommended for Scotland. In effect, what the Scottish Law Commission is considering there is the role of the judge as a kind of intervener in a sense—stepping in and saying, "Tell me, what are you agreeing here?". In substance, this clause makes the judge an intervener. I have no objection to that in principle, but the clause lays upon the accused the duty to identify the facts with the word "shall".
The other point is a small one, but it is one which I would like the Government to consider. When the prosecutor, or if the Bill remains in its present form, the prosecutor or the accused, comes forward, he is to identify any facts,
"which he would otherwise be seeking to prove which he considers are unlikely to be disputed".
Very often the prosecutor will know and the defence will know what is going to be disputed. There is a good deal of merit in the prosecutor in particular having in his mind what we in Scottish legal practice would call a note of line of evidence. He would say, "What do I have to prove in this case?" He has to prove point A, locus; point B, time; point C, action; point D, result; and so on. Some of those will be disputed and some may not be. Therefore, he should not be confined to putting into the draft document on the statement of facts those which he thinks are unlikely to be disputed. He should be free and, indeed, encouraged to put forward others as well. Therefore, Amendment No. 24—and there is another amendment elsewhere—is to that effect.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to delete the word "the" and substitute the word "any". The point is that there may be more than two parties—a prosecutor and an accused person. There may be more than one accused. The appropriate wording would therefore be "any" rather than "the". That is a point of detail and there is no need to do any more than to consider that in future.
Accordingly, in substance, all I want to happen here is that the prosecutor shall consider what he has to prove. He states these matters in an articulate fashion with discreet statements of fact. He puts them to the defence and they are free to agree them or not. That is so simple that it would tend to work in practice. For those reasons, if I get that far, I shall move the amendments on that basis.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I shall not detain the Committee for any length of time. This clause appears to be a statement of intent rather than having any real

375
teeth or bite to it. It is to take all reasonable steps to agree uncontroversial evidence. As the noble and learned Lord has just said, what happens when an accused does not? If he is legally represented and he tells his lawyer that he is not prepared to agree to anything, what will be made of that in the course of the trial? For example, if in the course of the trial he says, "Yes, that is true" is the prosecutor able to say to him, "Why did you not agree that when you were asked by the prosecutor between the service of the indictment and the swearing of the jury?" That is the usual line of cross-examination. I merely ask that seeking information and not as a matter of criticism.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I start by saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, moved Amendment No. 25. I am happy to accept that in principle and we shall need to look at the drafting of it. He has identified a point which is correct in connection with the situation where there is more than one accused.
Lord McCluskey: The noble and learned Lord will appreciate that I have not moved Amendment No. 25 and I shall be unable to do so if he persists with Amendment No. 21. As long as the noble and learned Lord understands the point, as he plainly does, that is good enough for me.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: That is on the basis that the noble and learned Lord's amendment has drawn attention to a matter which would require to be dealt with. As regards the wider thrust of the noble and learned Lord's remarks, we have considered carefully the question, especially in the light of the report of the Scottish Law Commission, whether the duty should be one which is exclusively on the prosecution.
We came to the view that in reality, whatever the exact technical matter as to whether there was a breach which the noble and learned Lord described as not a serious inroad into any right of silence, there was much to be said for a duty of this kind on the defence. The noble and learned Lord and also the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, asked what the sanction was. There is clearly no sanction of the kind which was envisaged as being raised in the course of a trial in that way.
I would not describe it as a sanction, but where it bites, as the Committee can see from Clause 12, there is introduced an additional Section 75A which deals with the first diet. Section 75A(1) (b) says,
"the extent to which the prosecutor and the accused have complied with the duty under section 84A(1) of this Act".
It is a duty which can be focused at a hearing of this kind.
It seems to me that there is advantage from the defence point of view where they exercise the part which refers to them. Where they identify something which they wish to prove, if they think it is unlikely that the prosecution would dispute it, they should then be able to invoke the duty which is then put on the prosecution to take all reasonable steps to agree with them. Although I shall be the last person to say that the prosecution system in Scotland does not take all possible steps to act properly and to agree things where that is
376
possible, something may be said for having a duty of this kind put plainly on the face of the statute so that it is known that that is what has to be done in that circumstance. Therefore, it seems to us that the provision here is balanced.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, while opposed to the general tenor of these provisions as far as the defence is concerned, would seek to widen them a little by changing them from matters which the prosecutor or the defence consider unlikely to be disputed although they may be disputed.
That is a matter for judgment because the whole provision, which applies generally to these matters, for seeking agreement requires a certain expenditure of time and effort. One has to judge whether or not it is likely that that time and effort used in seeking agreement is going to prove fruitful. There is nothing against a prosecutor or the defence seeking to get wider agreement if they can. Nonetheless, in so far as this matter is imposing a duty, it seems to us that it is appropriate that that duty should be imposed. The obligation to take these steps should be imposed, but only where it is thought unlikely that the matters will be disputed. If one goes wider than that, there is the risk that people will be put under a duty which they may then be tempted not to fulfil. They will be put under a duty which is unlikely to be fruitful as a result.
Overall, I say to the Committee that these are matters where we believe the balance has been correctly struck and that they will have a beneficial effect in leading to a situation where people are not brought to court unnecessarily in order to give evidence. Anyone who has been a law officer knows that one of the matters on which one receives letters is where people are brought to court and feel that that has been unnecessary. I do not believe that one can envisage that necessarily a great deal of evidence will be agreed, but there are people—for example, householders—who are brought along to speak to the fact that their house has been burgled.
The experience so far of the use of preliminary diets which have been taking place in their new form for the better part of a year, indicates that in a great many cases we are getting agreement on such matters and, likewise, where cars have been stolen, and so on. That is all to the good. These are matters which we believe are unlikely to be disputed. It is because of that experience that the test which we are putting forward is an acceptable one.
Lord McCluskey: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not conclude that he has no more thinking to do on this matter. I share with him the objective which he has mentioned. For obvious reasons, one wants to reduce the unnecessary burden of bringing witnesses to court. The question is this: what is the best way to do it? My judgment is different from his. The judgment of the Scottish Law Commission was also different from his on this particular matter. It would be prudent to think about it again.
What concerns me is that when one looks at the wording as far as the prosecutor is concerned, he has a duty to do something if he considers the point is unlikely to be disputed. Therefore, in a sense, there could not be

