Sitting of 16 January 1995

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

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  European Communities (Finance) Act 1995.

  British Waterways Act 1995.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES

    Economy
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for the Welsh economy during 1995.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Redwood): Prospects for the Welsh economy this year are excellent. Unemployment is falling fast; output is expanding; order books are at their best levels since 1988 and business confidence is high. I look forward to a prosperous new year for the Welsh economy.
    Mr. Williams: For months now, the Secretary of State and Cabinet Ministers have been talking up the growth and recovery in Britain's economy, but does the Secretary of State accept that the main reason for the recovery has nothing to do with the Government's policies but with black Wednesday and the devaluation caused by it; that the benefits of growth so far have been entirely swallowed up by the public sector borrowing requirement; that there is no feel-good factor among the people at large because during 1994 there was no rise in living standards and that that has been so for the past four or five years?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not agree. Of course we are talking the economy up, because it is worth talking up and it will prosper this year and into the future. The Government's policies to control inflation, to have honest money and to develop supply-side reforms are crucial to the success of the economy, just as my policies to promote Wales vigorously at home and abroad and to attract private capital are most important. As confidence returns among ordinary consumers as well the business community, so the feel-good factor will build up, in a way which the hon. Gentleman will find disappointing.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent economic prospects to which he
    436
    referred will certainly not be enhanced, and may well be threatened, by the rag-bag of devolutionary plans supported by Opposition Members?
    Mr. Redwood: I agree that, were those plans ever to come to fruition, they would be a tax on business and would put business off coming to Wales. It would rather go where taxation is lighter and where there are fewer new laws and regulations. But I am intrigued to see that the Islwyn Labour party is against the proposals, just as I am. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) is against them. Perhaps he can teach the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who wants a different kind of authority from that wanted by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). Perhaps the hon. Member for Caerphilly will realise that he is impaled on a difficult fence and that he would be better getting off it on my side on this issue.
    Mr. Dafis: In relation to training and enterprise funding, which is an important consideration in the Welsh economy, is the Secretary of State aware that the changes proposed for the coming year are likely to drive out of business some of the high-quality training providers? That is a result of the increased emphasis on output-related funding. Does he accept that scrupulous training providers who emphasise quality and long-term training programmes will be discriminated against in favour of those who sometimes cut corners and emphasise short-term programmes? Will not that be very disadvantageous to disadvantaged groups and to women, the disabled and so on?
    Mr. Redwood: That is not the intention of the policy. The intention is to get value for the money that we spend, as measured by the quality of the outputs. We want training that leads to qualifications and real jobs. Those are the criteria that we shall use.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State is anxious to talk about Labour party policies, but I wonder why he does not talk about his own, which are a positive disincentive to growth in the Welsh economy? What about his record tax increases, for example, or his cuts in regional aid? There are now record tolls across the Severn bridge into Wales—a Welsh Tory tax. In Wales, we have water bills that are twice the national average—a Welsh Tory tax. In Wales, every taxpayer now pays an extra £1 a week for the Secretary of State's local government changes—a Welsh Tory tax.
    On top of that, why does he defend the waste, inefficiency, bureaucracy and political corruption of his quango system? Does he not think that there is any room for improvement in the way in which Wales is governed, because I certainly do and I believe that the majority of people in Wales do as well?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I do not defend waste or corruption. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, if I find any I root it out and take the necessary action.
    I am still waiting for the list of so-called quangos that Labour would abolish or repeal were they in office, but all that I see is a list—which grows daily—of new quangos that Labour wants to set up. The fact is that Labour would tax more and legislate more: that would be bad for British business, and for business in Wales.

    Wind Generating Plants
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many planning applications there are for wind generating plants in (a) Clwyd, (b) Wales and (c) areas of outstanding natural beauty.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): The information is not held centrally.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: I am sad about that, but I happen to know that there are a good many applications in my constituency and, indeed, throughout Wales.
    Given that wind generation is only a modest performer in terms of energy production compared with other sustainable forms but has a huge visual' impact on the environment and the amenity value of our countryside, will the Minister give me an assurance that when any of those applications are appealed against—if they are turned down by local authorities—his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will refuse them on appeal?
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I certainly cannot give the hon. Gentleman such an assurance. All cases must be considered individually, on their merits. We and the local planning authority will naturally seek to take into account all the relevant factors, including noise and siting. It is our policy to encourage wind power where it is economically attractive and environmentally acceptable.

    Examination Performance
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has undertaken into value added factors related to schools' examination performance; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Rod Richards): My right hon. Friend and I are looking at ways in which the value added to pupils' performance and achievement by schools can best be reflected in published comparative information. In the meantime, we shall be consulting on the inclusion of a simple measure in performance tables of how each school's examination achievements change over time.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that value added, in whatever terms he can produce it, will show the achievement of both children and teachers in schools in difficult areas, which is valuable and right? Is it not also part of my hon. Friend's policy to give parents information so that parental choice can be improved? Is not parental choice crucial in education, in Wales and elsewhere? Has not the Leader of the Opposition exercised precisely that choice, using published information about schools to choose a school for his son—[Interruption.]—although he denies that choice to others, whatever Opposition Members may say?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to provide parents with as much information as possible, so that they can have as much choice as possible.
    438
    Conservative Members are not clear about the Opposition's education policy. Opposition Members say that their leader believes in grant-maintained schools, but others do not. They are making up policy on the hoof; the trouble is that the left hoof does not know what the right hoof is doing.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: I am surprised that the Minister has not taken the opportunity to issue a generous withdrawal in the House of the disgraceful and untrue slur on Labour councillors that was made before Christmas. I was, however, pleased to hear that the Government are considering value added, and ways of achieving a better assessment of how schools perform.
    Which of the six systems on which there has been a great deal of research so far strike the Welsh Office as the best to use in future? May I underline our own commitment to the publication of results by schools—not just raw and value added tables, but other information that will tell parents what sort of school they may be sending their children to?
    Mr. Richards: There are three models under consideration for the publication of value added information for pupils. An answer will be given in due course.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about inward investment in Wales.
    Mr. Redwood: Inward investment continues to be a Welsh success story. Another £600 million was identified between April and November of last year.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that that inward investment has taken place because Wales boasts a low corporate tax regime and does not have the incubus of a minimum wage and because the country did not accept the advice to leave the European Union when it was proffered by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)?
    Mr. Redwood: Those are three very important points which influence investment in Wales. I would add one other, which is the quality of the work force. That emphasises the importance of the work that we are all doing to improve education and training standards in Wales to continue the drive towards lower unemployment and more inward investment.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the Minister agree that for major investment projects in Britain, which includes Wales, the lead Department is the Department of Trade and Industry and the lead agency is the Invest in Britain Bureau? Is the right hon. Gentleman not concerned about the fact that there seems to be evidence that more and more major projects are being steered away from Wales by the DTI and the bureau?
    Mr. Redwood: There is no evidence of that and, of course, the Welsh institutions are important in their own right in attracting business to Wales. That has been demonstrated by the recent run of announcements about investment in different parts of the United Kingdom, including Wales. The most recent large one is by the important NEG Schott and it looks as if that will come to Wales when all the details are sorted out. I hope

    439
    that they will be sorted out shortly. We are proud of Wales, which continues to attract more than its fair share of inward investment.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that inward investment in Wales would be destroyed if the Government followed policies on a minimum wage or implemented the social chapter—socialist policies which are advocated by the Labour party? What impact has inward investment had on the Welsh economy and particularly on jobs?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. Destroying flexibility for manufacturers and employers in general would put them off. We do not want a low-wage economy: we want employers to have the right to manage sensibly, as they do in Wales. Employers are increasingly attracted to Wales and often create good jobs with good salaries, which is what we are after. There are now 280 foreign manufacturers in Wales and they account for many tens of thousands of jobs.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does not the Secretary of State recognise that the kind of Thatcherite policies that he espoused in his article in today's issue of The Guardian would be extremely damaging to Wales's prospects of getting more inward investment in future? His analogy between the proper use of public expenditure and a spoilt child begging for more sweets is entirely inappropriate, bearing in mind the fact that young people are desperate for jobs in Wales. Does he not realise that what Wales wants is not an obsessed ideologue but someone who is prepared to fight for us in Cabinet?
    Mr. Redwood: I regularly fight for Wales in and outside Cabinet and the results are there for all to see in more jobs, more investment and better public services. I shall carry on because there is still room for improvement. Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that all Wales's success in attracting inward investment has come about since 1979 under successive Conservative Governments following the policies that I outlined in The Guardian?
    Mr. Sykes: My right hon. Friend is right about the past 15 years. Does he agree that, in 1979, Cardiff was a completely rundown city, but that anybody who cares to visit it today in 1995 will see a completely transformed major capital city? That has much to do with our reforms of the past 15 years.
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is quite right. Cardiff improved beyond recognition over the 1980s and early 1990s. There is more to do in the bay area, which I think will develop quite rapidly over the balance of this century. I look forward to that.
    Mr. Ron Davies: The Secretary of State's comment about new investment stemming from 1979 shows a complete lack of understanding of the Welsh economy. Does he accept that if we are to attract inward investment we must maintain high levels of public expenditure to maintain services and improve the infrastructure and must encourage investment? It is not a matter, as the right hon. Gentleman implied in his article in this morning's issue of The Guardian, of calling for more extravagant confectionery from the local sweetshop.
    440
    How can he reconcile his latest views with his claim in December that a 2.9 per cent. increase in public expenditure was good for Wales and for the Welsh economy? Does he not think that he is being disingenuous by saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to a different audience? Perhaps his Cabinet colleagues had it right two weeks ago when they compared him to a mad professor tinkering in his laboratory.
    Mr. Redwood: That was a pretty poor effort by the hon. Gentleman. Some people in Wales, as well as in England, read The Guardian. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have noticed that. I put the same views to different audiences. I am very proud of the Government's increases in spending on public services. I argued for them, agreed them with my colleagues and was pleased to announce them to the House.
    I spelled out the priorities, which are there for all to see, such as police, care in the community, health, education and welfare. Those are the priorities that the Government have identified since 1979 and which I have supported all of the time that I have been part of the Government. Those are the areas on which we want to spend money. I have also identified areas of waste or unnecessary expenditure under Labour and where we have made changes. I am pleased that we have had money from privatisation because we have been able to spend it on better welfare services.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are unemployed in (a) Alyn and Deeside and (b) Clwyd and Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Redwood: The unadjusted number for claimant unemployment in November 1994 for Alyn and Deeside was 2,380. For Clwyd it was 13,463 and for Wales it was 110,299.
    Mr. Jones: Those figures are worrying and stubborn, so there must be no complacency in the Welsh Office about unemployment. Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether a Korean multinational company, Daewoo, is planning to locate a car plant in Britain? Is he and the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency holding any talks with that company? Does he agree that Deeside would be a good location for such a car plant, bearing in mind the fact that it was the runner-up in the Nissan stakes 10 years ago?
    Mr. Redwood: There is certainly no complacency on my part. Unemployment has been falling rapidly for a couple of years. I welcome that, as I hope the hon. Gentleman does. I also welcome the fact that unemployment stands at 7.1 per cent. in the travel-to-work area of his constituency. That is a much better figure than for many other parts of the United Kingdom. However, we want the figure to fall considerably lower than that, as I am sure he does.
    On the project that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, my current advice is that that company has no immediate plans to set up a plant anywhere in the United Kingdom. Of course, if it did we would make it very welcome. I, the chairman of the WDA and

    441
    others would be happy to talk to the company or send it any necessary materials should it firm up its intentions in the way that press rumours suggest it might.
    Mr. Wigley: In view of the opportunity that the right hon. Gentleman has to express his economic and unemployment philosophy in The Guardian, at Tory dinner parties in southern England and on interviews on "Newsnight", why does he never mention Wales? Is it because he realises that not living in Wales, not having a mandate in Wales and not being elected by the people of Wales means that his title of Secretary of State for Wales is fraudulent? To use his words in The Guardian article today:
    "The abuse of language is deliberately designed to mislead."
    When will the right hon. Gentleman resign so that we can get someone in the job who will stand up for Wales, fight for Wales and speak about Wales when he has the opportunity to do so?
    Mr. Redwood: That was an extraordinary comment. I make dozens of speeches in Wales and I make dozens of speeches about Welsh issues. I write about Welsh matters in national newspapers as well as in Welsh newspapers. The hon. Gentleman might like to see my views on Wales, which are full of policies for Wales—policies that are good for Wales and which show how much I will fight for Wales.
    Mr. Rowlands: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the serious position that thousands of people currently in receipt of invalidity benefit will face after next April? Under the Government's new incapacity test, they will be driven off that benefit, forced to join the long dole queues and will have to compete with thousands of people for poorly paid jobs. Is that a demonstration of the care and compassion of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government?
    Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have often announced measures to help the disabled in Wales. I have announced additional money for disability schemes. It is important that there should be proper provision for disabled people and I have asked local government in Wales to work with me on that important matter.
    On the general policy, as a Government we believe that there should be a test to ensure that a person is genuinely disabled before he receives benefit. I should have thought that that would be common ground. Of course, we want that decision to be made sensitively by independent people with good medical skills, so that the money goes to those who need it. If someone is disabled and needs help, I want to ensure that they get decent help. The way to afford that is to ensure that the help is given only to those who need it.
    Mr. Sweeney: In view of the comments made earlier, does my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation of my constituents for the numerous visits that he has made to Wales and, in particular, to the Vale of
    442
    Glamorgan, and for the stress that he has laid on renewing the economic success and vigour of Wales, particularly of the Vale of Glamorgan?
    Mr. Redwood: I thank my hon. Friend for those generous remarks and I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him and his wife on the birth of their first child.

    M4
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the final cost of the Lon-Las/Earlswood section of M4 in West Glamorgan.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: The final cost was £39,564,000, excluding VAT.
    Mr. Ainger: Although I welcome the completion of the missing link to west Wales along the M4—obviously, it is much welcomed because it is toll—freewill the Minister explain why the Cleddau river and Severn river crossings, which were also publicly funded, are tolled? Does he accept that the Pembrokeshire economy and the whole of the south Wales economy are suffering a direct unfair tax burden as a direct result of the Severn and Cleddau bridges being tolled?
    Mr. Jones: No, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. I can but suggest to him that, if he were to use the new link that has been created from Lon-Las to Baglan when he visits his constituency, he will immediately perceive the obvious geographical differences between the crossing there and the Cleddau and Severn bridges. I suggest to him that his welcome for that essential link is half-hearted compared with the remarkably perceptive article in this morning's Western Mail, which described it as sheer magic.
    Mr. Anderson: The link might be very magic but it is also very delayed. If the Minister is to give a final, accurate and comprehensive figure, will he add to that equation the estimated £180 million costs of congestion and delay? After the Labour Government had made progress on the M4, his Government failed to complete the missing link, which led to all the congestion, delay and damage to the south-west Wales economy.
    Mr. Jones: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is a complete justification for our decision to spend almost £40 million on that link. He would do better to concentrate on the fact that people in his part of the world regard it as sheer magic.

    NHS Efficiency
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve the efficiency of the NHS in Wales.
    Mr. Richards: In 1995–96, the national health service in Wales will be required to achieve efficiency savings of 3 per cent. on cash-limited expenditure on the hospital, community and family health services. The efficiency drive that we are pursuing will be aided by the continued extension of the commissioner-provider separation during 1995.
    I am pleased to announce my right hon. Friend's decision to establish a further three national health service trusts, which are to become operational from

    443
    April this year. They are the University Dental Hospital national health service trust, Cardiff Community Health Care national health service trust, and West Wales Ambulance national health service trust.
    Mr. Flynn: Is not the comment of Tory deputy chairman John Maples that no one in the country will trust the Government on the health service confirmed by the experience of a constituent of mine, who was told that she could not have her urgently needed operation because the health service had run out of money in Gwent, but that, if she had been the patient of a fundholder, she could have had the money?
    What does the Minister think of the comment by British Medical Association spokesman Dr. Laurence Buckman, who said that fundholders are enriching themselves with funds and that, ultimately, money given to the health service for hip operations will become part of GPs' pensions?
    Mr. Richards: As usual, the hon. Gentleman talks rubbish about GP fundholding. GP fundholders are providing an excellent service for the patients of Wales. My right hon. Friend has already announced that we hope to extend the coverage of GP fundholding in Wales.
    If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about his constituent, why did he not write to me about the case so that I could do something about it, rather than raise it on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Matthew Banks: May I urge my hon. Friend to reject the sometimes wildcat ideas of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn)? Does my hon. Friend agree that the improvements in efficiency in the Principality to which he referred have meant a reduction in waiting times for operations, an increase in the number of patients treated year on year and, most important, a substantial increase in the resources available to those in greatest need?
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Any efficiency saving in the NHS goes directly to patient care, which is where it should go.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Could the Minister explain how efficiency in the NHS in Wales is improved by the total demoralisation of the staff of the Powys Healthcare NHS trust, brought about by the trust's decision to secede from established pay arbitration procedures? What is his advice to workers in the trust who are to lose salary? Will he follow the Secretary of State's article in The Guardian and suggest that they are paid in Smarties?
    Mr. Richards: The local determination of pay is a matter for the trust and those who work for it. They will come to an agreement among themselves, as happens in all other trusts. The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the morale of people working in the NHS. I travel around a great many hospitals in Wales and can tell him that people who work in the NHS there are doing an excellent job, and that because they are doing an excellent job their morale is good. The better they do their job, the more efficient they are and the more money they will earn.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement about the three new trusts and the generally high standard in the NHS in Wales, but will he
    444
    examine carefully dental services in the Bangor area as the deficiency of dental practitioners is causing considerable distress and the local family health services authority cannot cope?
    Mr. Richards: My right hon. Friend is right to re-draw my attention to the deficiency in the number of dentists in Gwynedd and his constituency. The Welsh Office has already set aside some £50,000 to recruit community dentists. Thus far, Gwynedd FHSA has been able to recruit only one, part time, but there are many reasons why it has not been able to recruit more. More funding has been made available, but the FHSA has not seen fit to ask for it.
    Mr. Morgan: While we still await the Minister's short, fat and slimy apology, will he tell us how the Secretary of State's abolition of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority will improve efficiency in the NHS in Wales? Can he confirm that, in splitting the blood transfusion service in Wales from the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the Secretary of State will, in order to abolish one quango, end up creating another to run the blood transfusion service?
    Mr. Richards: The remarks to which the hon. Gentleman refers were withdrawn by me almost immediately. As for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, an announcement will be made about its future in due course.

    Commercial Property Market
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received about the commercial property market in Wales.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have not received any representations.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is high time we amended the archaic and increasingly unjust law of privity of contract which binds successive tenants in a chain of unlimited liability? Will he have a word with his colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Office and the Department of the Environment?
    Mr. Jones: I share my hon. Friend's view of the law of privity, and I can tell him that my colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department intend to introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Dr. Howells: Will the Minister examine carefully the distortions in the commercial property market in Wales, especially those arising from the huge growth in out-of-town shopping centres and the consequent decline in town and village centres where commercial properties are declining in value as the competition takes away business and they become more derelict?
    Mr. Jones: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. He knows that his view is shared by me and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have taken opportunities recently to emphasise the guidance that is extant for local authorities when considering such situations.

    Rural White Paper
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to issue a rural White Paper for Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend and I have no such plans.
    Mr. Llwyd: Is the Minister aware that the White Paper proposed for England will have a broad remit and will consider the effect of the common agricultural policy on the rural economy? Is it not, therefore, an absolute disgrace that the matter will not be considered similarly for Wales? Do the Government not realise that large parts of Wales have a rural economy? Does the Minister agree that there is a need for an integrated rural policy which balances the economic needs of rural communities with the needs of the environment?
    Mr. Jones: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. If he knew anything about the White Paper for England, he would know that it is to cover the range of policies across a number of Government Departments. The organisation within Wales is clearly very different. I would not expect him to tell me that we should replicate what is done in England merely for the sake of replication. I remind him that we have already clearly set out the range of Welsh Office policies on rural issues in the rural initiative that we published four years ago.

    Drug Education
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he is making with regard to drug education in schools.
    Mr. Richards: We have made grants available to local education authorities for personal and social education, which includes drug education. We are currently preparing specific guidance for schools to help them develop drug education programmes and policies. We have already issued a booklet entitled "Drug Misuse and the Young" for use by those working with young people. We are setting up a drug and alcohol unit in the Welsh Office, which will develop and oversee the implementation of our strategy.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that drug education in schools must be backed up by industry, especially in relation to solvent abuse? In that regard, it would be enormously helpful if young children could see products properly labelled. Retailers must be properly guided about whether they should sell solvents, and support should be given to proper substitutes for solvents. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department of Trade and Industry is passing the buck on the issue? We require proper co-ordination between the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Richards: My hon. Friend's concern about solvent abuse is shared by all Conservative Members at least. I cannot comment on the Department of Trade and Industry, but I can comment on my own Department, which is self-co-ordinating.
    Mr. Hain: What does the Minister intend to do about the fact that some £250,000 of Home Office funding for the drugs education programme in West Glamorgan has
    446
    been abolished and has not been replaced on anything like the same scale or intensity by the unit set up in the Welsh Office? Is the Minister aware that this marks a complete abandonment by the Government of their alleged war against drugs in West Glamorgan?
    Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening to my answer to the main question. I said that we were setting up a drug and alcohol unit in the Welsh Office which would develop and oversee the implementation of our strategy.

    Local Government
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the funding of local government services in Wales in 1995–96.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: Several.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Minister aware that in north Wales there is widespread concern about a number of issues, especially education and the police? Is he aware that on Wednesday Clwyd county council will meet to discuss major cuts in services as a result of his settlement? Only today I learned that north Wales will lose at least 60 police officers this year because of the settlement proposed for the police force. Will the Minister review both points as a matter of urgency, as people in north Wales are concerned about the results of the settlement?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman should know that spending on education in Clwyd is a matter for Clwyd education authority. There is a change from this year in police spending throughout Wales. For the first time, the Welsh Office is involved in setting spending levels for the police authorities in Wales. Prospective standard spending assessments have been set for each of the four, and we are consulting on that before we make our final decisions.
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to ensure that the work of voluntary organisations is not damaged during the process of local government reorganisation in Wales.
    Mr. Richards: From the outset, my right hon. Friend and I have been keen to safeguard the interests of the voluntary sector. The White Paper, "A Charter for the Future," emphasised the important role played by the sector in the delivery of local services. That message is reinforced in the guidance issued to transition committees.
    In drawing up their service delivery plans for 1 April 1996, I expect authorities to consult the voluntary sector, to build on existing arrangements and to set out their strategy for working with the voluntary sector.
    Mr. Michael: Those are fine words, but what does the Minister intend to do in practice? Does he not realise that local authorities are not only suffering the constraints of the tightened finances as a result of Government decisions but will bear the burden of increased costs due to reorganisation? At present, many voluntary organisations receive some money from counties and some from districts. In those straitened circumstances, how will the

    447
    Minister ensure that the finances available to many voluntary organisations are maintained and do not drop as a result of reorganisation?
    Mr. Richards: The work of voluntary organisations is valued greatly, certainly on the Conservative Benches. The latest available figures for direct grants to voluntary bodies for 1993–94 is £14.1 million. In addition, there are indirect grants provided by other bodies such as education authorities and local authorities.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Asil Nadir
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the case of Asil Nadir.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): A warrant has been issued for the arrest of Asil Nadir. The Crown is ready to proceed when he returns or is returned to the jurisdiction.
    Mrs. Roche: Given that efforts have so far failed to lead to the return of Asil Nadir from the illegal regime of occupied northern Cyprus, is it not about time that pressure was exerted on the Turkish Government, who really control the situation, or are the Government. of this country are apprehensive about what Asil Nadir will reveal about secret Tory party donations?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Lady cannot have been present in the Chamber when I dealt with that question on previous occasions. We are anxious that Asil Nadir should return to this country at the earliest opportunity to stand trial, and we have encouraged him to do so. The matter of donations to party funds was considered by the Department of Trade and Industry and then by the Serious Fraud Office. The decision about the charges to be preferred against Mr. Asil Nadir was taken by the Serious Fraud Office, an independent investigating and prosecuting authority, without reference to any Ministers or to either of the Law Officers.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a tragedy that Mr. Denktash has converted Famagusta, Kyrenia and Varosha into a costa del crime?
    The Solicitor-General: As I have already said, we are very keen that Asil Nadir should come back to this country. He has nothing to fear, and we should be interested in what he has to say about the charges that have been preferred.

    Brendan Smyth
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his role in the case of the extradition and prosecution of Brendan Smyth.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): On 4 May 1993 I provided the Irish Attorney-General with the usual documentation in support of a request for the extradition of Father Brendan Smyth. Father Smyth subsequently returned voluntarily to Northern Ireland, appeared in court on 21 January 1994 and was later sentenced to four years imprisonment for offences of child abuse.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Attorney-General explain why Cardinal Cahal Daly, in his detailed statement,
    448
    reported that Brendan Smyth had been interviewed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary early in 1990 in connection with child abuse complaints, that the priest had admitted wrongdoing, but was not arrested? Why did it take from then until early 1993 for the Attorney-General to seek his arrest and extradition and why did not he press with his opposite number in Dublin for an early extradition following that notice being served on the Garda?
    The Attorney-General: To take the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question first, as the hon. Gentleman knows since his holiday in Ireland and his 25 questions to the House on this subject, officials in my Department did press on three occasions, in September, October and November 1993. Returning to the earlier time, however, there were indeed investigations by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in 1990 and 1991 and into 1992. It was hoped and expected at that time that Brendan Smyth would present himself for arrest in Northern Ireland. That did not take place and it then became necessary to prepare the extradition papers. Further events or suspicions of criminality arose in early 1993.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that when I tabled a question on these matters he referred me to the answers that he had already given to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and that the information has been published in Dublin and elsewhere on several occasions when my right hon. and learned Friend's office pushed for the extradition papers to be processed? Will he also confirm that it is quite normal, in sad cases like this, for the priest, minister or vicar concerned to make himself available to the police, and that it is rare for the person concerned to go outside the jurisdiction?
    The Attorney-General: On both points, I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. There was a real expectation, or at least a real hope, that Brendan Smyth would make himself available in the early stages. As for the detail of the matter, those who wish to read it can do so in extenso in the papers referred to by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Trimble: The Attorney-General referred to the reminders that were sent by his office to the Irish on a monthly basis. Were they just reminders, or did they actually press for action? If it was the latter, what response was received from the Irish authorities? What did the official in Dublin, who we are told was dealing with the matter, say to the Attorney-General? Did the Irish at any stage raise technical legal objections? Did they at any stage refer to the earlier Duggan case?
    The Attorney-General: Again, the hon. Gentleman can read about that in great detail. They were actually personal representations by my office to the office of the Irish Attorney-General.
    Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Anderson.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The key charge against the Attorney-General in this matter is that he was so laid back as to be horizontal in respect of what is a very grave matter. Can he confirm that, in the eight months between April 1993 and January 1994, when Mr. Smyth, or Father Smyth, voluntarily surrendered himself to the Northern Irish authorities, no action had been taken by the Irish Government? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think that it was time for him to intervene personally?

    449
    How much longer after that eight months would he have allowed this grave matter to drag on without bothering to intervene himself?
    The Attorney-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman, whom I welcome to his new post on the Opposition Front Bench, has spent more time on working out his question than on reading the background. He will discover that not only did I send the detailed statements of facts and law in May 1993, but that that was followed up by my Department, as I have said, in September, October and November 1993. There were also contacts through other offices and agencies involved. It was clear at the end of November 1993 that Brendan Smyth was likely to come back of his own accord. That was communicated to Dublin in December 1993, and the rest is history.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I was in fact calling Mr. Anderson to ask question No. 24. This is an example of how Front-Bench Members can sometimes have two bites at the cherry while Back Benchers do not get any of the cherry. I must now tell the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that I assume that he has asked question No. 24 and a Back Bencher should have an opportunity.
    Mr. Anderson: I drop my earlier question.
    Madam Speaker: Thank you very much. I call Mr. Dowd. As he is not here, I call Mr. Cyril D. Townsend.

    War Crimes Act 1991
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects to bring prosecutions under the War Crimes Act 1991.
    The Attorney-General: The Crown Prosecution Service has referred the cases of seven potential defendants to Treasury counsel for advice. The papers are voluminous and complex. They will be dealt with as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Townsend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the House what changes will have to be made to the law of the land to deal with the problems of evidence in cases which go back more than 50 years? Is he yet in a position to explain that no one will go to prison after that very expensive and elaborate business?
    The Attorney-General: To take the second part of my hon. Friend's question first, as he will appreciate, the question of anybody going to prison will depend, first, on there being prosecutions and, secondly, on there being convictions. One should not jump those guns. Both will depend on evidence. A case will not be brought unless there is sufficient evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Whether or not there are prosecutions, does the Attorney-General recognise that there is great concern that such matters have taken so long to be processed? Will he encourage Treasury counsel and
    450
    whoever else is involved to supply their opinions quickly, so that a decision can be reached with the utmost dispatch?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, indeed. I recognise and share exactly the hon. and learned Gentleman's view. It is well understood by Treasury counsel. It is a detailed matter, but it has been given close, urgent and careful attention.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Aid Policy
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement defining the Government's policy as to how, and to what extent, aid should be tied to trade.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): We give aid to promote economic and social development in other countries. Wherever practical, we aim to use United Kingdom goods and services to achieve that.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister reflect that there is now widespread public opinion that it is an abuse of the aid programme to tie it to trade, particularly when such projects include metro systems in Ankara, in a state which is an applicant member of the European Union? Should not aid be related exclusively to waging war on poverty and promoting health and education?
    Mr. Baldry: Aid and trade provision was established by the Labour Government in 1977. Like much of Labour party policy, however, it is obviously re-written by the day. ATP has enabled the United Kingdom to promote development in areas where British companies have much to offer. It is a successful scheme. It is successful in helping poorer countries. It is successful also in that the £1.4 billion which has been committed to support development in poorer countries has led to nearly £4 billion of British exports, which must be good news for Britain, for British jobs and for countries which have benefited from such projects. Not surprisingly, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee concluded that ATP should continue.
    Mr. Waterson: What is my hon. Friend's view of the Opposition's point that one should never make defence sales to countries that are in receipt of British aid? Has he figures to show the number of British jobs that would be lost if such a policy were adopted?
    Mr. Baldry: It would be a bizarre approach if the Opposition suggested that we should never contemplate defence sales in countries to which we give aid. We would be entitled to ask how many employees of companies such as British Aerospace, GEC, Rolls-Royce, Racal, Perkins, Vickers and hundreds of other United Kingdom defence exporters would accept losing their jobs for such specious dogma.
    Miss Lestor: First, may I correct what has been said? We have always argued that arms sales should not be linked to aid. That is a very different statement.
    Secondly, as the Minister is aware, fewer than a third of ATP applications in 1989–90 and 1990–91 were granted. Surely other ATP projects could have been funded if the

    451
    Government had not gone ahead with the Pergau dam project. Is it not therefore disgraceful, as many people constantly point out, for the Government to say that they cannot restore the money that has already been spent on Pergau and on other projects? The pathetic excuse constantly trotted out is that the system of annual budgets means that the books for those years have been closed. Much good could have been done and could still be done if the Government would restore that money.
    Mr. Baldry: First, the House will be grateful to the hon. Lady for setting out Labour party policy. As Labour party policy seems to change by the day, we are grateful for daily updates. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the position in respect of money from the court judgment absolutely clear before Christmas. It is clear, and I am surprised that the hon. Lady has difficulty with it. We decided that funding from the reserve will be provided to meet the costs of four projects, thus releasing an extra £34.5 million this year and £31 million next year for overseas development. Every reasonable hon. Member would consider that to be an equitable solution.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Are not four-wheel drive British vehicles such as those made by Rover and also British technology in agriculture, the water industry and many public utilities vital to developing countries? Is it not good for Britain and for the developing countries if, in the process of granting such aid, we tie in trade for Britain? Does that not show the hypocrisy of the Opposition?
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We work with British companies and consultants, as we do with British non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam and the Save the Children fund, because they provide the advice, know-how, products and experience which are of benefit to the development of the countries that we help. We should be proud that British money, talent and expertise are devoted to helping many of the poorest people in the world.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he uses to allocate overseas aid.
    Mr. Baldry: We give aid where it will be most effective in promoting sustainable economic and social development, focused on the poorest countries, particularly in the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Minister not appreciate the bewilderment of people that the largest single slice of overseas aid should go to Malaysia, a country which exports cars to the United Kingdom? Is there not a case for refocusing our aid effort to those parts of the world which are poverty-stricken and which need the support that we can give them?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman should first read the statistics on British overseas aid for 1994. He might then pose a more accurate question. Nine of the 10 biggest aid recipients last year were poor countries in Africa and Asia, while Bosnia was the other main recipient. We have a substantial aid programme of some £2.2 billion which has been praised for its quality. The programme is focused on helping the poorest in the world, and we can all be proud of it.
    Mr. Ottaway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the aid budget is a growing and quality budget, and that it is
    452
    flexible in addressing human crises? But would not the budget be better distributed on a sectoral rather than a regional basis? That would be particularly applicable in relation to population policy.
    Mr. Baldry: It is indeed a large budget of some £2.2 billion and we are the sixth largest aid donor worldwide. It is growing, and the next three years will see year-on-year increases in the aid budget. It is a quality budget. Christian Aid recently commented:
    "The UK has capacity and considerable experience both in development and in the management of crises. The quality of the UK's overall contribution to long-term development is recognised to be high."
    That is one of the leading NGOs commenting on UK aid.
    In addition to giving money to the poorest countries, we also discuss their aid programmes with them. We seek to do that on seven principles, including support of economic reform, helping to achieve good government, enhancing productive capacity and financing activities which directly benefit poor people. Those are set out in detail in the ODA annual review. We recognise that we must promote particular policies as well as helping poor countries.

    Baltic Know-how Fund
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new plans he has to extend the work of the know-how fund in the Baltic states.
    Mr. Baldry: The know-how fund will continue to provide rapid and flexible assistance to the reform process in the Baltic states. The countries concerned very much welcome our support.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that since power was devolved from Moscow to Riga, Tallin and Vilnius, the know-how fund has made a marvellous contribution—it is a small contribution, but important—to the growth in the self-confidence and the economies of the Baltic states?
    As Estonia has a smaller population than Wales arid Latvia has a smaller population than Scotland, would it not be worthwhile to use the know-how fund to set up a small seminar for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet so that he and they can know how devolution liberates, unifies and creates prosperity?
    Mr. Baldry: That was a good try. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first part of his question, which fairly summarised the advantages of the know-how fund and its contribution to helping the transformation of state-run communist societies to market-led, pluralist democracies in eastern Europe. However, he rather spoilt it by the second part.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether people in eastern European countries are asking about privatisation? Is he as pleased as I was that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was so loud in his praise of privatisation when we were in Romania together? The hon. Gentleman seemed more enthusiastic about privatisation taking place than I was.
    Mr. Baldry: The Labour party may be somewhat embarrassed by the know-how fund. The aim of part of It is to assist privatisation in eastern Europe. All those countries have recognised the need to move to market

    453
    economies while the Labour party is still grappling with whether it wants to abandon the 1918 commitment to the public ownership of all means of production, distribution and exchange.