377
a sanction there because one would have to test his honesty if he says, "I consider that it is unlikely to be disputed". It may be that the imposition of the duty is to impose an extremely light burden on the prosecutor. That is not what the Scottish Law Commission or I envisaged in the amendments proposed to an earlier Bill in this House.
My second point is that in many cases—I am thinking of a great many cases where the matter is reported to the fiscal by the police—he does not have the slightest idea of what the accused will or will not dispute. The accused has made no reply to the police, the police have collected certain bits of evidence and have no idea either. As a result the duty does not arise.
My third point arises because of something in the clause that was mentioned in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. It ties in particularly with Clause 12, which we have not yet reached, but which states:
"the court shall ascertain whether the case is likely to proceed to trial on the date assigned … and … the state of preparation of the prosecutor and of the accused with respect to their cases".
If a defence solicitor who is falling under the duty imposed by the clause that we are now discussing then appears before the sheriff in terms of Clause 12 and declines to co-operate, is he going to be reported to the Law Society as in breach of some duty that he owes towards the court which has been imposed upon him by an Act of Parliament? I wonder whether that point has really been thought through and whether the advice of the Law Society of Scotland has been sought on those provisions and, if so, what it is. Perhaps we can return to this point on another occasion when the Lord Advocate has thought it through a little further.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I commend Amendment No. 21 to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 not moved.]
9 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferrymoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("agree them") and insert ("secure the other party's agreement to them; and the other party shall take all reasonable steps to reach such agreement.
(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to proceedings against an accused who is not legally represented.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 7, line 4, at end insert:
("() 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.").
The noble Lord said: This is the second time that this amendment has appeared in the House. It was put before your Lordships in one of our previous debates on criminal proceedings in 1993. It is interesting to note
378
that the Government are anxious to secure as much agreement as possible as early as possible between the accused and the prosecutor. It is not reasonable to ask accused persons to agree material unless they know what the evidence in the case is. The purpose of the amendment is to specify that,
"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 … whether he intends to found upon them"
in the course of a prosecution. Everybody shakes their heads and says that that will result in the production of lorry-loads of material. To that I say, "So what?" If the state is launching a prosecution against an individual, that individual is just as entitled to the information upon which the charge may be based as the prosecutor. It is for the prosecutor to decide what use he wants to make of it. Equally, the defence should be allowed to see everything that has been recovered in the course of an inquiry so that it can look at the evidence that will be presented to the court to see whether the prosecutor has in his possession matters that are of value to the defence, but in which the prosecution is not interested. Unfortunately, in the past two years there have been cases in which the ground for appeal was that material in the possession of the Crown was not disclosed to the defence.
One of the main objectives behind the amendment is to ensure that such an appeal cannot be launched at a later stage in the proceedings—whether that be one year, 10 years or 20 years after the conviction. The defence should not be able to say to the Court of Appeal that the Crown had such material in its possession but did not tell the defence about it. Whether the Crown deliberately withheld the evidence is neither here not there; the real issue is that any evidence is evidence in the broad sense of the word and it matters not to whom it relates. Therefore, the prosecutor and the defence should have equal access to all evidence and an equal opportunity to use the material that is in the possession of the prosecutor for the purposes of the trial.
I believe that it was a Government Minister in the 1980s who said, "You cannot put a price on justice", and when the party in government changes, we shall have to look at that point. Those words may be true, but you cannot put a price on facts. If certain facts have to be determined in a case, they should be determined in the light of all the evidence that is available as a result of the state's investigation and should not be withheld from the defence for any reason whatsoever apart from where an immunity certificate is involved. However, I shall not go into that now because it is a delicate area and we have enough to contend with in this Bill without that. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I cannot accept the amendment. As the noble Lord will be aware, as far as prosecutors in Scotland are concerned, the overriding principle is, and has always been, that the Crown must always act in the interests of justice. As part of that general approach, all members of the procurator fiscal service are reminded that they must disclose to the defence any information which supports the defence case even though it may be damaging to the Crown's

379
case. They are also told that the overall aim is to try to ensure that the true facts of any case are laid before the judge or the jury. That is the fundamental starting point.
Many members of the Committee will be aware that there have been cases in England and Wales in recent years in which critical issues in relation to disclosure have arisen and where rather wide-ranging doctrines of disclosure have been laid down. I do not comment on the position in England and Wales except to say that it is common knowledge that that has proved to be a particularly difficult and burdensome matter for the police. In addition, it is not always clear that the best way to advance the interests of justice is for the defence to be, in effect, snowed under with documents.
That is an important point to remember in the context of a system such as ours which prides itself, and rightly prides itself, on the idea of getting people to trial within 110 days. We are dealing with a very different system. We are also dealing with a different system in that it is most important to remember that, whereas in England and Wales the defence does not have the right to investigate a case by going and precognoscing the witnesses for the Crown, that has always been the practice in Scotland. The defence can investigate the case itself. The defence is therefore in a position to see the witnesses, to deduce what is the case, and to investigate it on its own behalf.
The background in Scotland is different from that in England in that situation, and a sweeping measure of this kind does not seem to me to be necessary. For example if the amendment is taken literally, then all material relating to the charge or charges, however irrelevant or obviously ill-founded it might be, would have to be made available. All sorts of pieces of paper would have to be made available. In such a situation, agents and counsel would rightly feel under a duty to go through all the material. That would lead inevitably to the kind of delays which are already happening in England because of the wide disclosure system. The basic approach of the amendment is misconceived. It does not address the issues as they arise in Scotland, and I cannot accept it.
Lord McCluskey: I support the Lord Advocate's position in this matter. At an earlier stage, in a slightly different context, I explained that I retained my faith in the Lord Advocate's Office as being a Ministry of Justice. That is important, and I was especially interested when a case came before me recently which illustrated a further difference between England and Scotland in that regard. In that case counsel came forward with a specification of documents, essentially to recover everything that the Crown had obtained in the course of the investigation. I refused to allow that to be granted. In the course of the discussion, the Crown declined to support a dictum by another judge in another case in which the court seemed to be saying that the Crown had a right to conceal matters from the defence. That may be going too far, but that is how it was understood in the profession.
The Crown still has its heart in the right place in that regard. The word "heart" comes to mind because I believe that the English case related to Judith Hart. Was
380
it Judith Hart? I cannot remember. The English case was the one that horrified me: the idea that tea chests full of documents had to be delivered to the defence at enormous public cost -money being diverted from other social and legal services—then the tea chests had to be analysed just in case there was something there.
We are fortunate in Scotland in that we have speedy trials, and we have a Crown Office that does the job thoroughly. I am happy to support the position of the Lord Advocate in this matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I was interested to hear the contributions made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I did not find them convincing. I am not interested in whether the Lord Advocate—I use the term broadly, not with reference to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate himself—or the Crown Office think that something discovered in the course of an inquiry is relevant or not, or whether it is ill founded. That is for the defence to decide. That is why the amendment is carefully worded. It does not envisage what the noble and learned Lord described: that a solicitor will come along and pick up a couple of tea chests full of copy productions, take them along to his office and spend a couple of weeks going through them.
The only obligation on the prosecutor is to make such material available. I can clearly remember a fraud case in which I was involved. It was only after a great battle with the Crown Office that we managed to obtain access to a number of papers and files. The Crown Office had them but we could not see them. I cannot remember whether seeing them was of any advantage—it may not have been. However, a great deal of time was taken up in trying to persuade the Crown Office at least to let us see the files. Only after a long battle were we allowed access to the documents. I cannot understand the objection that is raised.
No one will be snowed under with documents. We ask only that the cloud of secrecy is removed from criminal investigations in Scotland. The accused or his representatives should be allowed to see the evidence and the background to it just as much as the prosecutor. After all, the state brings the prosecution and there is no reason why the individual, who is having a case brought against him by the state, should not have access to state documents.
I understand that in some continental countries—for instance, in Sweden—one can walk down to the procurator's office and ask to see the file on a case, even that in respect of a murder. One can read the statements and do whatever one likes. At one time, the press were free to use the statements in the procurator's file. I do not encourage that, but perhaps the amendment will encourage openness between the Crown and the accused and will encourage the defence to agree the matters to which the Bill and earlier amendments relate.
Obviously I shall get nowhere with the amendment tonight. I shall note with interest what the noble and learned Lord said and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