    Palestine Liberation Organisation (Aid)
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid Britain has given to the PLO in 1994; and how much will be given in 1995.
    Mr. Baldry: Our aid to the Palestinians is not given to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. In 1994 we spent approximately £12 million bilaterally and through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
    Mr. Janner: I thank the Minister for that reply and for his recognition that it is vital that we give aid to the
    454
    Palestinians by one route or another if the middle east peace process is to continue. On that strain, does he recognise that some 75 per cent. of the population of Jordan are Palestinians? In view of their courageous and skilful entry into the peace process, will he arrange for the write-off of the Jordanian debt to Britain, which in any event will not be repaid to? This is the right time to make that gesture.
    Mr. Baldry: In a sense, we have done as the hon. and learned Gentleman asks. Following the Washington declaration by Israel and Jordan, all aid debts owed by Jordan to Britain have been written off. The agreement to bring that into effect was signed on 11 December last year. I hope that that is good news for the hon. and learned Gentleman. We recognise that Jordan, having concluded its own bilateral peace treaty with Israel, has made a significant contribution to the peace process in the middle east. That is why all aid debts owed by Jordan to Britain have been written off.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Dr. Robert Spink: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: First, I have a short statement to make. Hon. Members all seem to be armed with "Erskine May". Perhaps someone will arm me with a copy.
I have a short statement to make about the arrangements for tabling questions to the Secretary of State for Wales for Monday 13 February. Under the normal arrangements for oral questions, such questions would have to be tabled in person by Members on Monday 30 January. I understand that a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in Cardiff is being arranged for that day. It will clearly be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for members of that Committee to table questions here at Westminster before 5 pm that day.
In those circumstances, I am prepared on this one occasion to relax the rule requiring oral questions to be tabled in person by a Member. Members of the Welsh Grand Committee may therefore send their oral questions by post to the Table Office or have them handed in by a secretary or research assistant, provided of course that they are signed by a Member.
For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to make it clear that this concession applies only to those Members who are on the Welsh Grand Committee. It does not extend to any other Member who may wish to table a question to the Secretary of State for Wales. I trust that those responsible for arranging these matters will ensure that such a clash of events does not reoccur.
Mr. Ron Davies: May I thank you, Madam Speaker, on behalf of all those Members who represent Welsh constituencies. If the Secretary of State for Wales had acceded to our request for an earlier meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee, we would not have been put in this impossible position. I am grateful. I know that all my colleagues share my appreciation of the discretion that you have shown.
Dr. Spink: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You mentioned "Erskine May". I know that you have such wisdom that you do not need day-to-day reference to "Erskine May". I seek your advice on whether it is possible to invoke the provisions detailed on page 678, which enable the House to call individuals before the Bar so that we can question Mr. Alastair Campbell in his new, unelected role as the only person now free to speak on Opposition policy.
Madam Speaker: I doubt whether it is a point of order for me. Coming before the Bar is a question of privilege. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue it as a matter of privilege, perhaps he will write to me in the normal way.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I have a brief point of order in relation to your statement, Madam Speaker. It will be welcome, in relation to not only your generosity, but the flexibility that you have shown in responding to the problem and also your perspicacity in noticing that a large part of Welsh questions is taken up
456
by a conspiracy of English Conservative Members of Parliament, who tend to crowd out Welsh Members as a result.
Mr. Charles Hendry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The whole House understands why, although you were elected as a Labour Member of Parliament, you are not able to talk on issues and policies. As has been said, we also understand that you set an example that the whole House should follow. However, can you explain why every Labour Member of Parliament has now decided not to talk about policies and issues and has instead decided to delegate that matter to someone else? How can the House have a constructive debate on issues of importance to the country with an invisible Opposition, who will not set out their policies?
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me. It may be a point of debate—if we ever get into a debate through these points of order.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I make two points of order about written answers?
On today's Order Paper, for example, my question No. 7 for written answer, whose named day for answer is today, relates to dates of publication of documents by the Secretary of State for Health. Question No. 398, in the name of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), which is also tabled for written answer today, is on an entirely different issue, but one that is of relevance to my constituency and neighbouring constituencies in south London: what is happening to the South Thames training and enterprise council, which has gone bust.
It is now, I think unintentionally, the case that written answers are available to the press before they are available to the Members who have tabled the questions, or are available—as in the case of the second question that I cited—to the Member who has tabled what is often a planted question considerably in advance of their being available to the Members whose constituencies are directly affected by the question.
I apologise for the fact that I have not given you notice of the point of order, Madam Speaker, and I do not expect you to rule immediately, but it seems to me that you have always enunciated the principle that Members affected should be told first. I should be grateful if you would, after investigation, give a ruling that, if an hon. Member tables a question for written answer, he or she is told before the press and others, or, if a question directly affects a constituency, the hon. Member concerned does not learn about the matter after another Member with no interest in it and the press, and then only considerably later.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough to know that I have very firm and strong views about the matter which I will not enunciate at this stage, but I will look at it very carefully and make a statement to the House about it.
Several hon. Members rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: I am quite capable, Lady Olga, of determining who to call, thank you.
Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I, too, apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order, Madam Speaker, but it arises out of the point that was

457
just raised. If it is a question of the overlapping of interests between Members and their constituencies, and if you are going to make a ruling, will you clarify the position of hon. Members visiting other hon. Members' constituencies, and whether due and proper notice should be given to those hon. Members?
Madam Speaker: I have always made it clear that, when Members visit other Members' constituencies, they should certainly inform them as a matter of courtesy.
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the current debate on devolution and the accusation by the Prime Minister of "teenage madness" among those advocating such devolution, will you draw the attention of Conservative Members to the fact that they are about to vote—presumably in favour—on the motion at the top of page 1068 in the name of the Leader of the House: that the matter of the Welsh economy is a matter relating exclusively to Wales?
Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order for me. Questions on the Order Paper should come to the attention of hon. Members each day as they read the Order Paper.
Mr. James Clappison: On the question of notice, Madam Speaker, in which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) seems to be interested, can you give some guidance on whether it is in order for hon. Members to mention another hon. Member who has asked a question in the course of his parliamentary activities, having given no notice to the hon. Member concerned and having made various presumptive comments about that hon. Member?
Madam Speaker: I shall be glad to look at the whole matter and tell the House how Members should behave. Frankly, however, it is a matter of common sense, and rulings from the Chair should not be necessary when it comes to applying common sense.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, in assisting the orderly nature of oral questions? At Welsh Questions today—we have had similar problems in the past with the Home Office—the issue of Ministers' responsibility for policy or operational matters arose. The Minister said that I did not
458
write to him on a matter. As you know, that matter is operational and I have written to the health authority about it. There is a real difficulty because, having had a negative reply from the health authority, I then brought up the question here today.
It is the proper function of a Member of Parliament to raise matters of policy here. As I could not raise a point of order at Question Time when the accusation was made, the accusation grew legs and ran away. We are placed in difficulty when we are accused of not properly representing our constituents. May we have a ruling for Ministers on what is an operational as opposed to a policy matter, because many of us would like to know what Ministers are responsible for, if anything?
Madam Speaker: I have no doubt that the Welsh Office will have taken on board what the hon. Gentleman has said and may even be helpful. But he must pursue those matters with the Secretary of State, not through me.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I point out to you—you probably noticed it yourself—that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) was not listening when my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) spoke and had to be alerted to the fact that he should have listened to the subsequent question? He was not doing so and his colleague had to tell him what had been said. He then got it all wrong.
Madam Speaker: I try to keep my eye on everyone in the Chamber, but it is not always possible. I do my best.

BILLS PRESENTED
  WATER CHARGES (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Paul Tyler, supported by Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Nick Harvey, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Simon Hughes and Mrs. Diana Maddock, presented a Bill to amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to prohibit the use by water undertakers of rateable values as a basis for charging from 31 March 1996; to provide for charging by water undertakers in accordance with council tax bands; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That the Matter of the Welsh economy, being a Matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, perhaps it will be helpful if I state that it may be convenient if the Second Reading, the committal motion and the instruction in the name of the Leader of the Opposition are debated together, with an opportunity for a Division, if desired, at 10 o'clock. I am afraid that I shall not be able to call the instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but the points contained in it are in order for debate on Second Reading.
  3.42 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, if it meets with parliamentary approval, will lead to the construction of one of the longest and most ambitious pieces of infrastructure to be built this century. The high-speed rail link will be a project of major national significance and will provide Britain with a modern and fast link with the rest of Europe.
  The Bill provides powers for the construction, maintenance and operation of the link between St. Pancras in London and the channel tunnel in Kent. The Bill includes powers for associated works, including a connection to provide access to Waterloo international station, connections to other existing lines, provision in outline for a station at Ebbsfleet in Kent, the construction of an open box that could accommodate a station at Stratford, and the alteration and extension of St. Pancras, including advance works for Thameslink. It will also secure the powers to widen the A2 at Cobham and the M2 between junctions 1 and 4 on the outskirts of the Medway towns.
  The new railway will bring great benefits to the whole country. It will more than double the capacity for international passenger trains between this country and the continent of Europe; reduce journey times for both international and domestic trains; enable the provision of entirely new express commuter services to several parts of Kent; boost regeneration in the Thames gateway and east Kent; and enhance capacity for rail freight from every part of the nation to the continent. Some £1.5 billion has already been spent on trains, tracks and stations for railway services through the channel tunnel.
  Right hon. and hon. Members who have travelled on Eurostar have already enjoyed the benefits of that investment. They will also appreciate the huge likely demand for those services. Eventually, more capacity will be needed. The rail link, with an additional terminus at St. Pancras, will meet that demand.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will make a little progress.
  460
  The new line will cut journey times from Paris to London by half an hour to 2.5 hours. The journey time to Brussels will be cut to two hours and 10 minutes, once the Belgians have their new fast line. The time savings will spread the demand and the benefits still further, because they will widen the area of the country for which the journey time by rail will be competitive with air travel.
  Paris to Birmingham—city centre to city centre—will come down to 4.5 hours; towns and cities served by the east coast main line will benefit from an hour's reduction in journey time. Paris to Peterborough will take only 3.5 hours.
  The new line may take freight, although it is designed principally as a high-speed passenger railway. Taking passenger traffic on to the new line means more room for freight on the existing network. That will present new opportunities to shift freight from the roads.
  Together with the privatisation of British Rail, the channel tunnel rail link will give a major boost to rail freight. That is a key benefit for the whole country. Some 70 per cent. of freight trains through the channel tunnel are expected to have origins and destinations beyond London. It makes environmental sense for as much freight as possible to be taken on rail right through to the regions.
  In the south-east, the new line provides other important benefits, particularly for Kent. Express commuter services will be taken on the new line, transforming the travelling lives of rail users from an area that is currently served, by the slowest of London's commuter trains. Gravesend will see journey times to London cut from 50 minutes to 20, and Ashford from 75 minutes to 40.
  The Government are keen to see the rail link act as a focus for regeneration, particularly of the Thames gateway and east Kent. That is one of the main reasons why we chose an easterly approach to London. Estimates of growth in the area around Ebbsfleet station, for example, are for 45,000 new jobs and 30,000 additional homes.
  Likewise, the London terminus at St. Pancras can be expected to stimulate the regeneration of the surrounding area. That provides an excellent example of the Government's policy of encouraging development around major public transport centres, with ensuing economic and environmental benefits.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: My right hon. Friend was listing the benefits of the channel tunnel and the rail link. Will he include among them confirmation of the view of his predecessors—that it was unnecessary and inappropriate to have any further green field airport developments, such as that apparently envisaged for my constituency?
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is moving the boundaries of the debate slightly wider than that included in the Bill, but I understand his concern and would be happy to talk to him about it if he would like to take up that opportunity.
  Mr. Winston Churchill: Clearly, this is the greatest opportunity that we have had this century of shifting freight from road to rail. Will my right hon. Friend look again at Trafford park, in my Manchester constituency? Currently, we already have six freight trains a night in each direction coming through the tunnel, bound for Trafford park, and the Euro-terminal, so recently opened at the eastern end of Trafford park, is threatened with closure due to the problems of noise and what many

  461
  people regard as the unrealistic level at which the noise requirement has been set, which is quite impossible for rail freight to meet.
  Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend raises an important point, one that he has already brought to Ministers' attention. It is complicated by the fact that there is a local authority involvement in the issue, but I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads to look at the point that he has raised.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Secretary of State will recall that, when the route via the eastern approach was first announced, his predecessor said that its purpose was regeneration—which the Secretary of State rightly mentioned—but that that regeneration was intended for east London. Given that the Government have made it clear that there should always be a Stratford option, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Bill contains powers for Ebbsfleet, but only an indication of the long trench—which he mentioned—and no powers for Stratford? Surely that is an inequity in option terms.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel that. The Bill specifically makes it possible for a station to be there, but—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out—the option has been left open. That is a requirement of the promoters for bidding purposes. We shall form a judgment on the basis of the bids that are made in March.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I will give way, but I must then make progress.
  Mr. O'Brien: Has the Secretary of State considered the question of the east line? Wakefield district council is developing its rail terminal in my constituency, which is important to the area's economy—it will mean 6,000 or 10,000 jobs in the surrounding rail freight village—but we need an assurance from the Secretary of State that freight can be moved quickly from the Yorkshire area through the tunnel.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of the proposal. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, it is being considered seriously.
  Mr. Alan Haselhurst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I will, but this must be the last time.
  Mr. Haselhurst: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Following the intervention of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), does my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House support furtherance of the concept of an interchange station at Stratford? I believe that the strategy of the eastern approach, which I wholly applaud, will be boosted if rail connections from the whole of East Anglia can be plugged in at Stratford.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the point made by both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It was I who announced the decision that
  462
  the Stratford option would remain on the table. We shall respond to the bids, examine them and in due course reach a judgment; but Stratford remains a possibility.
  The channel tunnel rail link will have an impact on the environment. As with roads, nearly 68 miles of brand-new railway cannot be built painlessly, but considerable efforts have been made to identify a route that minimises environmental damage. The Government believe that the benefits of the new railway far outweigh any detrimental impact; we also want the environmental impact to be mitigated as far as reasonably possible.
  The Government have insisted that the project's developers must meet the environmental standards applied to all other major transport infrastructure projects. I believe that that objective has been achieved, first by careful route selection—the length of the route that we are discussing was considered 10 times, and nine tenths was rejected, much of it on environmental grounds—and secondly by incorporating mitigation in the design.
  Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I shall do so shortly; I should like to make some progress first.
  Extensive use has been made of existing transport corridors. Twenty-one per cent. of the route is in tunnel; 85 per cent. of the link either follows an existing transport corridor such as the M20, or runs in tunnel.
  As evidence of the importance that we attach to the environment, the Government, through Union Railways, commissioned a full environmental assessment of the rail link proposals. An environmental statement of the findings of that assessment was laid before Parliament and published on 17 November last year. The assessment process will continue throughout consideration of the Bill. I commend the comprehensive work undertaken by Union Railways and its environmental consultants for its thoroughness and professionalism.
  I know that the environmental statement will be of interest to right hon. and hon. Members who are particularly concerned about the noise impact of the new link and the mitigation that will be provided. I also recognise the concerns about noise from the intensified use of existing lines and the fact that the Select Committee may wish to examine intensification which might result from the new rail link. However, I hope that the Select Committee will not extend its remit to intensification generally caused by the channel tunnel, as that was considered and dealt with by Parliament when passing the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
  Sir Michael Neubert: I am sorry that I sought to intervene earlier so soon after other interventions. My point relates to the environment. As my right hon. Friend knows, the chosen route is through the London borough of Havering and in particular passes through the constituency of my neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). His ministerial responsibilities consign him to silence on this occasion. However, he is in his place and believes, as I and the council do, that the route through Rainham should be about 150 m south of what is proposed.
  That is a point of detail, but the general point is that there is apprehension that the Select Committee will not be willing to consider petitions which seek to vary the

  463
  route by more than a minimum. Will the Minister assure me that a counter-proposal such as that by the council of a movement of about 150 m would be considered under petition by the Select Committee?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I am aware of the concern of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, who is in his place on the Treasury Bench. In an entirely appropriate way in his capacity as a Member of Parliament he has made me aware of the concern of his constituents. The House will understand that it is not for me to determine or predetermine what the Select Committee should do about a petition which may or may not be submitted.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The Secretary of State has outlined his sensitivity about the loss of aural amenity resulting from the project. Will he make comparable references and express the hope that the Committee will examine the loss of visual amenity, especially in west Thurrock, where the route would be on a viaduct of a height comparable to that of the Galleries in the Chamber? It will clearly blight many properties because it will overlook them and their gardens and will clearly make it impossible for people to sell those properties.
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point on behalf of his constituents, even if he over-eggs it a little. It would be slightly difficult to disguise a viaduct to make it look like anything other than a viaduct.
  A recent Europewide study of high-speed rail networks emphasised the clear environmental advantages of high-speed rail over road and air transport, particularly in terms of energy efficiency, lower air pollution emissions and less land take. It would be a mistake to believe that all the environmental impacts associated with the rail link are negative. For example, the grade 1 listed St. Pancras station will be refurbished. The channel tunnel rail link creates a long-term future for this outstanding example of Victorian railway architecture.
  The Bill contains a widening scheme for the A2-M2 between Cobham and junction 4. That is to relieve congestion on an important strategic route. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and the local authorities concerned urged the Government to include the widening scheme in the Bill. They particularly wanted to see the two new viaducts over the Medway constructed at the same time. We concluded, for sound environmental reasons, that the M2 scheme should be included in the Bill and should stand as part of the Bill's principle.
  An environmental statement for the widening scheme was published on the same day as the statement for the rail link. It too is based on a thorough and professional environmental assessment conducted by independent consultants. There has also been an assessment of the combined effects of the road and rail schemes.
  I shall now turn to the route of the rail link and begin by describing the process of route development and consultation. This demonstrates that the route contained in the Bill was selected only after the most thorough consideration. The broad corridor for an easterly approach to London was chosen in 1991 following a comparative study of four major options. It was not the cheapest option, but the decision attracted all-party support.
  464
  The easterly route was then refined by comparing and sifting all the possible local route variations, taking account of environmental appraisals and soundings with local authorities, after which Union Railways presented a range of options following an easterly approach to London.
  In March 1993, the Government selected a route for consultation, which again was not the cheapest of the options and which as a minimum met the environmental standards that apply to other major transport infrastructure projects in this country. In January 1994, and after formal public consultation that lasted more than six months, the then Secretary of State for Transport confirmed the route, with some enhancements. After further studies and consultation for two route sections he finalised the Government's chosen route in April last year.
  It would be unrealistic to expect everyone to be satisfied with the route in the Bill, given that the railway has to run through environmentally sensitive and, in some sections, densely populated areas of Kent, Essex and London. However, decisions have not been taken lightly. Those who remained aggrieved throughout the process have had a proper opportunity to make their cases—leading the Government, in some instances, to reconsider earlier decisions before settling finally on what should be included in the Bill.
  Because the route development, consultation and decision-making processes have been so full and painstaking, and because proper environmental standards have been used throughout, I do not believe that the Select Committee need spend time considering options outside the limits of deviation set down by the Bill for the terminus and route.
  The London terminus, the existing St. Pancras station, will be extended and enlarged to provide separate accommodation for international and domestic services and for midland main line services. Physical connections will be provided with the east coast and west coast main lines to allow direct through services from the rail link to Scotland, the north of England and the midlands.
  A grade-separated junction is provided as the rail Ink leaves St. Pancras. East of the Caledonian road, the rail link will run in bored tunnel to an open box within the Stratford railway lands. That will accommodate an emergency crossover and evacuation facility and a connection to a possible depot at Temple Mills.
  Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend assure me and the House that the Government's position remains that it would be possible in the future, within the terms of the Bill, for there to be a junction between the channel tunnel rail link and the proposed cross-rail link?
  Dr. Mawhinney: As my hon. Friend may know, that proposal is not in the Bill. However, it remains a possibility for the promoters of both projects to agree to move in that direction if they are so minded.
  The open box would also provide scope in the future for a station at Stratford. As I made clear to the House last year, the option of a station at Stratford remains open. A final decision will depend on our review of the bids from the four bidding consortiums when they are received.
  Leaving Stratford, the rail link will continue in tunnel, emerging alongside the existing London-Tilbury-Southend line to the east of Barking station. The link will

  465
  then follow the LTS corridor. Near the Ripple lane freightliner terminal a connection will be provided to allow freight to join and leave the link.
  The railway will continue along the LTS corridor, past the inner-Thames marshes and past the Mardyke housing estate on a viaduct. A second viaduct will take the rail link over the M25 and under the approach to the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. The rail link will then enter tunnel to pass beneath West Thurrock marshes and the River Thames.
  The link will emerge from the Thames tunnel at Swanscombe marshes, where there will be a permanent maintenance depot. The Bill provides in outline for a combined international and domestic passenger station at Ebbsfleet with parking and access to the A2 close to the M25. A connecting line to the north Kent line at Ebbsfleet will enable trains from the Medway towns to join the link for fast running into St. Pancras.
  The rail link will pass under the A2 at Pepper Hill. There is provision for the disused Gravesend west line to be reinstated to provide a connection between the link and the Longfield to Swanley line, so that international passenger trains on the railway can use the international terminal at Waterloo. The rail link will then run parallel to the A2-M2, with provision for possible freight passing loops south of Singlewell.
  There will be an additional viaduct over the Medway, parallel to the existing one. The rail link will then switch from the M2 corridor to the M20 corridor by entering a two-mile long tunnel under the north downs, then running largely on the surface to the north of Maidstone. The route will then run parallel to the M20, diverging for a short distance at Sandway. There is provision for possible passing loops at Charing Heath. The rail link will then leave the M20 corridor to run towards the centre of Ashford, where the line will widen to four tracks so that connections can be made with the international passenger station currently under construction. The rail link will then run parallel to the existing railway out of Ashford to Dollands Moor, where there is provision for a possible connection to the freight inspection facility. The railway will then enter Eurotunnel's terminal at Cheriton.
  Last year, I described the channel tunnel rail link as a great example of co-operation between the Government and the private sector. The rail link will be built, owned and maintained by a private sector promoter. In June, we shortlisted four bidding consortia; they are now preparing their tenders, for submission on 14 March. We have set certain minimum requirements—an important one of which is consistency with the Bill—but, within those constraints, we are looking for imaginative responses from the private sector. I expect to announce the winner in the latter half of this year. If Parliament approves the Bill, I shall use its powers to designate the winning consortium as the "nominated undertaker" of the rail link.
  I turn now and briefly to the structure of the Bill.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Before my right hon. Friend leaves that passage, will he clear up a possible misunderstanding? In response to one of my hon. Friends, he said that it was not for him to predetermine how a Select Committee might respond to a petition. He then said that he saw no need for the Select Committee to consider anything outside the limits of deviation. As he
  466
  knows, this matter is of considerable concern to Kent Members and to hon. Members representing regions covered by other parts of the track. We should be grateful if he would make it clear that he does not intend to give advice to the Select Committee.
  Dr. Mawhinney: May I clarify that, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), I said that I would not prejudge on the basis of a petition that might or might not be brought before the Select Committee? I made the Government's position clear. I am in a position to offer advice and guidance to a Select Committee, but I am not instructing it.
  On the structure of the Bill, much of its content is well precedented in previous private and hybrid legislation, not least in the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, and in my Department's model clauses for railways and tramways. Part I deals with the rail link. It includes provisions authorising its construction, maintenance and operation and associated works by the "nominated undertaker". The House will note, however, that the compulsory acquisition powers are conferred on the Secretary of State, and that all the usual protections and provisions as to compensation for people whose land, property or rights are compulsorily acquired or injuriously affected will apply.
  Part I also gives planning approval for the rail link and establishes a special planning regime, under which various detailed matters are left for subsequent approval by the relevant local authority. There is to be a planning memorandum to accompany the Bill, and local authorities that are willing to abide by the terms of the memorandum will enjoy extended planning powers.
  Part I also provides a special regime for heritage matters. Here, too, it is our intention that the relevant statutory bodies, especially English Heritage, and local authorities will have a role through an agreement outside the Bill. On planning and heritage matters, there has been widespread consultation and discussion with the affected local planning authorities and interested statutory bodies over the course of the last year. Those discussions continue.
  Part I also includes the public clauses for the rail link, which establish the regulatory regime for the rail link and make provision in respect of the competition and finance, as well as covering a number of general subjects, including the "nominated undertaker" powers, which I have mentioned already.
  Mr. David Shaw: I wanted to catch the attention of my right hon. Friend before he left part I to ask about clauses 30 and 31. How will the impact of section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act, which forbids the Secretary of State or the public sector from financing the channel tunnel, be protected so that the Dover ferry industry will continue to receive protection? Will he give an assurance that clauses 30 and 31 will in no way result in additional and extra subsidy going into the channel tunnel?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I believe that my hon. Friend will find that the financial contributions relate to the domestic rather than the international aspect. If I have misremembered, I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to refine my answer later, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker. I think, however, that I have accurately remembered the arrangement.

  467
  The regulatory regime for the rail link will be designed for the particular circumstances of the project. It will reflect the substantial financial commitment of the private sector and the risks that it will be bearing. It will also reflect the fact that the rail link will be in competition not only with other forms of transport but with other railways. The regulatory regime will therefore complement the regime set out in the Railways Act 1993, but with some significant modifications to reflect the rail link's unique circumstances.
  Part II of the Bill provides for the Secretary of State the powers for a 10.5 m widening of the A2 at Cobham and the M2 between junctions 1 and 4 on the outskirts of the Medway towns. Widening will be contained entirely within the existing highway corridor. A second motorway bridge across the River Medway will be built upstream of the existing bridge to provide four lanes for London-bound traffic.
  Part III of the Bill contains miscellaneous and general provisions, including the financial provisions in clause 49.
  The Bill is hybrid. Subject to the House granting the Bill a Second Reading and approving the committal motion, the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee for consideration of petitions against it. Separate Select Committees of the House and of another place will consider the effects of the rail and road schemes on the interests of those directly affected.
  It is for the Select Committees to decide on the scope of their consideration; the Government can only offer guidance in such matters. In response to requests and to be helpful, the Government have given an early indication of their intended advice to the Committees. I earnestly hope that the Select Committees will concentrate their attention on the route of the rail link and the road alignment defined in the Bill.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am one of those who support the Bill in principle. I am not happy about the Stratford international station, but I am sure that it will not happen. Can the Secretary of State help me on the timetable for petitions? The Bill comprises 197 pages, but I understand that petitions have to be in by 6 February. Is there any possibility of extending the deadline?
  Dr. Mawhinney: We had to judge what we thought was sufficient time for petitions to be submitted against the need to make progress with the Bill, which will already span a second parliamentary Session. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the decision was well based even if he would have liked to vary it by a few days one way or the other.
  The project has been studied exhaustively. The route has been developed and refined with care and after extensive consultation. Its impact has been assessed in a thorough, professional and independent manner, and the results have been made known. The benefits of the rail link for the whole country are manifest. The moment has come to decide to build the longest new railway in this country for a century. I believe that Parliament will want to seize this opportunity, and accordingly I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.12 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: The Secretary of State has presented the Second Reading of the Bill, here and elsewhere, as though it were a political triumph: the reality has been rather different.
  We welcome, of course, the fact that this rail link will more than double the capacity available for international rail services between Britain and Europe. We welcome, of course, the 30-minute cut in the journey time between London and Paris and between London and Brussels—indeed, I think that the cut in journey time to destinations on the east coast main line will be an hour—and we welcome, of course, the fact that journey times for the 25,000 long-suffering commuters who travel from the Medway towns and north-east Kent into London every working day will be reduced significantly. Up to 12 high-speed services an hour in each direction on the new line, a clipping of 40 minutes off the journey time from Dover, a near halving of the journey time from Ashford and a more than halving of the travel time from Gravesend are clearly valuable achievements and we unreservedly welcome them.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: As I mentioned Gravesend, I will give way.
  Mr. Arnold: What does the hon. Gentleman think of some of his hon. Friends who have been busily attacking Ebbsfleet and saying that the station should not be built there, in view of the improvements to commuting for Gravesend people that he has rightly mentioned?
  Mr. Meacher: We all know the circumstances in which the Ebbsfleet decision was made. It will be the parkway for the M25 and the proposal makes good sense in that respect, but the manner in which political lobbyists were involved in the decision did not help the underlying rationale for Ebbsfleet.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No. I would prefer to make progress.
  The most that can be said for this Second Reading debate is that it ends seven years of muddle. The delays and policy reverses have blighted huge swathes of south-east England. The incoherence of the Government's approach to long-term infrastructure projects has been ruthlessly exposed. Selling back property purchased during the property boom will entail a waste of about £140 million of taxpayers' money, which, if it had been better spent, could have completely refurbished any of the main lines that are now crumbling as a result of years of non-investment. Above all, the slippage in the timetable has been deeply embarrassing to our national reputation
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: In view of my long relationship with the right hon. Gentleman over most issues, although net over transport, I am glad to give way to him.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's generosity, but is it not a bit rich of him to

  469
  go on about delay? Was not he a member of the Labour Government who, in 1975, cancelled the channel tunnel project absolutely?
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman goes back to 1975 and very different economic conditions. The channel tunnel has been under consideration in this country for more than 100 years. To associate that delay with the previous Labour Government is a pretty cheap political point.
  The British high-speed link will not be ready until 2002 at the earliest, eight years after the Eurostar trains have been forced to begin their slow trundle from the channel. President Mitterrand's quip at the opening of the TGV line between Paris and Lille—that, although high-speed trains would race across the plains of northern France, their ambling through Kent would enable passengers to savour the British countryside—was not a graceful gesture about the beauties of the English landscape; it was a humiliating put-down of the Government's incompetence.
  The French built their high-speed link before the completion of the tunnel and the Belgians will complete theirs over the next three years. Only in Britain shall we have to endure the indignity, let alone the inconvenience, of knowing that, although Eurostar trains race across France at speeds of up to 185 mph and travel through the tunnel at 85 mph, they then trundle their way to London at 50 mph. The delay over the British link, which is a national disgrace, reflects a bumbling and short-sightedness that are extreme even by this Government's standards.
  When the go-ahead for the tunnel was given, the Government's initial response was to say that there was no need for the link because there would be plenty of room on existing Kent lines. It took—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] Hon. Members' reaction confirms my point. It is astonishing that the Government alone did not realise that a dedicated link was necessary. It took them years, because of their short-termist, market outlook, to realise that the link was not merely a minor addendum but was vital to ensure that the capacity of the tunnel would be fully used.
  Then, of course, there were the policy zig-zags. Since 1987, when the channel tunnel treaty was signed, there have been at least four major policy reversals: on funding, on alignment, on consortium make-up and on environmental damage.
  Overshadowing all that has been the Government's vacillation on finance. If one wants a monument to the Government's arrogance and ideological stupidity, one need look no further than the funding of the high-speed rail link. So rigid, so dogmatic was the Thatcherite edict that private enterprise must build the link that tens of millions of pounds of European money was rejected. Why? Because it required a Government contribution.
  The result has been endless shilly-shallying over how many tunnels should be bored, the cost of the new station at Ashford international, the merits of an underground terminal at King's Cross as part of a comprehensive redevelopment, indecisiveness over Stratford and uncertainty over freight routes to the north. To cap it all, we now have the absurd irony of
  470
  the Government being forced to pay very much more for something that they could have had earlier at a far cheaper price.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I shall in a moment.
  The bad public relations, the confusion of purpose between the Government and British Rail and the constantly changing ideas on what the rail link was designed to achieve have all squandered much taxpayers' money. It is likely that the cost of engineering studies alone will total about £350 million. It is now likely that the Government—perhaps I should say the long-suffering taxpayer—will have to pay half the estimated cost of almost £3 billion.
  Dr. Mawhinney rose—
  Mr. Meacher: I shall give way in a second.
  The real lesson of this wretched saga is that, if the Government had not been so stubborn and prejudiced, the link could almost have been built by now, and at much less cost. The tragedy for Britain is that a project with a lifespan of well over a century, generating economic and environmental benefits far beyond its balance sheet, has been saddled with a Government who cannot see beyond their short-term City horizons.
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is describing the malaise during the build-up to this Bill, but will he develop his reference to the link with the northern regions? Without capital investment in the line to the north, especially to Yorkshire, the benefits expounded by the Secretary of State of the speed of freight and passenger transport will not be realised. We must impress on the Government the need to invest in the east coast line if we are to achieve all the possible benefits of the tunnel for northern regions.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend anticipates the next section of my speech. Indeed, not only the east coast main line but the west coast main line deserve considerable upgrading.
  Dr. Mawhinney: I introduced the Bill on the basis that it had some all-party support, but the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is now confusing me. A few moments ago he lambasted the Government for insisting on private-sector finance for the project and for being ideologically driven, but he then said that the poor, long-suffering taxpayer would have to pay half. If I understand his first point, he wants the long-suffering taxpayer to pay for all of it. Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Labour party would prefer the line to be funded entirely by the public sector?
  Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has a nerve to make that point. Under the so-called "Prescott option", the Labour party has repeatedly made a proposal that, for ideological reasons and for no other, the Government have repeatedly not been prepared to accept.

  471
  We have always taken the view that private sector money should be involved but that the public sector must play a leading role in such a major infrastructure project. The Government and the Secretary of State have failed to accept that, which has caused the delays and vacillation.
  Mr. Haselhurst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No, I want to make progress. I am conscious of the recommendation made in the Jopling report that Front-Bench spokesmen should not take up so much time and that many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate.
  That tunnel vision—if I may use the phrase with some conscious irony—is still handicapping the project. That brings me to the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). Concern still exists that the tunnel will increase the north-south divide unless much greater commitment than has so far been announced is made to major new rail investment to link the north-west and the north-east to the south-east.
  Britain still needs a strategy, which Labour has long advocated, to develop high-speed rail links through the heart of Britain to the north of England and to Scotland, to improve existing cross-country links to connect the east and west of England and Wales to the higher-speed network and to fill in more of the gaps in the electrified lines, in particular on the east midlands main line and the trans-Pennine route.
  In particular, as Conservative Members pointed out earlier, we still a need a much more ambitious approach to the tunnel's potential role in shifting long-distance freight from road to rail. For too long, the Government have refused to accept European proposals for road and rail transfers, such as intermodal wagons or piggy-back systems, because of their prejudice against public investment in the railways.
  We still need to develop more freight interchanges and multimodal road-to-rail freight depots to relieve congestion and, above all, to upgrade key freight routes to the European freight gauge standards to ensure full compatibility of rolling stock between the regions and the continent.
  There must be upgrading to the right loading-gauge to take containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers. Although the Secretary of State did not refer to this point, the United Kingdom loading gauge height must be increased by about 170 mm to create the piggy-back gauge.
  The Government's present attitude to freight and the rail link is far too laid back. Instead of capitalising on the link's full market potential, they concentrate almost exclusively on passenger targets and fast-delivery parcel services. They believe that, if freight demand justifies it, additional tracks known as passing loops could be provided at two places in Kent to allow passenger trains to overtake slower freight trains. However, that, like so much else, is left to the decision of the nominated undertaker.
  That is the same narrowness of vision and short-termist outlook that postponed the rail link for years in the 1980s and forced the Government to pay more later for what they could have had earlier much more cheaply. It is a tragedy for transport policy in this country that the
  472
  Government have no positive policy on international freight aimed at relieving our over-congested roads of a significant proportion of heavy goods vehicles.
  Mr. Haselhurst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: I wish to make a point about Kent, after which I shall give way.
  In Kent, for example, the gauge of the Victorian Saltwood tunnel restricts larger international freight, but so great is the Government's obsession with privatisation that they prefer a fractured system under which advances will be made at the whim of individual contractors. It has been estimated that upgrading the route corridor from Ireland to Scotland to the continent via the channel tunnel has potential for 400,000 lorry semi-trailers a year, but that will not be realised, or it will certainly not be fully realised, because the west coast main line, which, under Euro-funding, will be piggy-back, and another European scheme, the Cork to Belfast to Stranraer route, which under Euro-funding will also be piggy-back, are not linked.
  We have the nonsense of trucks having to revert to roads through Scotland. What is so badly lacking in the Bill is the vision to maximise the tunnel's potential to achieve a major shift in international freight from road to rail at little relative extra cost.
  Mr. Haselhurst: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: Indeed, it has been estimated that providing the necessary headroom between Glasgow and the channel tunnel would cost less than £70 million—out of a project costing nearly £3 billion. That would create an 800-km intermodal rail route and at half the cost of widening 12 km of the M25 between junctions 12 and 1.5. Strategic vision is lacking in the Bill, which is a major weakness.
  Mr. Haselhurst: Has the hon. Gentleman costed that strategic vision? He has proposed several projects to enhance the rail system, but has he costed them? Is he committing Labour to that expenditure?
  Mr. Meacher: I have just given the extra cost. The hon. Gentleman was desperately keen to intervene, and he was probably not listening to what I was saying. The proposal has been costed at an extra £70 million. [Interruption.] I think that it has been costed by UK Transmodal, a private sector consortium that supports the piggy-back gauge, which should have all-party support. ft is a relatively minor proportion of the total cost of the project. Gains to the country in the medium term are much greater. The balance-sheet mentality that looks cross-sectionally at costs today without regard to the value to the country in the medium or longer term is precisely what is wrong with the Government's approach to the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Snape: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend. Does he agree that, far from raising red herrings about cost, Conservative Members should apologise for the 10-year delay in processing the project and for the fact that, at a cost of millions of pounds of public funds, the Government acquired properties along other routes that have since been scrapped? If any party is guilty of wasting money on the project, it is the Conservative party.
  Mr. Meacher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to a point that I made earlier about the