381
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferrymoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 7, line 7, leave out from ("(1)") to (" and") in line 10 and insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below, the prosecutor and the accused shall each identify any facts which are facts—

(a) which he would, apart from this section, be seeking to prove;

(b) which he considers unlikely to be disputed by the other party; and

(c) in proof of which he does not wish to lead oral evidence,").

The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferrymoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 13, leave out ("agree them") and insert ("secure the other party's agreement to them; and the other party shall take all reasonable steps to reach such agreement.
(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to proceedings against an accused who is not legally represented.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 11 and insert the following new clause:
("Facts not to be disputed at trial
.—(1) This section applies where in any criminal proceedings (whether they are proceedings on indictment or summary proceedings)—

(a) it appears to the prosecutor that there are facts which are or may be uncontroversial; and

(b) the prosecutor has—

(i) specified those facts, in a statement signed by him or on his behalf, as facts which, unless they are challenged under this section, shall be deemed to have been conclusively proved under subsection (2) below; and

(ii) served a copy of the statement on the accused not less than 14 days before the trial.

(2) Where this section applies, then, unless the accused or, if there are two or more co-accused, at least one of the accused has served notice on the prosecutor in accordance with subsection (3) below that he challenges any matter contained in the statement, the facts so far as unchallenged shall be deemed to have been conclusively proved.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) above shall be served not less than 6 days before the trial or by such later time as the court may in special circumstances allow, being not later than the time when the trial commences.
(4) Subsection (2) above shall not preclude a party from leading evidence of circumstances relevant to, or other evidence in explanation of, any matter contained in the statement concerned.
(5) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, the presiding judge—

(a) may, on the motion of any party made within the relevant period, in special circumstances; or

(b) shall, on the joint motion of the parties made within the relevant period,

direct that the service of a copy of a statement on the accused under this section shall be of no effect in relation to such matter contained in the statement as is specified in the direction.
(6) In subsection (5) above "the relevant period" means the period beginning with the commencement of the trial and ending with the commencement, in the case of—
382

(a) proceedings on indictment, of the speeches to the jury;

(b) summary proceedings, of the address by the prosecutor to the judge on the evidence.

(7) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (6) above, a trial commences, in the case of—

(a) proceedings on indictment, when the oath is administered to the jury;

(b) summary proceedings, when the first witness is sworn.

(8) Where the accused has served a notice under this section or, if there are two or more co-accused, at least one of the accused has served such a notice, then, the fact of the service of the copy of the statement under subsection (1) above so far as it relates to the matter challenged, or of the service of that notice, shall not be referred to, if the proceedings are—

(a) on indictment, in the presence of the jury before the verdict is returned; or

(b) summary proceedings, before the judge is satisfied that the charge concerned is proved.

(9) A statement mentioned in subsection (1) above shall be in such form as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal.
(10) A copy of a statement required to be served on the accused, or a notice required to be served on the prosecutor, under this section may either be personally served on the accused or the prosecutor (as the case may be) or sent to him by registered post or by the recorded delivery service; and a written execution purporting to be signed by the person who served such copy or notice, together with, where appropriate, a post office receipt for the relevant registered or recorded delivery letter shall be sufficient evidence of such service.
(11) This section shall not apply in relation to proceedings commenced before the coming into force of this section; and for the purposes of this subsection solemn proceedings are commenced when the indictment is served.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I can deal with the amendment briefly, although it is the longest in the Marshalled List, because as they say in California, "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out where this came from". It is lifted almost straight from the proposed Clause 7 of the Criminal Evidence Bill contained in the Scottish Law Commission Report. I made only one important amendment. In subsection (1) (a) of the proposed new clause I have added the words, "or may be" in order to make the point that, under the heading "Facts not to be disputed at the trial", if it appears to the prosecutor that there are facts which are or may be uncontroversial the prosecutor has this obligation.
I need not deal with the amendment at great length because I have already dealt with the general matters of principle. However, in order to assist the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, the Minister, and their respective staffs—I believe that this falls within the jurisdiction of the Lord Advocate—I draw attention to what I said in respect of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill on 17th May, 1990—reported at col. 425 of the Official Report. I had intended to refer to paragraphs 4.1 to 4.26 of the Scottish Law Commission Report. However, we also have paragraph 36.04 of the Thomson Committee report, which is interesting to note. The question at issue was who should have the responsibility for taking initiative in reaching agreement. The conclusion was:
"We therefore recommend that the initiative for reaching agreement on these matters should lie with the Crown".
I wish to repeat what I have said many times; that in practical terms the Crown has an experienced and competent fiscal service. In Scotland it is served by a

383
diligent police force which does the Lord Advocate's bidding as it is required to do by statute. Therefore, all the facilities exist for the prosecution to establish the facts. Furthermore, as the burden of proof rests on the prosecution from start to finish, the prosecution knows what facts must be established. Accordingly, it is right for many reasons —and these are the principal reasons—that the initiative should lie with the prosecution.
On the other side of the fence, one has a legally-aided solicitor whose budget is substantially smaller, whose facilities are negligible compared with those of the Crown and whose diary is likely to be full of many other cases. Therefore, it is right that there should not be an equality of obligation; the duty should lie on the Crown. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: In speaking to the amendment, the noble and learned Lord really referred to some of the things that he had already said this evening. In the vast majority of cases, I accept, in practical terms, that the prosecution will have the interest in operating a system of agreement. As the noble and learned Lord said, they will have the burden of proof and therefore they will be seeking to establish matters.
Clause 14 provides the machinery for uncontroversial evidence in the Bill. Of course, as we have already seen, the duty, such as it is, lies in Clause 11: but Clause 14 is the one that gives the power. We say that it is useful for the power in Clause 14 to be available to the defence where they wish to use it. If, for example, they have some matter in relation to the identification of a car or something like that which they think the prosecution would not dispute and which it would be useful to get agreed, we believe that it is desirable that the machinery should be available to them as well as the prosecutor. For that reason, we think that such a provision is indeed desirable.
So far as concerns the detail of the clause, I can say on behalf of the Government that we are happy to look through the noble and learned Lord's proposed new clause to ascertain whether we can learn from the language that he has used, as opposed to seeing whether any improvements can be made to the provision.
In the light of the approach that we have taken to the matter of whether the defence should be able to use the machinery—namely, that we believe that such machinery should be available to them—we cannot accept a version which limits that availability to matters for the prosecution as the amendment suggests.
Lord McCluskey: I do not propose to press the matter at this stage. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate mentioned making the machinery available. There is no problem about the Government's approach to the matter as regards having the machinery available to the defence. The defence are always able to approach the Crown and say, "Look, we are willing to agree this, and we are willing to agree that". The question is: who has the initiative? The machinery is designed to impose an equal burden or opportunity on both sides, although they do not have
384
equal resources. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look very carefully at the matter to see whether he has made a great error in imposing in this group of clauses an equality of burden on the two sides. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [First and preliminary diets in solemn proceedings]:
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 27, after ("shall") insert ("seek to").
The noble and learned Lord said: I now turn to a group of amendments starting with Amendment No. 31 and continuing through to Amendment No. 38. The amendments which are tabled in my name deal with a number of related matters. Amendments Nos. 31 and 37 both attempt to insert the words "seek to" into Clause 12. If one turns to line 27 of page 7 of the Bill, it will be seen that the purpose of the amendments is to avoid imposing on the court the duty to do something which it may be impossible for it to do. As presently worded, the provision reads, "the court shall ascertain".
I have already drawn attention to the fact that the accused cannot be compelled to take part in that business. There is no sanction and I hope that I shall not be told that it is unethical to decline to co-operate. Accordingly, a duty is imposed upon the court to ascertain. The logic of my amendment is that the provision would simply say that the court, "shall seek to ascertain". That is the sensible way to put it. It reflects the reality of the situation.
Amendment No. 36 is a related amendment. Its wording spells out all that one needs to know; namely, that,
"the accused shall not be obliged to answer any such question and if he does not answer that shall not be commented upon by the judge or the prosecutor at any later stage of the proceedings".
That is to negative the possibility of an informal sanction; in other words, people alleging at some later stage of the proceedings that someone could have answered but did not do so.
These are all pinpricks into the right of silence at this stage in the proceedings. Those are the matters to which I wish to draw attention. For the moment, I shall content myself with moving Amendment No. 31. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This clause, as I think the noble and learned Lord appreciates, is an important part of our package of reforms of pre-trial procedure. It places a clear responsibility on the court, at a first or preliminary diet, to make a judgment about the likelihood of a case going to trial.
These amendments, one for first diets and the other for preliminary diets, would, as we see it, weaken this responsibility by requiring the court only to "seek to" ascertain whether the trial is likely to proceed on time. This would allow the court merely to make an attempt to determine if the case is likely to proceed on time but not in the end reach any conclusion. In that event, the important new duties placed on the court by the new subsections (8) and (9) and (1C) and (1D) of Sections 75A and 337A of the 1975 Act by Clauses 12 and 13

385
respectively would be rendered nugatory. The purpose of Clauses 12 and 13 is to ensure that cases are fully prepared before the trial diet. I think it is clear enough that the purpose behind that is to reduce as much as possible the number of occasions when the parties and all the witnesses turn up for a trial which does not take place. I do not imagine there is anyone who does not think that is a wholly desirable objective; it is a matter of whether we are going about this in quite the right way.
While I understand the noble and learned Lord's concern that in some circumstances it may be a difficult task for him to ascertain whether a case is likely to proceed, it is nevertheless important, if there is to be any success in our pre-trial procedures, that the court should reach some judgment about that probability. If a court fails to do that, we will find ourselves muddling forward in the way that has proved so unsatisfactory in the past. In short, we believe that what the noble and learned Lord proposes waters this matter down a little too much. However, I understand his anxiety about the extent of the existing duty. I shall have a look at this matter again so long as he does not understand by that that I am indicating I shall necessarily return with an amendment on it. However, I have heard his argument.
The noble and learned Lord also mentioned Amendments Nos. 36 and 38. Although they are grouped separately I do not know whether he wishes me to deal with them now or later.
Lord McCloskey: I shall deal with the point that has been made. It may be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will consider including some such phrase as "so far as reasonably practicable" so that the court is not laid upon an absolute duty to ascertain something which it may not be able to ascertain. That is one suggestion which the noble and learned Lord need not respond to tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCloskeyhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, leave out lines 32 to 34.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a consequential amendment and I shall not move it. However, I should draw attention to the fact that the whole character of Section 75A is such that the judge is made very much interventionist. I hope that has been carefully thought through. It is a matter in a sense beyond my ken because I am not involved in summary cases and we have not had this system, or anything like it, so far in the High Court. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmylliemoved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("67") and insert ("76").
Page 8, line 2, after ("Act;") insert:
386
("() that there are documents the truth of the contents of which ought in his view to be admitted, or that there is any other matter which in his view ought to be agreed;").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. The Committee will be pleased to know that these are technical in nature, correcting minor errors in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 6, after ("accused") insert ("or where he is represented, his solicitor").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment. It has been put forward by the Law Society of Scotland, not because of any self-interest in relation to the income of solicitors but as a safeguard for the accused in the light of the matters which an accused person may have to agree with the prosecutor. It seems proper that if the accused is represented then he should have an opportunity to discuss matters with his solicitor before he reaches any agreement with the prosecutor. There are technical and legal matters contained in this particular clause of the Bill, and it is in the interests of justice to the accused that, if he has a solicitor, he should have access to his solicitor to discuss these matters. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not think that there is anything between us on this matter. The amendment requires that the procedure for the new mandatory diets provided for in Clause 12 be amended to state explicitly that the court may ask questions of the accused, if the accused is represented, through his solicitor. The intention of the clause is certainly to permit questioning of the accused through his solicitor. That is not stated explicitly in the clause because in our view it does not need to be. That is because such questioning would be permitted by virtue of the ordinary law of agency. It would therefore be inappropriate to make express provision for solicitors, particularly given that there is another relevant category of agency; namely advocates.
I hope that with that brief reassurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps the amendment should have read "his representative" rather than "his solicitor". However, having heard what the noble and learned Lord had to say about the matter I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmylliemoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, leave out lines 13 to 16.
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 I spoke to Amendment No. 39. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