  473
  cost of properties bought during the property boom until 1988–89 that must now be sold back because of the change from the southern to the eastern route. That cost is about £140 million. Conservative Members' comments about a major change that would enormously benefit international freight yet would cost half that amount show their narrow-mindedness.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Meacher: No. I wish to make progress. I want to make two or three more points before I finish.
  That is not the only missed opportunity in the Bill. Another vital decision that the Government are evading— I know that the Secretary of State says that he is holding it open, but he is evading it; he could have gone much further and, again, is leaving the matter to the nominated undertaker—is the future of Stratford. On 14 October 1991, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said:
  "It is envisaged that the high-speed train from the channel tunnel to King's Cross will stop at Stratford".—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 34.]
  The then Secretary of State for the Environment—the present President of the Board of Trade—said that the development at Stratford
  "has implications far beyond its crucial transport significance … It provides east of London with a development opportunity of unique potential … We cannot approach an opportunity of this magnitude field by field, site by site."
  I very much echo his sentiments, but unfortunately the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues have not adhered to them.
  Moreover, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration has described Stratford and the royals as the western focus of the Thames gateway, complementing the Dartford-Ebbsfleet station as the eastern focus. Union Railways, in its March 1993 report, specified that one of its three key objectives was
  "to provide the transport spine for the East Thames corridor development, shifting the pressure from the west to the east of London."
  I emphasise the second part of that statement.
  There is no commitment to Stratford in the Bill. Without a station at Stratford, there will not be sufficient regeneration based on the rail link in east London. We believe that the case for an international passenger station at Stratford is powerful. It would permit much faster journeys to the continent from east London, East Anglia and Essex. It would take about half an hour less than going to St. Pancras. It would offer a faster dispersal point from St. Pancras for many key destinations in central London—such as the City—thus avoiding the heavy cost of expanding underground capacity at St. Pancras.
  An intermediate station at Stratford would be ideally located to complement the existing and planned interchange at Stratford, which includes Network SouthEast, the Northern line, the Central line, the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line and crossrail—if it goes ahead—as well as the tunnel link.
  In addition, the regeneration potential is equally telling. There are more than 200 acres—I visited the area last week—of under-used brown field land at Stratford. An international station would open the way for large-scale,
  474
  mixed-use development including business parks, industry, offices, hotels, leisure and retail uses. For all those, the international station is not merely an additional regenerative factor but the cusp of the whole enterprise. It would provide the potential for 15,000 more jobs in an area where there are 120,000 people unemployed within a five-mile radius.
  Stratford already has immediate access to the national motorway system via the M11. As I have stated, there are significant potential land resources close to central London, but only the international station will confirm Stratford's role as an international gateway, regional transport hub and regional service centre and thus generate the demand for the critical mass of development that is so vital for the east Thames corridor. The Government have ducked those matters today despite their earlier commitments, and we shall want to see them fully examined by the Select Committee.
  I turn briefly to the instruction to the Committee, which we have tabled. In a number of instances, the benefit of tunnelling at a relatively low cost as against the proposed surface works has not been fully taken into account. In the Caledonian road area—one of two remaining disputed parts of the line in London—the combination of cut and cover, sewer tunnelling, the major construction site and huge heavy goods vehicle movements has never been tested by consultation. The Bill's proposals result in an aerial spaghetti junction across King's Cross railway lands, and substantially reduce the development value.
  The Secretary of State will know that Islington's consultants, Baxters, have recommended alternative tunnelling options that avoid the interference of a cut-and-cover trench, remove the need to retunnel the Fleet sewer and do not involve a major works site across Caledonian road.
  I am always asked about cost, so let me make it clear again that the cost will be an extra £40 million. However, by freeing up the north-west corner of the King's Cross railway lands for development, the option is expected to produce an extra development value of some £80 million.
  Union Railways has admitted that one option would be better than the proposal in the Bill, but I am told that the Department has refused to put it in the Bill. I understand that Union Railways has so far refused to disclose the results of its work on the other option. For those reasons, we want the matter to be thoroughly examined in Committee.
  We also want the tunnelling option at Barking and Dagenham to be further investigated. Under the present plans, high-speed trains will travel at 140 mph within some 20 ft, at the narrowest point, of the back of a line of houses in a heavily built-up residential area. That is intolerable. No hon. Member would be prepared to put up with that. Alternative tunnelling options have been suggested for either a route under Barking reach or an extension of tunnelling to the east boundary of the borough underneath the existing rail corridor.
  The extended tunnel will, of course, be more expensive, but the cost will be substantially offset by large reductions in enabling works, the virtual removal of railway safety and possession costs, the reduced cost of allowing work during normal daytime hours and easement in railway restrictions. That is why we want those options or any others to be fully re-examined.

  475
  In mid-Kent, where the line switches—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that specific point?
  Mr. Meacher: I mentioned mid-Kent, so I will give way.
  Mr. Arnold: For the hon. Gentleman's information, I represent a constituency in north-west Kent. He has given a shopping list of tunnelling cases. Why does his amendment specifically omit Ashenbank wood at Cobham, where vast environmental destruction will result if a tunnel is not constructed? Why has he omitted the case for a tunnel opposite Pepper Hill and the urban part of Northfleet, which would be damaged if a tunnel was not constructed?
  Mr. Meacher: I do not exclude the desirability of the Select Committee examining the case for other tunnels. The hon. Gentleman makes the mistake of assuming that we are concerned about only the tunnels that we have specifically mentioned. It is no attempt at an exhaustive list. I am ready to support the view that tunnelling options in other places should be examined by the Committee.
  In mid-Kent, where the line switches—this is a significant point—between the transport corridors of the M20 and the A2-M2 and carves through the north downs, Union Railways has opted for the shortest possible length of tunnel. We want the case for a longer tunnel to be re-examined, because the area is officially designated as one of outstanding natural beauty and because to join the Medway towns and Maidstone with surface development through the present green corridor would produce a sprawling conurbation as large as a major city.
  The Bill still contains some serious deficiencies on the environment and on compensation generally. As I will undoubtedly be interrupted again, I make it clear that the deficiencies to which I shall refer are not the only ones but those to which I briefly want to draw attention.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I was tempted not to interrupt my hon. Friend, but he has not mentioned the Thurrock section. His instruction expresses the desire for at least some examination of tunnelling at Thurrock. May I invite him to consider that the plans for the section are as bad as those for Barking and Dagenham, which he referred to as unacceptable? In addition, the plans include viaducts as high as the highest point of the Galleries around the Chamber. The decision to build those viaducts was affected by the decision to locate the international station at Ebbsfleet. That altered the Rifkind line of route to the MacGregor one. Blue Circle should make a contribution to the cost of tunnelling that section because its benefit is Thurrock's loss.
  Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend makes his case for his constituency forcefully. The Secretary of State dismissed the point that my hon. Friend made by saying that it was difficult to conceal a viaduct as anything other than a viaduct. I suppose that it was an attempt at a joke, but it was an inadequate response. Viaducts are an eyesore.
  My hon. Friend asks about compensation. The proper answer to his question is that tunnelling should be re-examined. That is why we have included Thurrock in the specific list of the areas where we believe the tunnelling option needs to be reviewed.
  476
  I am conscious of the time so I shall make just three more quick points. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, the Bill allows construction teams to build the track up to 3 m above the line decided by Parliament. That is not acceptable. In some areas such a vertical deviation would alter the whole nature of the line.
  Noise protection levels are premised on speeds of some 140 mph, when higher speeds of 180 mph if not 250 mph are already planned. The current proposal is that only people whose property is physically affected by the rail link will be bought out. Others who are intolerably affected by noise or construction will have to wait years for compensation. That is not acceptable.
  It is a tragedy that such a huge national flagship project, so necessary for the industrial and economic regeneration of Britain, has been marred by short-sightedness, ideological stupidity and lack of strategic perspective. There could scarcely be a more dramatic example of why Britain needs a Government who believe in a positive role for the public sector, who are motivated by strategic vision and who have an overriding commitment to the regeneration of Britain. That will be our approach when we take over the project.
  4.46 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). It is several years since we have spoken in the same debate one after the other. I am not sure that his script has improved much in that time. I hear what he says about the urgency of the project and the need to make progress. I agree; we need to make progress. However, I wonder at the credentials of the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party in making the charge of delay. After all, the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who normally sits here beside me, started the channel tunnel. The Labour Government in January 1975 cancelled the tunnel. At that stage, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was a Minister at the Department of Industry.
  With that cancellation, the tunnel went, the link went, the whole shooting match went. The Labour Government cut public spending. They cut spending on capital projects. So I suggest that whoever can lecture the Conservative Government on delay in building the tunnel or the link, it certainly is not the hon. Member for Oldham, West or the Labour party. Indeed, I should go much further than that. Railways are now back in the news. The Labour party has just committed itself to a publicly owned, publicly managed railway system. [Interruption.] I am grateful for confirmation of that.
  It is important to make the following point about this system. The channel tunnel, which is crucial to the future of the railways, was built not by public money but by private investment. The reason why it is open today is that private investors were prepared to take the risk. It was not a case of the taxpayers being forced to accept that risk. That principle of private investment now underline's the rail link as well. We should not overlook the successful and substantial revolution that the channel tunnel represents.
  Back in 1979, when I was Minister of Transport, it was a different age. In those days, there were only two Ministers in the Department of Transport—myself and my

  477
  right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). There were certainly only two shadow spokesmen.
  One of the problems that I inherited from the outgoing Labour Government was the channel tunnel. After almost six years of power, the Labour party had got precisely nowhere. We were no further forward on how to finance it or on how to build it. We had plenty of studies and statements, but absolutely no action.
  I concede that, when the Conservatives came to power, under my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, it was evident to even the dimmest commentator that the project would not proceed if we simply relied on the taxpayer's resources. Yet it seemed to me that the advantages of channel link remained obvious. The potential for car passengers, for freight movement and obviously for railway passengers was evident.
  It was not because there was a need for an integrated transport system, or however it has been put by the Opposition; it was because such a link provided a means of transport that the public themselves wanted. There was a commercial opportunity and therefore, rather than talking about public money, as we had done at the time of the last Labour Government and before that, we realised that there was an opportunity for private capital. So, in March 1980, I was able to tell the House that the tunnel could go ahead if, and only if, it was funded by private risk capital.
  I have to say to the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who says that the Labour party has always been in favour of these sorts of things, that I do not remember the Labour party rushing to support that new step. Its opinion was that, if it was a public project, only public money should be used to finance it. Indeed, there were echoes of that in the speech by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. He is being held back, but we all know that, left to his own devices, the hon. Member for Oldham, West would prefer to go that way. That was the conventional transport wisdom of the time, and it certainly was the opinion of the Labour party.
  Albert Booth, who was then the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, said at the time:
  "If it is of considerable public advantage, why make that development dependent upon it facilitating private profit?"— [Official Report, 19 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 390.]
  That was not exactly an endorsement of private investment. It was, if I may so describe it, the clause IV of investment that investment of that type must be public investment.
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for his exposition of the background to financing the tunnel privately. Does he agree that, if the huge cost overruns that developed in the building of the tunnel had been on the taxpayer's back, they would have been an appalling burden for the taxpayer to carry, but that the overruns have been privately financed?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. The key is that private risk capital was used. That is what we sought, and that is what we achieved.
  Let me add that, even with the private investment plan, there were substantial problems. Above all, the Treasury—I suspect that I might take the hon. Member
  478
  for Oldham, West with me on this—remained sceptical. I am amused to see that it now claims to be the pioneer of private investment. In truth, I think that it was a very late convert to the cause.
  The real breakthrough, as far as the tunnel was concerned, came—the hon. Member for Oldham, West alluded to it—when President Mitterrand and a number of socialist Ministers came to visit Lady Thatcher together in 1981. In spite of all the predictions, it was a very good meeting. I imagine that it was rather like a meeting between the hon. Member for Oldham, West and the Leader of the Opposition. It was courteous; it was friendly; but there was no real meeting of minds.
  However, in the case of a meeting of national leaders, a communiqué must be issued afterwards. Something had to be said—they had to agree on something. I am glad to say that, with some prompting, they agreed on the need for a channel tunnel. In Whitehall, the order went out that the Prime Minister wanted it and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, with his Government experience, the No. 10 Downing street card trumps all in Whitehall.
  So it happened that the channel tunnel was built. It was built by private investment. The tunnel also promises to be a great success, and that success has been achieved by Conservative Governments and certainly would not have been achieved under a Labour Government. That is quite obvious.
  I for one want similar determination and urgency to be employed to complete the channel tunnel rail link. I have always doubted whether the present rail system would be able to deal with rail demands until 2005. All the early signs suggest that the passenger services to Paris and Brussels will be successful. All the signs are that many people will gladly switch from the crush of Heathrow to the railway. Many people will take the view that it is the best and quickest way to travel.
  As has been mentioned, there is substantial potential for freight as well. As the House knows, I am a non-executive director of NFC plc. It is not an investor in the terminal, in the tunnel or the link, but doubtless it will be a user—a customer—at some stage. However, let me return to the subject of passengers.
  It would be a great pity if the full potential of the railways were defeated by capacity problems; if, having achieved the major goal of the tunnel, we were tripped by the question of the link running to it. I therefore wish to question Ministers on two aspects.
  The first aspect is the arrangement for financing the link. It was sensible for the Government to ask for private investment. Obviously, a good business opportunity exists; but equally, in the case of the link, I am aware of no reason why public money should be excluded, and I say that for the following reason.
  The link is not as outstanding a commercial opportunity as the tunnel, which has the income stream provided by the car and the lorry shuttle. Even more significantly, there can be no doubt that the link must meet important environmental demands to protect the public—involving tunnelling and so on. Thus, the link must meet other criteria in addition to exclusively business criteria. In those circumstances, it is entirely justifiable that public investment be used, and the fact that the costs may be perhaps one-third of the project emphasises the argument.