387
("Calculation of specified period: effect of detention
In section 101 of the 1975 Act after subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
"(7) The running of the 12 months period specified in subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed to be interrupted by the detention of the accused on remand in any other part of the United Kingdom and that period shall be deemed not to run during any period while the accused is detained on remand in any other part of the United Kingdom in a prison, borstal institution, remand centre, detention centre or remand home.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: At Second Reading I mentioned the Rowan case. That will be found at col. 567 of Hansard for 29th November 1994. I do not find it necessary to add anything to what I said then except that there has to be some legislative solution. It is better that it should be delivered swiftly rather than postponed.
The Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, wrote to me on 8th December, 1994 saying:
"I agree that the present position is not satisfactory. But in seeking to remedy it we must, I believe, take account of the effect of transfer on proceedings in England and Wales as well as Scotland".
He has been in touch with the Home Office to invite officials to consider what is to be done.
In essence, what is being said is that we cannot legislate to remove this Scottish problem until the English Home Office decides to stir itself and do something about it. It is not for me to comment on the mysteries of government in any way, but I have sought to provide an internal Scottish solution to the problem. It is one which simply puts into statute a statutory interruption of the running of the 12-month period specified in Section 101(1).
I do not like to do this. I am strongly in favour, as I am sure that Ministers are, of our system of time checks. On the other hand, we have to recognise that when that situation occurs, we either allow the time to run out and the person gets off altogether—he is not brought to trial, simply because he is remanded in custody in England —or we have to go to the court and seek an extension on cause shown. That is an expensive operation. It may well not be granted in particular cases and we could therefore again lose a prosecution.
The third solution is something of this kind. I do not suppose that the amendment is technically perfect. But I hope that if not tonight, at least between now and the final stages of the Bill in this House, the Government will consider some solution along those lines. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward the amendment. As he has explained the matter, I do not need to go into it in detail. The problem arises where someone in Scotland is due to come for trial but is in custody in England. In the legislation as framed at present, it is not possible for that person to be released for trial in Scotland. Since relevant time limits run in Scotland, the result is that there is a danger that those time limits may be infringed with the result that trial in Scotland of offences in Scotland would not be possible. That is clearly undesirable. Although much less likely,
388
there is certainly potential for a case to occur the other way round: for proceedings to be debarred in England by virtue of a similar situation with someone in custody in Scotland.
I do not believe that the matter has arisen simply due to a legislative oversight. I think that the position was regarded as being more complicated and difficult to resolve than those which were dealt with by the Criminal Justice Act 1961. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, the position has been the subject of discussion since the time of the Rowan case last year which thrust the matter once more to our attention.
I believe that the noble and learned Lord is right in envisaging his solution as being somewhat second best. However, I am grateful to him for putting it forward. Until a better solution can be found, for the reasons that he has given I believe that his proposal is desirable and acceptable. As the noble and learned Lord said, there are some matters of detail which have to be considered. But I am happy to accept the amendment in principle and undertake to bring an amendment back which deals with any technicalities.
Lord McCluskey: On that happy note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Intermediate diet in summary proceedings]:
Lord Fraser of Carmylliemoved Amendment No. 41:
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("in paragraph (a), the word "and"") and insert ("the word "and" immediately following paragraph (a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 41, perhaps I might speak also to Amendment No. 187. These are amendments to correct a minor error which occurred at the drafting stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Uncontroversial evidence]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 10, line 14, after ("proceedings") insert ("in which the accused is legally represented").
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment. Amendments Nos. 45 to 47, 55 to 57, and 60 to 74 are a series of amendments. I do not wish to take up the Committee's time, so I shall not move each amendment separately. The amendments came from the Law Society of Scotland which considers that the timescale is too short. Perhaps the Government will examine the timescale involved in those parts of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I may be wrong but I rather thought that Amendment No. 42 was directed at a slightly different point and not time limits. I thought that it dealt with whether or not someone required to be represented in order to take advantage of the procedure in Clause 14.