  479
  I think that the Government are right to say that the link will be a private and public project. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was not urged to reply on the subject, but perhaps he might have been—not to say how much, which I assume will be part of the negotiations, nor on the percentage or the capital sum concerned.
  Dr. Mawhinney: My right hon. Friend has been especially modest in describing his contribution to the development of the channel tunnel, and I should like to record that, at least on behalf of Conservative Members. As for his specific argument, of course he is right to note that the link will be a public-private arrangement. The public sector, through actions that I shall take, will contribute Union Railways' and European Passenger Services' cash and property to the arrangement.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am grateful.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I note his argument, but does he agree that the fact that—as far as I know—bids must be submitted before the full alignment and requirements of the Hybrid Bill Committees in both Houses are known, makes the costs of construction and running the railway slightly hypothetical; not to mention the fact that the market price of tariffs of alternative routes by air, sea and land makes the projection of any profit difficult? Does he agree that that perhaps makes the theology of always applying private criteria to that specific project questionable?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I thank my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for what he said. I hear what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) says. If we can manage to build the channel tunnel entirely with private money, it should not be beyond our capacity to carry out a joint rail link project.
  I confess to being a little puzzled about how it has been announced that public investment is to be committed. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 says:
  "No government grants to the Railway Board in respect of international railway services"
  are allowed. I imagine that the legal advice is that that ban does not include other facilities like commuter services running on the new rail link, or bodies other than the Railway Board. I imagine that, as always, the Treasury opposes any change in the 1987 Act which it fears might open the floodgates. Having made every allowance, however, there is something to be said for clarity in legislation, particularly when public funds are at stake.
  Dr. Mawhinney: May I help my hon. Friend again? Section 42 to which he refers applies to a public sector body, which is British Rail. The rail link will be a private sector entity, and the circumstances are entirely different. We do not plan to repeal section 42.
  Sir Norman Fowler: That just confirms what I was saying. I understood that point. We shall see the position as it develops.
  My second question concerns access to the rail link from other parts of the country. In that respect, I agree strongly with what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said. I shall leave it to my right hon. and hon.
  480
  Friends behind me to raise issues relating to the south of the country. My concern is about the midlands and the north.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: And the north-west.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Of course. The north includes the north-west and the north-east.
  According to the Union Railways brief, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirmed, once the rail link has been completed it will take two and a half hours to travel from St. Pancras to Paris. That makes it a very attractive service which the public will clearly support. From Birmingham to Paris, however, it will take four and a half hours and from Manchester to Paris, five and a quarter hours, even after the rail link has been completed. The Union Railways' brief states that those are
  "Electrified Main Lines, which could be served by direct international day-time trains, via junctions at St. Pancras. Some routes would need engineering work or station works. Easy interchange with international trains at St. Pancras are also available to these routes".
  When the Minister sums up, will he say a little more about the position? Will he explain how the nation north-east and north-west of St. Pancras will join up with the rail link, what engineering and station works are required and, above all, what timing is planned?
  Mr. William O'Brien: I appreciate the support that has been given to the points that I made earlier when I intervened on the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will impress on the Secretary of State the need for capital investment, be it private or public, in the lines from St. Pancras to the north if we are to have the speed and efficiency required, to which people in the north are entitled.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, indeed. That takes me to my final point.
  Clearly, the whole approach to the channel tunnel and channel link is that we must seek to attract the public on to the railways. To do that, the east coast and west coast routes urgently require investment. Given the private investment that is planned, the west coast route is even more urgent than the east coast one. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can say something about that when he responds.
  Clearly, we shall hear much more from the hon. Member for Oldham, West about the so-called "integrated transport policy", public ownership and the advantages of public management. I am bound to say that, from my experience, to hold up British Rail as an example of how an industry should be managed is one of the most extraordinary claims that I have ever heard. How can it help the running of the railways to have Ministers and civil servants breathing down the necks of British Rail managers? Whatever Opposition Members may think, that is the reality of nationalised industries, and it happened more under Labour than under this Government. Bureaucracy and interference go together.
  The real debate should be about how we attract the public onto the railways. In achieving that, the Government have taken a number of crucial steps, which Labour simply has not done. They have enabled the building of the channel tunnel with private investment, and the tunnel is now open. Had we relied on public

  481
  spending, it would not be open. The Government are now enabling the rail link to proceed. Again, private investment is crucial to that project, although some public money will be required to meet some of its legitimate objectives.
  Both projects will go down as substantial achievements—the achievements of private investment. We now need the greatest possible speed in completing the rail link so that the railways can compete for business effectively.
  5.6 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Clearly, there is general support for the principle of the Bill. What is criticised is not only the late arrival of this Eurostar or Euro union but some of the features surrounding it. I raised one of those in an intervention in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). If we are to protect the public, particularly people on the route—some defects in the Bill will be raised in Committee in that respect—we must be prepared as members of the public to support the operation of that line. The Government, however, say that they want it to be constructed and run by the same firm. The paradox in that respect is, in modern circumstances, difficult to sustain.
  Criticism has also been made about the railway track. A two-track railway can operate to a certain capacity and at certain speeds and braking distances, but if it is to retain freight in order to relieve noise and disturbance elsewhere while also operating as a domestic line, a two-track railway may not be enough. The Bill would have been better had it contained the reservation for a three-track extension or widening as and when the time arose, or even for a four-track line in future centuries. That requires a public less than a private enterprise.
  My speech will focus on my instruction on the Order Paper. I understand why all instructions cannot be accepted for debate, but I shall read it to transfer it from the Order Paper to Hansard. It stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr.Banks) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), and the hon. Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Castle Point (Dr. Spink). Other hon. Members may support it in their speeches. It instructs the Select Committee:
  "that it shall consider the merits of including in the Bill all powers, facilities, permissions, licences and other statutory provisions required for the construction and operation of a combined international and domestic passenger station at Stratford, in the London Borough of Newham, comparable to those in the Bill applying to such a station at Ebbsfleet in Kent."
  When I intervened on the Secretary of State, he agreed that, while there are powers in the Bill for Ebbsfleet, there are none for Stratford, but thought that that was not inequity. I would claim that it is inequity for a true option, which is the Government's well-rehearsed and well-publicised policy.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I just want to confirm what the hon. Gentleman said—that there are other Conservative Members who would support such an instruction. I hope very much that my hon. Friend the
  482
  Minister will take note of that fact and of the fact that this relatively harmless instruction keeps options open—options which might be valuable for the future.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman. I have noted other interventions from hon. Members who represent constituencies throughout East Anglia, because it is the north-eastern part of London, particularly into East Anglia, that requires cross-Thames access to the channel tunnel. I understand, subject to correction, that the figures that Union Railways presented to various people on the likely use of the tunnel were based on assumptions relating to air traffic from Heathrow. I suggest that that is not necessarily a good way of going about it.
  I also take the point made by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), because if we do not get it right now, the option diversion will surely get worse. If the Bill does not provide optional powers for a possible station at Stratford, people will say, "We are not sure; the future is not clear." Will there be an additional order under the Transport and Works Act 1992? That will be difficult. It will take time, and perhaps another Bill. There may be more objections and procedure, which I suggest will further the difference in terms of the option that the Government claim is there but which, I suggest, in reality is not in terms of prospects and what is in the Bill.
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): The option for a station at Stratford is kept open by the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will recall the very informative debate that we had on that matter in the early hours of the morning just before Christmas. The Government decided that Ebbsfleet should be part of the project and that there should be a parkway there, while the decision on Stratford remains open.
  The decision will be taken not by the nominated undertaker of the project, as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, but by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It will be informed by the bids that we receive, which will evaluate the economic arguments made so cogently by supporters of the Stratford case on many occasions. The position for a station at Stratford, should the case be made, is protected in the Bill. It is only for the building works connected with the station that Transport and Works Act procedures would be required. If the promoting company felt that there was justification for it—that would inform my right hon. Friend's decision—I do not believe that obtaining the necessary powers through those procedures will be an obstacle to the construction of the station.
  Mr. Spearing: I think that, on reflection, the Minister will agree that his intervention is helpful to our case. I do not think that the option is in the Bill. Let me specify. On page 96 of schedule 4, where it shows the land numbers on deposited plans, on parcels 26 to 32 relating to Ebbsfleet it says:
  "The provision of an international and domestic passenger station with ancillary development and car parking, diversion of overhead electric cables".
  On the relevant parcels of land on page 89 of the same schedule, relating to Stratford, no such words appear; it is largely related to construction purposes, electric cables and so on. If the Minister is telling me that full powers for a station are in the Bill, that is not the information or advice that I have been given.

  483
  He agrees that he is not telling me that, so if the option is to be made by the Secretary of State—I am grateful for the confirmation of that—after the bids are in, why does he not give himself that option in the Bill rather than saying, "If I choose to accept the choice for Stratford I must go to the House either with a Transport and Works Act order or with a Bill"? Perhaps the Minister will answer that.
  Mr. Watts: The Bill makes provision for the long box, which would hold the structure of the station. It does not make provision for a station, because no decision has yet been made on whether there should be a station. The Bill is constructed in such a way that that option is not closed off. If a decision were made that a station should be constructed at Stratford it could be done by a Transport and Works Act procedure, or it might even be possible at a later stage to consider an amendment to the Bill. I do not believe that anything in the structure of the Bill closes off that option, should my right hon. Friend be persuaded that such a station ought to be built.
  Mr. Spearing: I shall not pursue this any further. The difference between us seems to be getting a little narrower, but the mere fact that other actions need to be taken, including an amendment, or perhaps an additional provision, which is also possible, makes the case.
  I do not wish to take too long, as many hon. Members wish to speak, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), who has had more to do with the matter, and properties in his constituency are very much affected. The adoption of the Stratford option would have advantages for regeneration, in environmental terms, in public transport and finance, all of which are matters to which the Government and, I am sure, all hon. Members would give their assent.
  The Government said that east London would benefit from regeneration. My hon. Friend, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is better qualified than I to speak, as a former leader of Newham council. All I would add is that, if there are to be domestic services from Kent, as has been indicated, the effects of regeneration on east London will be great, but they will be less so if domestic United Kingdom services cannot stop at Stratford, still less go on through the projected cross-rail, possibly to Heathrow. Good strategic planning suggests that that is where they should go.
  The Government now say that they want a balance between road and rail traffic. If there is to be freedom from the car, an argument which may appeal to the noble Baroness Thatcher, we must use rail properly and to the best advantage. Yet in the Bill there is a possibility for an M25 interchange, to which people from the London area or even further north might wish to head in their cars on a long-distance journey, whereas if they use the existing rail network in London to get to St. Pancras or Stratford, the frequency and distance of travel by car might not be so great, because the interchange possibility at Stratford is very considerable. True, it is possible at King's Cross, too, but King's Cross is an inner-London area, constrained by Victorian architecture and existing functions, whereas a Stratford station would have many advantages.
  At present, there are no fewer than 14 rail routes clockwise, as it were—the Central line has two branches in one direction—which can, with one connection to Chingford, be reinstated, centering on Stratford. With cross-rail, there would be even more. That would give
  484
  direct access to Stratford from 180 stations in Greater London and south-east England, and from more than 200 if the cross-rail were built. Those stations include major stations in East Anglia, but not the rest.
  There would also be direct access to Stratford, in addition to the through trains from the rest of the United Kingdom, by the use of the north London rail link and others, particularly from Manchester, Birmingham or Newcastle, by fast or semi-fast trains. Those routes could include centres for through registration of luggage and ticketing, with certain through trains perhaps providing a timetable interchange.
  We all have difficulties sometimes when a terminus is experiencing problems; Stratford station could serve as an extra means of shortening journeys when there are difficulties in the centre, as Clapham Junction, Finsbury Park and Reading do now when such inevitable difficulties occur. Stratford would also provide direct communication with the royal docks area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) pointed out. That area already has an international airport, and will almost certainly have a university college and a large exhibition centre: together, the two will have a second-phase floor space equivalent to Olympia and Earl's Court.
  There would also be an additional financial return. People might wish to use Stratford on the domestic route, or might take the fast channel link because of the existence of that station. There could be charter traffic or long-distance sleepers to anywhere in Europe, avoiding rail and personnel congestion at St. Pancras. I think that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield agrees with me that that would provide extra revenue for the line.
  The House has been discussing this problem for more than a century. Sir Edward Watkin, a railway pioneer of over a century ago, put together the former Lincolnshire and Yorkshire railways to form the Great Central, of which I believe he was chairman. That was the last great main line to London, and at least the route should have been kept, because it was built to a continental gauge. Sir Edward was also chairman of the Metropolitan railway, of which the East London line was a subsidiary, and of the South Eastern and Chatham and the then Channel Tunnel company. He had a bit of co-ordination.
  I do not think that we have quite reached the standards of Sir Edward Watkin a century ago. The Bill goes towards that, but it would be a better Bill if it were enlarged to allow powers for Stratford to be built, at the option of the Secretary of State.
  5.21 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in the debate. I have listened with interest so far: it is fascinating to note that everyone now accepts the need for the line, although British Rail told the Select Committee considering the tunnel that there was no foreseeable need for any such railway.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) spoke of what happened over a century ago. Over a century ago, a protester in Kent said that there should be no tunnelling there—especially in the Boxley valley—because of the danger of unexpectedly running into a manure cart coming in the other direction. Attitudes to the tunnel have changed remarkably since then, however. The

  485
  Boxley long tunnel, for instance, is essential if Kent is to retain a conurbation of the proper size; without it, development in Maidstone and the Medway towns will close up on the surface railway just as it has done on the motorways that surround the valley.
  There are plenty of environmental reasons for recommending a Boxley valley tunnel. I shall not, however, spend time describing the ancient woodland there; I shall not even speak of the protection of a Cistercian abbey which was arguably the parent of the Church of England, as it was there that Henry VIII rejected the Pope's emissaries. Nor shall I stress the fact that the valley is an area of outstanding natural beauty, which would be destroyed by a railway running down the middle of it. The important point—which has been part of the county's central planning for 50 years—is that the great conurbation of the Medway towns should not run into the conurbation of Maidstone, creating an urban sprawl out of all proportion to the rest of the county.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for visiting the area last Thursday to observe the strength of the arguments for himself. I was disappointed when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appeared to suggest that he would advise the Select Committee not to consider the Boxley tunnel, or any other tunnel outside the limits of deviation. The Boxley tunnel, however, is unique: unlike any of the other tunnelling options considered in the instruction, it does not transfer blight from one part to another. No blight is associated with the tunnel. In a parliamentary answer, the Government stated:
  "The long tunnel through the Boxley valley has significant environmental advantages, but the Government decided that these did not justify spending an additional £65 million".—[Official Report, 31 January 1994; Vol. 236, c. 505.]
  The Department of Transport has also told me that some 160 out of 194 representations received from Kent stressed the importance of a tunnel through the Boxley valley. That view is supported by the county council, every district council, every parish council, every amenity group and every action group. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can assure me that he does not intend to put pressure on the Select Committee to refuse to consider a highly valued and unanimously supported proposal.
  Mr. Watts: I remind my hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend said:
  "It is for the Select Committees to decide on the scope of their consideration; the Government can only offer guidance in such matters."
  There is a clear difference between guidance and an instruction. I am opposed to accepting an instruction to the Committee precisely because it would restrict the Committee's discretion. I am confident that right hon. and hon. Members who are appointed to the Committee will be able to view petitions that are presented to them objectively, and to reach sensible conclusions.
  I can give my hon. Friend a further assurance, which I have given at meetings on a number of occasions. The Government will of course continue to support the line of the channel tunnel rail link that is set out in the Bill, because we consider it to be the best route, balancing the various factors that need to be balanced. I shall not, however, indulge in any private arm-twisting to try to make Select Committee members take a particular view.
  486
  Any guidance that is given will be given openly, before the Select Committee; there will be no behind-the-scenes shenanigans—not least because, as my hon. Friend will recognise, those appointed to the Committee understand the importance of their task. That task is to examine matters objectively, without being susceptible to undue pressure. In any event, neither the Government nor I myself will exert such pressure.
  Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful clarification. I am confident that the arguments that I have already advanced, which have been advanced so often and will be advanced again in petitions, will sway the Select Committee.
  I have one further argument. The costings suggest that a single-bore tunnel would cost an additional £65 million and that, if the Health and Safety Executive insisted on a twin-bore tunnel, it would add a further £50 million. Those costings are open to serious question. More importantly, the widening of the M20, which is already many months overdue and on which work is continuing, has been delayed and enormous additional costs have been incurred partly because of the extraordinary difficulty of working in slippery gault clay. A large part of the surface route will be constructed on gault clay, but the tunnel itself will pass through entirely predictable chalk and I suspect that there will be a much lower cost differential than is at present claimed.
  Mr. Peter Snape: Will the newly widened M20 be in a tunnel? If it will not, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the people of Kent object only to noise from trains rather than that from cars and lorries?
  Mr. Rowe: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have realised that the thrust of my argument is that, as surface-built motorways have been used as the boundaries of urban sprawl, a surface-built railway will be used in the same way. We are anxious to ensure that that urban sprawl is held as it has been held for the past 50 years by borough councils on both sides of Bluebell hill.
  I shall now deal with stations. It is an extraordinary phenomenon that the people who design railways appear to want to make sure that they do not stop anywhere. It was perfectly clear from the beginning that British Rail and its successor Union Railways wanted to build an aeroplane on wheels and had no desire whatever to have stations on their fast line. They have been browbeaten into creating a number of stations which they now gracefully say could conceivably be useful because they might attract some customers.
  Ashford now has an international station, thanks substantially to the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed). It would be wrong for me to trespass in other constituencies, but, as the Select Committee will take this debate as one of its guidelines, it is helpful to have some iteration.
  It is important to make it clear that the design of Ashford international station is for only the fast generation of trains. If the second generation cannot stop there, the Department of Transport says that any necessary adjustments may be made to the track and line side structures if there is a need for access to the international passenger service by larger trains. It is not a promising start for an international station which could be one of the

  487
  great growth points for Kent's economy if, after 25 years, it can be visited only by old-fashioned trains that are approaching the end of their lives.
  I am in favour of a station at Stratford, not least because it widens choice for Kent commuters, many of whom have no desire whatever to be taken as far as St. Pancras. I welcome the arrival of the private sector in the project. British Rail has always seemed to prefer to see the difficulties in any changing market situation rather than the opportunities. For example, the way in which it has run down its freight operations in recent years is a disgrace. I look forward to a change in philosophy. I hope that, as part of the private sector desire to get more passengers on to the railways, there will be an attempt to incorporate some junction with the Medway link to help Maidstone residents benefit from the new railway.
  Compensation is of great importance. It is bad enough at the moment, but what will it be like in five years? A substantial number of elderly constituents have been confidently expecting that some time in the next decade they will be able to sell their properties and move to their relatives or elsewhere. But their whole future is now deeply in doubt. The current discretionary compensation scheme is wholly inadequate and it was made worse by the profligate purchasing by British Rail of properties at the height of the boom, many of which are not even on the finally decided route. There must be a much more generous and compassionate compensation scheme for the 10-year period of the construction of the line.
  It is bizarre that the line has been designed for trains travelling at 140 mph and that environmental protection has been put in by the environmental consultants at that level. Everyone knows, and the designer now admits, that the private sector owner will unquestionably want to run trains at 186 mph, which is the theoretical maximum speed that the line could support. We have been told that the studies that are needed to ascertain the noise effects at that speed have been completed and published. However, a letter last week from Union Railways made it clear that the effects of the mitigation of higher speeds have not yet been worked out.
  Clearly, it would be absurd to build the line to lower speed standards if those standards have to be raised later, probably almost as soon as the line is built. In my village of Harrietsham, to take but one example, it would be ridiculous to have a massive sound barrier that had to be raised before the trains had even started to run because the line was designed originally for a lower speed.
  Many of my constituents are anxious about the Medway bridge. It is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), but it is of such importance to so many of my constituents that we should consider again whether there should be a two-tier bridge carrying rail and road traffic. We have been told that such bridges do not work, but one has only to look at the example of Newcastle upon Tyne to see that they work quite satisfactorily. Such a bridge would be helpful.
  There has been considerable confusion over freight. One day we are told that there will be so many passengers on the new line that there will be no room for freight. The next day we are told that there is so much additional capacity on existing lines that there is no need for freight on the new line. But that will probably be the promoter's only line and he is bound to want to maximise its use for freight, which will be important. What sort of freight will
  488
  it carry? Will it be that which can be carried on a passenger train set-up? If so, why are passing loops needed? If they are not needed, why cannot the money be spent on the Boxley long tunnel instead?
  Finally, because I have spoken for longer than I had intended, I again urge the Select Committee not only to use its discretion but to take into account the Boxley long tunnel. That tunnel starts and ends within the limits of deviation, but passes outside those limits. There is a unanimous desire in Kent to have that tunnel considered by the Select Committee. It would be flying in the face of everything that has ever been meant by consultation if, in opposition to that unanimity, the Select Committee was unable to consider that deviation.
  5.38 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and, unusually, I suspect that there is a great deal of unanimity on some points. Therefore, I hope to break a bit of new ground rather than repeat points on which I already agree.
  We welcome the much-delayed arrival of the Bill at the Westminster platform, but we are extremely concerned at the time that it is likely to spend in the station. The apparent precedent of the hybrid Bill for the Channel tunnel is rather an illusion. That Bill related to a major project, but there are not many householders on the bed of the English channel. In view of the Bill's complexity and the extent to which it affects the rights of individual citizens, we must recognise that Parliament has a unique responsibility to give those citizens a right to be heard.
  The Bill will affect 850 acres of agricultural land, 87 agricultural holdings, 182 businesses, 21 listed buildings and 14 other buildings of historic interest. It will mean the demolition of 60 residential buildings and the loss of 75 acres of ancient woodland. Some 410 residential properties will be directly affected by noise, while a further 1,600 will be subjected to ground-borne noise and vibration. It is therefore immediately obvious that the Select Committee will have to consider a veritable harvest of petitions. Indeed, I suspect that the fact that schedule 1 has 35 pages is something of a record. We must be careful to ensure that the petitioners have a real opportunity to express their concerns.
  A number of those who are already anxious about the way in which the Bill may proceed have asked that the Select Committee proceedings do not start until the petitioners at least have had the opportunity to raise their concerns with the promoters. That might be a wise precaution and could prevent the Committee from becoming bogged down at the outset. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, the issue of compensation is crucial.
  One issue that has not yet received much attention is access to farmland. The Railway Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 required railway companies to provide and maintain in perpetuity what were called accommodation crossings—that is, bridges and passages allowing access to land. Some 150 years later we are dealing with the first large railway proposal since that Act. Although it may not be possible exactly to replicate the rights under the Act, it would not be proper for the channel tunnel rail link simply to sweep aside those interests and concerns. Land owners and farmers want the obligations under the 1845 Act to apply in some form or another.