389
We consider that that procedure should be available to people who are unrepresented, just as it is available for those who are represented. The Scottish Law Commission examined the question as to whether people who were unrepresented could make admissions in terms of what they proposed as their method of proving undisputed facts. The commission concluded that in principle it was proper for that to be available and it stated:
"In principle it may seem inconsistent to impose a requirement of legal representation in any procedure for formal admission of facts when an unrepresented accused is entitled to plead guilty and thus make the most comprehensive admission of all".
As a matter of principle, that is correct. Nevertheless, one can see that when someone is unrepresented special circumstances may arise. The Committee will have noticed that under Clause 14 (3) the court may allow a late service of the relevant notice in special circumstances.
As a further safeguard, under Clause 14 (6), the court,
"may, on the application of any party, where it is satisfied that there are special circumstances … direct that the presumptions … shall not apply".
We believe that that provides the necessary safeguards so that even where someone is not represented it is proper for that machinery to be used.
The noble Lord referred in broad outline to many amendments which the Law Society of Scotland proposed in connection with time limits. That matter has been carefully considered and it seems to us that although the time limits are demanding, nevertheless they can be fulfilled. The whole object is to ensure that so far as possible matters are considered promptly by both sides and that relevant agreements are reached. Therefore, we think that the time limits are appropriate.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In making the observations that I did in formally moving Amendment No. 42, I was trying to be helpful to the Committee rather than taking up its time. A basic principle is involved and the noble and learned Lord has answered the question raised by the amendments. Again, the answer will no doubt be noted by the Law Society of Scotland which will have an opportunity to come back at Report stage if it wishes. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 47 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 15 [Evidence of biological material]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 48:
Page 11, line 11, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: This is one amendment that I did not mention in my "omnibus" approach to the Bill a short time ago. The amendment inserts the word "may" instead of "shall" in Clause 15. Again, the proposal comes from the Law Society. The effect of the amendment would be to allow discretion on the part of
390
the court as to whether evidence of biological material shall be admissible notwithstanding that neither the material nor a sample is lodged in court.
The rationale behind the amendment is that it is always up to the court to decide on the question of fairness. Accordingly, putting in the word "may" instead of "shall" would build into the statute the question of judicial discretion rather than a mandatory obligation upon the court by the use of the word "shall". "May" leaves it open to the court to exercise its discretion. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The general principle behind this provision and the reason for bringing it forward is that there are particular difficulties associated with evidence in respect of biological material. The material itself may have no visual characteristics which would enable it to be distinguished from other material of similar appearance. It may in particular—this is particularly true nowadays—be a health hazard, or in some other cases the whole sample may be used up in the process of analysis. What is important about a biological sample is not the material itself but its chemical characteristics and composition.
There have been cases in which certain judges have sought to exclude evidence about biological material because the material itself has not been produced. It has not been possible to have this matter dealt with by the appeal court; therefore, the Crown has always been placed in a position of uncertainty as to whether or not the material is required, whether or not it has to be retained, or whether or not it has to be brought to court or otherwise made available.
In these circumstances, the clause seeks to put the matter beyond doubt and say that the court should not be able to refuse to consider evidence concerning biological material solely on the basis that such material is not produced. The trouble if the word "may" were introduced is that one would in effect be going back to square one and leaving the position uncertain. It is in order to have certainty that we have set out the provision in the way we have. It seems to us that the matter is appropriately dealt with in this way. Noble Lords will note that it is restricted to evidence as to the characteristics and composition of any biological material. The production of the material itself, just visually for the jury in that situation, does not have any relevance: it is the analysis that will be of importance. For that reason we suggest that this is an appropriate provision.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that explanation. The point does not rise directly out of the amendment, but I wonder if he will consider between now and Report stage whether there should be some built-in provision that, where it is anticipated that the material will be destroyed in the course of analysis, the defence should be informed of that fact so that the defence can be represented at the actual analysis of the material. It has happened in one or two cases. Certainly, in a case in which I was involved the production disappeared in the course of analysis and there was nothing left for the court to consider. The jury was left

391
merely with the scientist's evidence, for that was what it was. If I remember rightly, it was a canister of CS gas. The policeman, who did not take kindly to my cross-examination, invited me to attend the analysis of another production he had. It was an atom bomb. He said I was very welcome to attend the destruction of the material. That was perhaps taking things a bit far in the heat of the courtroom.
In the meantime, having made these probably useless observations at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Routine evidence]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 51 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Evidence of criminal record and character of accused]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 52, I must tell the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 52:
Page 13, line 23, leave out from ("prosecution") to end of line 24.
The noble and learned Lord said: We have a whole series of amendments which relate to Clause 18. The Committee will observe that I have given notice of my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill. It will be appreciated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that one or two of the amendments are of a technical character and I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee with them. I have brought them to the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and his draftsman and they can consider whether there is any merit in them.
The amendments I have tabled for page 13, line 23, of the Bill raise the point of principle I want to make. It is that in this country, both south of the Border and in Scotland, previous convictions of an accused person are relevant only in so far as they bear upon the credibility, reliability and character of that person as a witness. I understand that that has always been the basic principle in Scots law.
The reason why I seek in Amendment No. 54 at page 13, line 24, to leave out "complainer" and insert "person" is that a person who is deceased cannot be a witness. There are other suggestions such as that there might be a deceased complainer, which is not a concept that makes much sense to me.
A giant step is being taken here away from established principle. I want to know the justification for it. I want to know that from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who proposed this provision and I want to know what the Scottish Law Commission says about it. Have the judges been consulted?
The character of an accused person is not a relevant consideration in determining whether or not he did the acts with which he is charged as criminal offences. That
392
has always been so. There has been an exception to that principle: namely, if he attacks the credibility and reliability of witnesses on the ground of their character and seeks to illustrate it by reference to their previous convictions. The principle then is that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If he says that witnesses are not to be believed because they have previous convictions, then, when he himself comes to give evidence, the prosecutor is entitled to say, "You are not to be believed either because you, too, have previous convictions."
So he deliberately puts his character in issue. It makes perfectly good sense if he gives evidence because his character and quality as a witness should be compared with the character and quality of other witnesses on an equal footing. But if he is not a witness—this is at the heart of the particular clause—what possible relevance can his previous convictions have to the determination of whether or not he committed the acts. His credibility as a witness is not in issue. What is the possible relevance of it?
The answer may be that nowadays in certain circumstances an accused person, without going into the witness box, can in effect put evidence before the jury, through judicial examination, a voluntary statement or in statements made to the police at the time of the examination. If one wants to meet that situation, then let us confine the exception to the principle by restricting it to that situation.
I am very concerned that we are taking a real step—not just a small step—towards the situation that is becoming common in the United States, the so-called "truth in evidence provisions" I mentioned earlier; namely, that the prosecution puts before the jury in a criminal trial the previous convictions of the accused person, his general character, his relations with his girl friend, his relations with his children, if any, his truancy rate at school and everything else. The view is that the whole man must be presented to the jury in determining whether or not he committed a specific criminal act. That is a disastrous and unprincipled step and this too is an unprincipled step to take.
I ask the Committee to consider carefully whether the Government should be encouraged to take this step. I urge the Lord Advocate to consider what I say. Will he accept that he is making a substantial change in the law in this regard? If so, can he explain the need for it and what support he has for it from independent bodies? I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I support to some extent the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on this clause of the Bill. I tabled a series of amendments on this clause which I do not intend to move; I want to take a closer look at it, having heard what the noble and learned Lord said.
One phrase puzzles me. It occurs in what will be new Section 141ZA(1) (b), which reads,
"but evidence is led by the defence, or the defence asks questions of a witness for the prosecution … with a view to impugning the character of the prosecutor, any witness for the prosecution or any complainer who is deceased".

393
Does that mean a personal attack upon the advocate depute or the procurator fiscal conducting the trial? I read the notes on clauses which the noble and learned Lord kindly sent to me and I know that it arises in those notes on clauses. However, I have difficulty in understanding what it means. That is one reason why my amendments to Clause 18 will be delayed until a later stage of the proceedings and I have heard what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says.
As I said, to some extent I support what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I can see the reasons behind the amendment in that an accused person may try to destroy the Crown case by a backdoor method and by not giving evidence himself. If I understand the import of the new clause, I believe that that is what it is striking at. However, I shall listen with interest to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate says on this matter.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support the amendment. I am concerned about the possibility of misuse of this clause allowing disclosure of a previous criminal record. As it stands, I do not believe that it will positively contribute to the decision-making process of the trial. No juror would find it helpful to know of the accused's previous record, bearing in mind the phrase, "Round up the usual suspects", which must be part of the tactics of an investigation. Scotland needs a guarantee of sound convictions.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, produces a number of amendments which go to the drafting of specific matters. As I shall indicate in a moment, we shall certainly be looking at the drafting of this clause. But much more fundamentally, he raised the question of the matter of principle.
We see this provision as a logical development of the position which has obtained in our law for over a century. Section 160(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 is the current embodiment of a provision which goes back to Section 67 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act of 1887. By that subsection Parliament has provided, and I read short, that the prosecutor may lay evidence of the accused's previous convictions before the jury where the accused shall lead evidence to prove previous good character. That provision has nothing whatever to do with the situation under Section 141, to which the noble and learned Lord spoke, which arises where the accused gives evidence. Section 141(f) deals with the questions which an accused may be asked. That provides that he cannot be asked about previous convictions in broad terms unless he has fulfilled the qualifying conditions.
Section 160(2) has nothing to do with that but deals with the leading of evidence. The matters are quite distinct. That is not only plain on the face of the statute, but it is plain also from the fact that the provision came into our law in 1887, 11 years before the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 which first allowed accused persons to give evidence and which contained the original version of Section 141 for our law.
394
The provisions in Clause 18 which cover the leading of evidence with a view to establishing an accused's good character really do no more than re-enact what is already specifically covered by Section 160(2) of the 1975 Act. Indeed, it will be for consideration whether some consequential amendment of that section may be appropriate. All that we have done therefore is to build on that approach by adopting the general policy which is already enshrined in Section 141 and so allowing the prosecutor to lead evidence not only if the defence leads evidence or asks questions with a view to showing he is of good character, but also if he does so with a view to impugning the character of the prosecutor and so on.
The principle already enshrined in subsection (2) of Section 160 and developed in the Bill seems sound. It is surely wrong that if the defence decides, as a matter of tactics, to present the jury with a picture of the accused as a man of good character, or to bring out the faults of various witnesses or of a deceased person, the jury should be left with a one-sided picture. If they are to hear of these factors so far as regards one side, then at least in some cases it would seem appropriate that they should hear of them also so far as they affect the accused. Otherwise there is a risk that they are being asked to reach their verdict on a false and essentially distorted basis. I submit that that cannot be right.
Nonetheless I have listened very carefully to what has been said by your Lordships on these matters and I can perhaps indicate the position along these lines. The Government have already identified the need for an amendment to be introduced to cover the position of attacks on the character of deceased persons in Section 141 of the 1975 Act. That has been omitted by error and an amendment will have to be brought forward at the Report stage. Secondly, as noble Lords who are familiar with our system are aware, under the decision of the High Court in Leggat the prosecutor needs the permission of the court before evidence of character and so on can be adduced and questions can be asked under Section 141. It seems desirable that that matter, which is not dealt with specifically on the face of the statute at the moment, should be made clear and an amendment to that effect will be brought forward.
Given that that is the approach in Section 141, then it seems to us also that it would be proper to provide for the prosecutor to apply for permission before he may introduce evidence in the terms envisaged by Clause 18. At the present moment it is not required in terms of Section 160(2); but it seems to me that it will be proper that it should be so because, as experience has shown in connection with Section 141, there is a need for giving some measure of control in these matters so that there is no risk of what is designed to be something which will lead to a more just position, being abused. There will be a degree of control.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, drew attention to the words regarding the attack on the character of the prosecutor. Those words have been taken from the corresponding provision in Section 141(IF). That particular subsection has been operating for a number of years. In the light of that explanation, and with the

395
undertaking that I shall be looking further into the drafting of these matters, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may refer to the fact that I raised a question as to what the phrase means. I am not sure whether he has given an answer. How will it be exercised in practice? What direction is given to procurators fiscal as to how to interpret the section? It is a rather puzzling piece of phraseology.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As the noble Lord says, it is a slightly puzzling matter, and it is one which one might look at. One of the reasons why we copied the words from the present legislation is that it corresponds to the existing language. I have a suspicion that that language may to some extent owe its origins to the fact that this is a provision which is common for England and Scotland. It may have been more appropriate as regards prosecutors in England rather than Scotland. I am not quite sure about that matter. It is established legislative language.
Lord McCluskey: I am rather surprised at the Lord Advocate's answer to what I have said and his reference to Section 67 and Section 160(2) of the 1987 Act. I thought that I must have missed something. If he tended to take a logical development of Section 160(2), I am surprised that he should put the provision in beside Section 141. That is why I rushed to check the Notes on Clauses. I find no hint of Section 160(2). I believe that it is a rationalisation which has been put in at the last moment.
It appears to me that this is a very considerable step which is being taken. Section 160(2) dates back to 1987 and it says this:
"Nothing in this section shall prevent the prosecutor from laying before the jury evidence of previous convictions where … the accused shall lead evidence to prove previous good character".
Obviously, if the accused says, "I lead evidence of my previous good character" the prosecution must be able to lead evidence of his previous convictions to show that he is not of previous good character. It has nothing whatever to do with what has been put in here. What has been put in beside Section 141 is something to blacken the accused simply because he attempts to show that the reliability of the evidence should be impugned on the basis that I have suggested.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think further about this matter. He said in terms that more amendments are coming. In particular, he has referred to the leave of the court. That might be an important safeguard. I shall keep my powder dry and withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount St. Davids): Before I call Amendment No. 53 I should point out that there is a mistake on the Marshalled List. It should read,
Page 13, line 23, after "or" insert "of".
Lord McCluskeyhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 53:
396
Page 13, line 23, after ("prosecution") insert ("of").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall shortly discover what this is about. We are on page 13, line 23. In the circumstances and this amendment being technical in character, I do not propose to move it.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord McCluskeyhad given notice of his intention to moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 13, line 24, leave out ("complainer") and insert ("person").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting point as I mentioned earlier. I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 not moved.]
Lord McCluskeyhad given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 13, line 44, after ("but") insert ("shall if opposed, be heard").
Page 13, line 45, leave out ("and the public").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments deal with a slightly different point, but I shall not trouble your Lordships tonight with either because they will be caught up in the general review of this matter. Therefore, I do not propose to move them.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: Having said all that I want to say at this stage on this matter, I do not propose at the moment to oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Evidence as to controlled drugs and medicinal products]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 63:
Page 15, line 7, leave out ("14") and insert ("21").
The noble Lord said: We have already discussed the subject of this amendment—and of Amendments Nos. 64 to 74—at an earlier stage. I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Evidence as to time and place of video surveillance recordings]:
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Evidence in relation to fingerprints]:
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 74 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Evidence in relation to sexual offences]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragarmoved Amendment No. 75:
Page 16, leave out lines 24 and 25.