  489
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed concern about links to other parts of the country, especially the north. There is already a great deal of confusion about what is to happen. Railtrack East Anglia costed three options for linking the channel tunnel rail link to the east coast main line and chose the most expensive option because it knew that it would be funded by the Department of Transport—only to find that that support was not forthcoming. That is an awesome warning to others.
  The Under-Secretary must persuade us tonight that he is not considering the channel tunnel rail link in isolation and that he fully understands the need for links not just to the east and west coast main lines but to Wales, the south-west and the west.
  As a result of the confusion, it appears extremely unlikely that the start date of 1996 for the introduction of the north of London Eurostars will be met. I am sure that the good people of Peterborough will be looking to the Secretary of State to repeat his statement at the 1994 Conservative party conference that it would be met.
  There are also concerns about the way in which the funding is likely to operate. Some of those have been articulated this evening. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that European Passenger Services has been gifted assets of £818 million while the British Rail Board, to quote the Under-Secretary's statement last March,
  "retains certain contingent liabilities in respect of guarantees and indemnities which it had entered into when EPS was its subsidiary."
  In other words, the private sector operator takes the assets and British Rail is left with the liabilities. That cannot give great confidence to those of us concerned about the balance of investment.
  Reference has already been made tonight to freight, but I want to develop the argument further. I was part of the team to promote the rail-based link and I have always believed that the best case for a channel tunnel was the fact that it would extend the United Kingdom's rail network and link it to the continental network. That makes long-distance freight economically viable again, which is already apparent by the fast rate of development in freight services. They are a great success. The link will provide the main opportunity for piggy-back trains and there must be a commitment to that development. The substantial potential of transfer from road to rail of long-distance freight makes sense only if the link either carries freight or makes the passage of freight easier through the narrow corridors of London and Kent.
  I refer to some of the points in the excellent briefing from the Freight Transport Association. The successful development of the new rail freight market is already suffering from a lack of track capacity. The completion of the high-speed link will have to free up freight on the existing network or the market will be stymied at the very moment that it needs to grow. It is extremely important that the Committee and the Bill take full account of the potential of freight. It will be important to provide freight loops near Gravesend and Ashford and there will have to be a connection to the Dollands Moor freight terminal. I hope that the Committee will take that on board.
  It is clear that the provision of a link between the new line and the existing London and Chatham railway south of Gravesend will enable high-speed passenger trains to
  490
  reach Waterloo international without travelling over lines used by freight services. The interrelationship between improvement to passenger services and making more effective use of freight services is critical if the Bill and the project are to attract the good will of the whole nation. This is not of concern just to the south-east; everyone in the country wants the balance to be right for the best of all reasons, both economically and environmentally.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent referred to the fact that the people of Kent want the assurance that domestic services will improve so that they can benefit from the increase in speed on the link. Hon Members are entitled to an assurance that journey times will be cut for the thousands of commuters from Kent. We want not vague promises but an assurance that, from day one, that benefit will come from the link operation.
  The exchange between the Under-Secretary and a number of hon Members about the nature of the instructions caused me some concern. As I read the instructions, they are not attempts to tie the hands of those hon Members who serve on the Select Committee; far from it, they have been carefully phrased in terms that will guide the Committee. I agree with the Under-Secretary that, to use his words, there should not be any private arm-twisting, but I see nothing wrong with a little public arm-twisting in the mother of Parliaments. That is our responsibility on behalf of all those who will be affected by the project.
  I and my hon. Friends support both instructions. As a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House share our view, I hope that the Select Committee will take account of that fact even if the instructions are not pressed to a Division.
  Reference has been made to a number of Kent concerns and they are epitomised in the instructions. I am especially concerned about the anxieties expressed in east London and in our debate about the extent to which the Secretary of State means what he says. In opening the debate, he said that he wanted to commit himself to a route "that minimises environmental damage". In a number of important respects, that does not appear to be the case in Islington and in other council areas in east London and Essex. I am glad to see hon. Members nodding in agreement.
  For example, the Baxter B option in the borough of Islington is clearly intended to fulfil the Secretary of State's promise. The fact that he was not prepared to endorse it this afternoon was disappointing. I am sure that the compensation issue will loom large in the Committee's considerations. At this stage, we cannot give more than the general instruction that has been given in the two statements this afternoon. I hope that Committee members will, in due course, take those into account.
  It is clear that the Bill's tortuous parliamentary route makes it extremely unlikely that work on the link will start before the last possible date for the next general election. Inevitably then, its progress—hon. Members have referred to this already—will coincide with Government attempts to sell off Railtrack. The two processes are inextricably entwined. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to make it clear that we do not believe that Railtrack can be fully privatised before polling day for the next general election.
  The reasons are, first, that potential financiers have started to do their sums. They know that many of the claimed assets, such as tunnels and bridges, are huge

  491
  potential liabilities. Secondly, the failure of the private finance initiative casts even more gloom in the City. Its only application will almost certainly be to the channel tunnel rail link. It will not be used anywhere else in the railway system. It will not be available because it simply cannot stack up as a financial prospect.
  Thirdly, the costs of privatisation of operating services and the on-cost pressure on franchisees, together with continuing subsidy constraints on British Rail, do not bode well for Railtrack's profitability. Finally, investors must know by now that, even if a majority still exists in the House for privatisation, it certainly does not exist among the public at large. It is unthinkable that a by-election candidate who is committed to privatisation will be elected to the House between now and the next general election, and Ministers know how vulnerable the Government's majority is.
  City investors are no fools. Even if privatisation made progress before the next general election, they know that it would be halted in its tracks immediately after polling day. I noticed that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is not here at the moment, said nothing on the subject this afternoon. He seems to have been sidelined in the debate of the past few days.
  I make it crystal clear that I and my colleagues in the Liberal Democratic party will do everything in our power to retain or reclaim a 51 per cent. golden share in Railtrack, so that the rail network can provide a successful public service. We believe that the project before the House could be derailed by a dogmatic insistence on privatisation of that network.
  5.52 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I welcome the fact that we have finally reached Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. I do not believe that Opposition Members can make any political runs on the subject of the delay, for the reasons that were well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). I say to Treasury Ministers, however, that, in the current new phase of this century-old project, the Treasury has taken an inordinately long time to get from the first proposals to this day.
  By my calculations, it has taken six years, six months and two days to go from 14 July 1988, when British Rail first announced its three alternative routes for the scheme, to 16 January 1995 and Second Reading of the Bill. In the process, we have had four Secretaries of State for Transport, and—perhaps this is more relevant for us as hon. Members representing our constituencies—thousands, probably nearer tens of thousands, of people have personally suffered the ravages of blight as a result of the delay and uncertainty which has been generated by the project.
  I do not wish to be negative; indeed, I will support Second Reading of the Bill tonight. I wish to be forward-looking, but perhaps I might be allowed one last backward glance. I represent a constituency which, perhaps more than any other along the line of the route, has suffered the ravages of blight on a huge scale as a result of the publication of rail lines which have been put in the public domain and subsequently abandoned. I know that the constituents of many of my hon. Friends representing Kent have suffered considerably in the same way.
  492
  I hope that at least one lesson has been learnt by British Rail—it should never again come forward with major proposals for new railway lines that are initially ill conceived and ill thought through, and, as certainly happened in one case, have no chance of being built for environmental reasons.
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still a need for some flexibility from British Rail to avoid unnecessary blight? For example, a danger exists in Rainham, which is in the borough in which my constituency is located, that the route will run unnecessarily close to buildings. Were it to be moved 150 m, as has been proposed, that would make a substantial difference to the well-being of the people who live there. The opportunity still exists to put right such minor discrepancies before this otherwise excellent scheme goes forward.
  Sir John Stanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make his own constituency speech in his own way. I shall mention another deviation in relation to my part of Kent later.
  Initially, the project progressed in a far from professional way, not least in relation to the proposal that is known in our part of the world as the notorious route three proposal, which would have cut a noise swathe through the finest environmental countryside in Kent. I do not believe that the possibility ever existed that it would be built. It was widely reported at the time that route three had been traced out on tracing paper on the kitchen table of the British Rail project engineer who was responsible for the project. I am glad to say that, in due course, it was abandoned.
  A great deal of unnecessary blight has been created, and in human terms, that has inflicted great anxiety and distress on a great many people. Having said that, this is one of the occasions on which the last state of affairs is a vast improvement on the first. I should like to express my personal thanks to the three immediate predecessors of the Secretary of State for Transport. I thank the noble Lord Parkinson, who, during his tenure of the Department of Transport, was responsible for presiding over—and, I believe, strongly supporting—the ditching of route three by BR, to the relief of thousands of my constituents.
  I also thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) who, with great vision and great determination, overruled BR on its preferred route and adopted what was then called the Ove Arup route, which provides the basis for the route in the Bill.
  Finally, I express my personal appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), who, to my delight, responded to my strong representations that he should abandon the surface route across the Medway gap in my constituency, which would have had serious blighting and environmentally destructive effects, and replace it with a tunnel route under Bluebell hill. They were three profoundly important ministerial decisions, and I am delighted that they have resulted in a Bill that I am able to support strongly.
  As hon. Members have said, the Bill has been improved, but I believe that it is still capable of other improvements, which I hope will be undertaken before the Bill leaves this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, the environmental cost of the present route immediately to the west of the current

  493
  Bluebell hill tunnel is unacceptable. There is great demand in Kent for the Boxley long tunnel, which would be a substantial improvement.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reconsider what he said about the guidance that he proposes to give to the Select Committee. He has made it clear that he will offer only guidance, but I do not believe that it is appropriate for him to offer guidance to a Select Committee to the effect that it should not consider alternative proposals that may be outside the limits of deviation. Members of Select Committees are entitled to form their own views, based on the evidence put before them, on what they should consider.
  My right hon. Friend will have heard the strong representations from members of all parties in relation to the Boxley long tunnel. As he is a thinking and considerate person, I hope that he will take careful note of what has been said, and reflect further on what guidance it is appropriate for him to give the Select Committee in the light of our Second Reading debate.
  I must also deal again with the issue to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State was kind enough to listen during what was probably the last all-night sitting on the Consolidated Fund Bill. The debate began at 6.58 am on 15 December last year and dealt with the voluntary purchase scheme in relation to the channel tunnel rail link. As I said then, the voluntary purchase scheme is wholly inadequate—something that has been repeated by members of all parties. It is not right that a major public project such as this link should be had "on the cheap" at the expense of individual householders. British Rail and the private consortium have to accept their moral and ethical responsibilities.
  I shall not weary the House by repeating everything that I said during the Adjournment debate. However, as it may be of interest, I wish to put some details on the record for the benefit of the Select Committee, which I hope will consider them.
  On 15 December, I made a specific, concrete and precedented proposal. We can argue until the cows come home about whether a particular property is blighted. It is necessary to establish an independent procedure to ascertain whether a property is blighted, and another independent procedure to ensure that the property of the householder involved can be acquired.
  I proposed that the procedure should operate as follows: where there is a dispute between the individual householder and British Rail about whether a House is blighted by the scheme and the dispute cannot be resolved, the district valuer should offer an independent, open market, unblighted valuation of the property. The individual should be told that he may market his property at that valuation and no more for a set period—conceivably, three, six or nine months. If, at the end of that period, the property has not been sold at the district valuer's valuation, I believe that it is entirely reasonable to expect British Rail to buy the property at that stage.
  I said that such a procedure was precedented. It is directly precedented by the Department of Transport, and is being used in my constituency in the discharge of the Department's obligations under section 62 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, which enables the Department to buy blighted houses for highways schemes outside the physical limits of statutory blight. In the
  494
  Adjournment debate, I cited a specific ministerial letter that offered that procedure to a constituent of mine in the context of a house purchase.
  We therefore have a viable independent procedure which is already being operated by the Department of Transport in a highways capacity. Surely that provides a means of resolving the problem. I hope that the Minister and the Select Committee will consider it carefully.
  The final issue is freight. Over the years, I have listened to many statements on freight from Ministers and others. The statements from Ministers, and those from British Rail, have always been somewhat equivocal about how much freight they want to allow on the line. I have never understood the tentativeness about freight on this high-speed line. If one is going to make a multi-billion pound investment, it surely makes sense to use the line to the greatest possible extent. At night, there could be no conflict with passenger trains, as I do not believe that there will be a huge demand to leave London at 1 am and arrive in Paris at 3.30 am. There will, in effect, be a void line at night, and one could surely make extensive use of it for freight purposes.
  I was concerned by the Secretary of State's opening remarks. He suggested that there might be an opportunity to increase the amount of freight on the existing lines. The problem is that the existing lines—not only the Tonbridge line but the Maidstone, East line, which passes through my constituency—is wholly unsuited in environmental terms to carrying night-time freight.
  Reference has already been made to the proximity of lines to homes in London. On the Maidstone, East line, homes have been built up to its very edge. In environmental terms, I believe that the new line is the best for running night-time freight.
  I end with a final postscript. From my voluminous filing cabinet containing papers relating to the channel tunnel rail link, I have taken a press release issued by the British Railways Board on 3 November 1989. It is headed "Parliamentary Bill in 1990". It would appear that this particular legislative train is running approximately five years late.
  I think that we are all now firmly agreed that the line's completion is very much in the national interest, and, as far as I am aware, everyone in Kent believes that it is very much in Kent's interest. I hope that Ministers and British Rail will now make every possible effort to ensure that the high-speed line is now built on a high-speed programme, as quickly as possible.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) did well to remind us that it is more than six years since British Rail first published the three routes for the fast link to the channel tunnel. He castigated British Rail, but I remind him in passing that it was at ministerial insistence that the schemes were published.
  We have heard much from the Conservative Members about the necessity of transferring British Rail to the private sector, and about how ministerial interference should cease once that has happened. However, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, or confessed, or whatever term one cares to use, that the Ove Arup route that we are discussing was chosen by a previous Secretary of State for Transport. I remind the