397
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly short amendment which restates the offences which cannot be referred to in evidence. It merely restates the crimes involved, the point behind the amendment being that all the offences that are mentioned in Section 2C of the Incest and Related Offences (Scotland) Act 1986 should be included in the Bill by way of amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 relate to our amendment to the provisions relating to questioning on previous sexual history. A report on this matter has pointed out, among other things, that it would be desirable to include in the coverage of these matters the possible crime of clandestine injury to women. This amendment would remove that on the perceived basis that such a crime is not prosecuted nowadays. In fact, it is prosecuted and where it is prosecuted, it seems desirable that this provision should apply.
Amendment No. 76 seems to have merit because it may very well be appropriate to include those further offences under the umbrella of this provision. In the circumstances, I am happy to consider this amendment further. In the light of that undertaking, perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. The argument which might have been presented, but which I do not present, is that the crime—I believe it is known only in Scotland as a clandestine injury to a woman—might be subsumed within an indecent assault charge, but I shall not go into the technicalities of that at this time of the evening. I am happy to take away the noble and learned Lord's's assurance and co-operation in respect of Amendment No. 76. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Lord McCluskeymoved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause:
398
("Disqualification of jurors: further provisions
.—(1) In section 134 of the 1975 Act after the word "unfit" shall be inserted the words "or unable".
(2) In section 134 of the 1975 Act after the second use of the word "juror" shall be inserted the words "or that by reason of his lateness, or unexplained absence or apparent inattention he should not continue to serve.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The Lord Advocate will recognise what I am seeking to do here. The wording of existing Section 134 is rather restrictive. As judges we find from time to time—prosecutors and the defence will find the same—that there are circumstances for which one has not legislated, in a sense, but where it is not satisfactory that a juror should continue to serve as a juror.
I have put down a form of words to provide a peg upon which to hang the argument. Take, for instance, the example I gave earlier of the person who gets on to the jury and turns out to be unfit to serve by reason of the fact that he is dimwitted, does not know his way back to the court and so forth. If such a situation comes to light, one should be able to dispose of that person with the consent of all, or by the judge's ruling in the exercise of his discretion. All I am asking the Lord Advocate to do tonight is to say that he will look at this matter to see whether the old wording requires a little adjustment to allow us a bit more discretion in a simple matter of this kind. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: All of us who have to operate the section are aware that there can sometimes be difficulty in fitting precisely the circumstances into the wording as it is. On the basis that the noble and learned Lord has explained, I am happy to use this opportunity to look further at the matter and to come back on Report with an amendment, or with an explanation of why we think the position is satisfactory. I am happy to look at the matter if the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment on this occasion.
Lord McCluskey: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.

  EUROPEAN COMMISSION: EMPLOYEES
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many (a) civil servants and (b) others are employed by the European Commission and at what annual cost; and what proportion of the former are engaged in promoting new or amending legislation or communications.

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
  The 1994 EC budget made provision for 14,918 Commission employees. Total appropriations in the budget to cover basic salary for Commissioners and Commission staff were 736.396 mecu (£579.611 million). It is not possible to produce any accurate estimate of the proportion of these which is engaged in promoting new or amending legislation or communications.

  HIGHWAYS AGENCY
  Lord Campbell of Croy
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What functions, if any, the Highways Agency has in Scotland.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen)
  The Highways Agency has no functions in Scotland.

  BUILDING REGULATIONS: CONSULTATION PAPER
  Lord Gainford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will consult on amending the building regulations in England and Wales to help disabled people gain access to and within dwellings.
  WA 30
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater)
  I am today issuing a consultation paper setting out the Government's proposals for amending the Building Regulations 1991 to make certain requirements in relation to the design and construction of new dwellings which will be of benefit to disabled people. Comments on these proposals are invited by 30th April 1995. It will be important to establish what measures will be of particular benefit to disabled people, and what the implications will be on housebuilding costs. A copy of the consultation paper has been placed in the Library of the House.

  WATER COMPANY BY-LAWS: CONSULTATION PAPER
  Lord Gainford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they will publish their proposals for measures to replace water company by-laws in 1997.

  Viscount Ullswater
  We have today published a consultation paper about the purpose, format, scope, and administration of measures to replace water by-laws. Copies have been placed in the House libraries. For many years, water companies have made by-laws for the prevention of waste, misuse, undue consumption and contamination of water. Current by-laws expire in 1997 but there is no provision now for the companies to make new ones. We are therefore consulting a wide variety of interest groups and individuals on a range of replacement options.

  The paper explores a number of possible options from a non-statutory code of practice to national regulations either as part of the building regulations, as separate water regulations or a combination of these two. It also considers whether water companies should continue to control the replacement provisions or whether the responsibility should be transferred to the local authorities, an independent agency or placed under joint control. There are some difficult issues to be addressed but above all the health and safety of consumers must be protected and water companies must be able to carry out their statutory duty to maintain an adequate supply of water which is fit for human consumption.