  495
  House in passing that the announcement about the Ove Arup route came initially from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the then Secretary of State for the Environment, who talked about the need to revitalise the east London corridor. I know that my hon. Friends who represent the Newham area will talk about the need for an international station at Stratford; I will come back to that point.
  Running a high-speed route through the east London corridor and not stopping there is a rum way in which to revitalise the area. I am not sure how the revitalisation would be carried out by the passage of the high-speed trains; but that is the reason given for the choice of route. I hope that, when Conservative Members talk about ministerial interference in these matters, they will bear in mind the fact that it was ministerial interference that brought about the choice. As I have said, it is a strange way in which to revitalise a part of London.
  The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing also reminded us that he has continually talked about the unsuitability for freight of the existing railway line through Tonbridge—remarkably enough, in his own constituency. I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter before. I remember that, in an exchange in the House, I cited the freight-working timetable for 1965, when scores of freight trains passed along the route through Tonbridge.
  Before we fall for the sob story that railway freight is terribly destructive of the environment, I remind the House that the trains in the 1960s were predominantly loose-coupled freight trains, with all the associated noise. The right hon. Gentleman must do a bit better to convince us that the freight generated by the project must be confined to the high-speed route. I agree, however, that some of it, especially time-sensitive freight, should go on that route.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who is not in his place at the moment, took us on a rather selective canter around the history of the channel tunnel project and the associated rail link. He went back to early 1974, and the cancellation by the incoming Labour Government of the channel tunnel project, which, at that time, was exclusively in the public sector.
  I remember the occasion well. I went to see Tony Crosland, the then Secretary of State for the Environment, when the rumours first emerged, and pleaded with him not to cancel the project. I got singularly short shrift. He said, "Young man"—you can tell how long ago it was, Mr. Deputy Speaker—"the Government, whom you are expected to support, have inherited three major projects from the Conservative party." They were Maplin airport—who remembers that these days?—Concorde and the channel tunnel.
  Tony Crosland said, "Privately, I would love to be able to cancel Concorde and go for the channel tunnel, but, unfortunately, neither the French nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East"—who was in the Cabinet at that time—"will allow me to cancel Concorde. I am afraid that we are stuck and that I must cancel the channel tunnel project."
  In an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) pointed out how lucky it was for the public sector that, when the channel tunnel project considerably overran, the burden of the overrun fell on the private rather than the public sector. I immediately
  496
  thought of Concorde, and wondered what the hon. Gentleman would say about that considerable overrun. I remember that we spent 10 times the original estimate so that we could fly pop stars to America more quickly. Not much was said about the cost overrun at that time.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield treated us to a rather selective look at history. I regretted the cancellation of the channel tunnel project in 1974, to such an extent that I voted against the cancellation, as did others of my hon. Friends with railway connections. Inasmuch as I have any interest to declare in this project, it is that I am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Ah.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman says, "Ah." I was waiting for that. He will now have to write that fact down.
  The project is described as the first main line in the United Kingdom in 100 years; that is a rather unfortunate description. I seem to remember that the previous new main line was the great central main line, which, sadly, was axed following the rule of Dr. Beeching. Few of us will be here to see the 21st century. I must be careful about saying that; my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) will probably be here. If a future Dr. Beeching remembers that precedent, he may look again at the fast link to the channel tunnel.
  One hopes not, given the amount of passengers and freight for which the line is designed to cater. There is no doubt that there is a need to increase capacity, and there is no doubt of the unsuitability of the electrified third-rail former Southern Railways routes through Kent for the future. When one considers the popularity of the new Eurostar trains, one can see that there is considerable demand for extra rail capacity, and that demand will increase greatly in the years to come.
  I mentioned the Stratford international station earlier. I compliment my hon. Friends from Newham on their campaign over the years for an international station at Stratford. Having, I hope, pleased them by my earlier remarks about the east London corridor, and about the fact that I could not see the sense of running trains through an area without stopping to revitalise it, I must tell them that I am by no means convinced of their case for an international station at Stratford, for the reasons that I have outlined before.
  Getting from Stratford to Birmingham by train is no easy task. Although I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) when he talked about the dozen or so routes emanating from Stratford, I point out that none of them gives an especially high-speed route to the north-east, the north-west or the midlands. Unless assurances are given that that deficiency in the existing rail network can be remedied, making a case for an international station at Stratford will always be difficult.
  When thinking about political interference, I am reminded that, when the route was chosen by the Government, King's Cross was intended to be the terminal station in London. We were told that King's Cross was essential, because it was a through station, and

  497
  that there was no alternative if we wanted to have connections to the north-east, the north-west and the midlands. Suddenly—
  Mr. Chris Smith rose—
  Mr. Snape: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). There was a great row about whether King's Cross was a suitable terminal for the high-speed link, which, if not led, was ably supported, by my hon. Friend. Suddenly, King's Cross, which had been essential, was not essential, and St. Pancras was chosen as the alternative. Does my hon. Friend want me to give way?
  Mr. Smith: No.
  Mr. Snape: St. Pancras—
  Mr. Spearing: Twenty yards away.
  Mr. Snape: St. Pancras, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South points out, is 20 yd from King's Cross. Although it is some years since I was a railway signalman, I remember that the operational difficulties at a terminal station with through trains are greater than they are at a through station. I do not think that we shall fly north once we arrive—if we ever do—at St. Pancras as we might have done if we had arrived at King's Cross, the original choice.
  I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Hampstead chord, which appeared in a British Rail works Bill some years ago and which was approved by the House, is still going to be built once the high-speed rail link is built. Memory fails me on the rules, although I understand that, if these projects do not go ahead within a specific period, the parliamentary powers lapse. We need some assurances from the Minister that, if it takes until 2002 for the link to be opened, it will be possible to go via the Hampstead chord to the west coast main line, in which I have a particular interest.
  I have listened to the argument about the need or otherwise for a railway station at Ebbsfleet. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who has now left the Chamber, said that he was convinced of the need for a station there, although he mentioned Ashford and Stratford as well.
  The hon. Member said that British Rail and its successors in this project appear reluctant to site railway stations through Kent. If we are to have a high-speed railway line, by its very nature it would not help if there were stations every few miles. When the hon. Gentleman was advocating stations through Kent and one at Stratford as well, I was imagining—I shall say it in English because I could not attempt to say it in French, although, anyway, it would be outside the rules of the House—the train announcer at the Gaze du Nord in Paris announcing the Eurostar calling at Ashford and all stations via Stratford to St. Pancras.
  A multiplicity of stations along the route is not a particularly high-speed way in which to run things. However, I spoke as recently as last week to Councillor Mark James from Kent county council, and I understand the council's support for Ebbsfleet.
  498
  I repeat that I understand and commend the campaign that has been waged by my hon. Friends the Members who represent Newham for an international station at Stratford.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he not now accept that a station at Stratford would help to take a great deal of passenger pressure off the St. Pancras terminus, and would provide good London connections and direct connections to all of East Anglia? Surely that would be an advantage. We are not talking about the train stopping at every station between Dover and London, as happens at present: we are talking about one stop.
  Mr. Snape: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but I am yet to be convinced that many people travelling on the Eurostar trains would want to get to the sort of destinations that they would easily be able to reach from Stratford. However, that is a matter for the Select Committee to consider.
  I am not saying that there is not a case for the station at Stratford. I acknowledge that there is a case. I am merely saying that, as a Member who represents a constituency north of London, I cannot see any great benefit for my constituents from an international station at Stratford. I shall leave that point, on the basis that it is for the Select Committee to decide.
  There is also an enormous demand for better freight facilities. We have seen the private sector too becoming involved in various parts of the country in the planning of freight terminals. I understand that there is a terminal on the stocks for Hams Hall near Birmingham, and there a terminal is certainly planned in the north-east. That shows the amount of freight which would switch from road to rail if the facilities were provided.
  I return to a point with which some of my hon. Friends will disagree. I have listened carefully to this debate, and I understand the reasons why some of my hon. Friends propose extensive tunnelling along the line of the high-speed link. But, in my view, one of the great attractions of train travel—I confess to be greatly enamoured of that mode of travel—is the ability to look out of the window.
  While we all accept the need for a tunnel under the channel—there would be some difficulty in getting between Britain and France any other way, given the geography—it would not be fair or reasonable, and it certainly would be extremely expensive, to have tunnels all the way, whether from St. Pancras or Stratford or wherever, and much of the way through Kent.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Kent would not answer a question to which an answer was fairly obvious. There is no tunnelling in respect of the M20 motorway, and he said that that has led to a sort of creeping planning blight. But it is surely up to the planning authorities to ensure that that does not happen because of the channel tunnel rail link. If the authorities cannot do that, it is somewhat unfair of them and others, whether the money is to be found from either public or private sources, to expect that money to be found from either source so that tunnelling, which is perhaps not essential, is carried out.
  Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend must surely accept that the four specific areas of tunnelling which are being proposed would be a very small addition to the overall amount of tunnelling on the line. Frankly, I do not think

  499
  that the people travelling on the trains would be particularly upset if they were to lose 20 seconds of view of the back gardens of houses in Gifford street in my constituency, which would be avoided by putting a tunnel in the Caledonian road area.
  Mr. Snape: I could have guaranteed that my hon. Friend, with his customary helpfulness, would have mentioned at least one street in his constituency.
  Mr. Corbyn: He lives there.
  Mr. Snape: I am sure that he does not does live there, or he would declare an interest, too.
  Mr. Smith indicated assent.
  Mr. Snape: Oh, he does live there. Well, in that case, I shall readily concede the need for a tunnel. That is the sort of personal interest that all of us in this House can appreciate. If my hon. Friend would confine his support to his own back garden, the whole project might be considerably less expensive.
  More seriously, those of us who served on the Committee which considered the Channel Tunnel Bill were aware of the distress caused to those people whose properties were to be swept away. The Committee at that time treated those who facing that awful prospect with enormous sympathy. We would have liked to do more, but, of course, the rules precluded us from doing so.
  There is an argument, probably not best made here, that there is surely a more sensible way in which to compensate people than the method we currently use. I am conscious that parliamentary legislation is drafted by lawyers, as are all the legal statutes, so it is probably a vain plea, but surely it would be much more sensible if we were to say that, if someone's house were to be taken because of the need for the channel tunnel work, their house would be independently valued, and around 120 per cent. of the value would be paid instantly to persuade the people to move and to enable them to refurnish their house.
  That suggestion would stop those expensive public inquiries, so it is, of course, totally impractical from a legal point of view. However, that seems to be a much more sensible way to proceed than the current method we adopt. Similarly, with the 2,000 people already mentioned whose lives are to be considerably affected by the noise of passing trains, the existing laws are not adequate. I hope that we can look again at the compensation that may be provided.
  All the matters that I have touched on are for the Select Committee to consider. It promises to be a fairly long-drawn-out Committee, as is often the case, but it is incumbent on the members of that Committee to look sympathetically at the pleas, especially of those who are about to lose their homes. Although there is a comparatively small number of such people for a project of this size, nevertheless they ought to be generously treated.
  This Bill has been a long time coming, and it commands widespread support in the House. I hope that the starting date of 2002 can be brought forward. Certainly, if those oft-expressed views about the desirability of transferring freight especially from road to rail and the desirability of using our railway system better are to come to fruition, the sooner the line is built the better.
  6.27 pm
  Sir Roger Moate: Perish the thought that we should ever face another Labour Government. It would be ironic, knowing what a hash all Labour Governments ever make of capital or public finance, if the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) found himself in the same position as he did back in 1974, of having to plead with a Labour Secretary of State not to cancel the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. Given the open-ended commitment and the high cost of the project to the public purse, that is just within the realms of possibility.
  Without apology, I am a long-standing chunnel and rail link sceptic. However, it would be churlish of me or anybody else not to acknowledge the remarkable achievement of those who have driven the tunnel project forward to where it is today, and all those who have striven strenuously over several years to produce the current railway project and this Bill. It is also fair to say that there has been unprecedented consultation.
  It is quite remarkable that the number of areas in dispute are now so relatively few. However small in number, those areas are of immense importance to all the people concerned, including those in Kent, Essex and London, and I urge to the utmost that the Government and the Select Committee provide every reasonable opportunity, even beyond the strict rules of petitioning, to ensure that the arguments of those people are fully considered, and that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. That is why I appended my name to the Opposition instruction. I believe that it is fairly sensible and moderate. It does not seek to shackle the Committee's hand, or to impose any prejudged issues upon it.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads suggested earlier that the Government would take a very relaxed view if the Select Committee were to consider the options to which I have referred. I am obviously particularly concerned about the Boxley long tunnel option in Kent. That option is supported by virtually the whole of the county.
  However, the Minister did not really say that he would take such a relaxed view. In order to maintain the bipartisan approach which has been such a feature of the debate, it would be helpful if my hon. Friend said that the Government would be fairly relaxed in their attitude to the Select Committee when it considers the range of options.
  Mr. Watts: If, as my hon. Friend suggests, the Select Committee were to decide to consider petitions relating to the options in the instruction, it would make no difference what view the Government took, because the Select Committee would have done what I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening remarks have said it should do: that is, make its own decisions. It would have taken its decisions in the light of the advice that my right hon. Friend and I have stated quite clearly on many occasions.
  It would not matter whether I felt relaxed about that. The Select Committee would be fulfilling its proper

  501
  function in reaching its own decisions in considering the petitions that it decided that it should consider, and then reporting back to the House.
  Sir Roger Moate: A great deal depends upon the form in which the advice is tendered to whoever is chosen as Chairman of that Committee. That is a very important consideration.
  Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend referred to the form in which the advice is given to the Chairman of the Committee. Let me make it clear: there will be no private advice to any member of the Select Committee. The advice will be given by counsel for the Department and for the promoters of the link in open session to the Select Committee when it is considering those matters. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), there will be no private, behind-the-Chair arm twisting advice from me to any member of the Select Committee.
  Sir Roger Moate: I hope that the members of the Committee—alas, we do not know who they will be—will pay close heed to what is said. I do not believe that there is a desire to impose strict rules or to force a vote. However, with regard to parts of London we know about, or to those we do not, it is important that petitioners and objectors from those areas should be given a fair and generous hearing. That is all that one is after, because none of us can know the arguments for and against each of the propositions.
  We live in an age when there are many opportunities for enlightened consultation. Parliament would expect the Select Committee to be fair and generous in its treatment of the arguments. I hope that the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister and of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that all those with concerns will be heard.
  I do not agree with the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the Select Committee need be arduous or drawn out. The Bill is big, but there has been exhaustive consultation so far. The Select Committee should be able to encompass matters in the instruction, and other tunnels and aspects, fairly, swiftly and conscientiously. That is expected, and it would reflect credit upon the hybrid Bill procedure and on Parliament.
  We will have to wait to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says when he replies to the debate, but I hope that that is the message that will go out loud and clear, that the Boxley long tunnel will be considered, and that all other areas directly affected will receive a fair opportunity before the Select Committee.
  As a long-standing sceptic, I believe that there is a mood, reflected in the House today, among the sceptics and critics, and even among those whose properties are directly threatened, that the uncertainty has prevailed for too long, that blight has existed for too long, and that, in Macbeth's words:
  "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly".
  After all these years of delay and uncertainty, the message is that we must proceed rapidly. However, the procedure must be done well. It must be understood that there are still detailed and fundamental questions which must be
  502
  addressed by the Select Committee and the Standing Committee. Many of those questions affect our county of Kent.
  I am not quite sure why this should be, but I understand that, by precedence, Kent Members, or Members in the counties affected, cannot be members of the Select Committee. I cannot see why that is the case if our constituencies are not directly affected, but if that is the case, so be it. However, I hope that the counties concerned will have a strong representation on the Standing Committee. That would allow us to take up some of the very genuine and real issues.
  Several of my colleagues have referred to the case made by hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent about the Boxley long tunnel. I describe that as the long tunnel that avoids the Boxley valley. Others are affected more directly, but everyone who lives in or cherishes the north downs of Kent will share the determination throughout the county that the route should not be allowed to inflict such irreversible damage on that designated area of outstanding natural beauty.
  The long tunnel option would add about two miles of tunnel, and perhaps 40 seconds in a tunnel for the rail traveller. The extra cost would be quite small in relation to the cost of a £3 billion project. For those who are not familiar with that most beautiful area of English countryside, I suggest that they walk along the Pilgrims way—as I hope members of the Select Committee might find time to—on the scarp slope of the north downs and look down on the Boxley valley. They will then see why it is so important to keep that area of outstanding countryside and that natural belt between the two great conurbations which would otherwise threaten to merge.
  I will be brief, as I know many hon. Members wish to speak. I apologise to the House for having to leave in a few moments for a constituency engagement. However, I want to raise several major concerns which I hope we will have an opportunity to emphasise in the Standing Committee.
  We must consider the question of compensation. We have not yet finally faced up to the real implications of compensation, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) said. That issue must be addressed properly in Standing Committee.
  We must also consider the question of vertical deviation. That sounds very technical, but it is fundamentally important to people in the villages on the route. If the level of the rail could be raised another 3 m, that would dramatically alter the impact on the people concerned.
  There is a widespread illusion abroad that the link will somehow be of major assistance in taking a great deal of freight off our roads. I was first attracted to the Arup route because it conceived a superb linking into a national freight network. Alas, we do not have that. The truth is that the high-speed link will take very little freight. It is not a freight route. If we examine the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State carefully, we can see that he made that clear.
  A briefing note makes that point even more clearly:
  "The growing volume of freight traffic through the Channel Tunnel will make use of the capacity freed up on existing lines when the Link is open. Plans for the Link do not preclude its use for freight traffic, with provision for two passing loops."

  503
  What enthusiasm that conveys. One could hardly have anything more minimalist than that. Apart from high-value freight in small quantities, hardly any freight will be carried on the high-speed link.
  The consequences of that are serious. Freight will be transferred on to existing routes, using existing lines, thus intensifying the noise problem in areas which have long since forgotten the kind of noise that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East loves so dearly. His love affair with the railways is well known, but it is not shared by many constituents. They do not want old-fashioned freight trains bashing along the bottom of their gardens. It is a serious new issue.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman provokes me. Do his constituents prefer the sound of heavy goods vehicles on motorways?
  Sir Roger Moate: The hon. Gentleman never misses an opportunity to hit out at road transport. That is a fact of life. Of course my constituents are equally concerned about heavy goods vehicles on motorways. There are equal battles about noise insulation. It is not a matter of one or the other. I hope that the Select Committee or the Standing Committee—I am not sure which—will reconsider freight transport. Does the Bill represent a missed opportunity? Could we encourage other ways of linking the freight system?
  On financing, it is for the Standing Committee to find some answers. I do not believe that such a Bill has ever stated:
  "The exact amount of the overall public sector financial contribution is not yet known".
  We know why we do not know, but the truth is that we still do not know.
  We all welcome the project as a flagship of the private finance initiative—quite right—but the great thing about private finance is that the risk is taken by the private sector. I fear that such a project could face extensive overruns, could be delayed, and could go well beyond planned costs. The private sector could fail. Who would then risk carrying on, perhaps, a half-finished project?
  We must be sure that there is a cap, and that the taxpayer will not have to foot unlimited bills in future. We must be sure that the private sector puts up the bonding and bank guarantees necessary to ensure that the project reaches fruition. Again, very little is known at this stage; the matter is to be explored before the Bill reaches the statute book.
  When the high-speed link is built, the people of Kent could have one of the finest commuter services in the country, and we would be grateful for that. Travelling time would be reduced dramatically—how wonderful that would be. It is clear that there will be a first-class premium service, for which premium fares will be demanded. Not everybody could afford premium fares. It is essential to have that service and to have a first-class—in the right sense of the word—rail service through the existing south-eastern train company, and good rolling stock at prices that the company can afford.
  Our worry is that we do not know how the two would interrelate. What will be the interface between the premium service and the ordinary service? How can we be sure that we will continue to have public operating subsidies for our existing trains and capital investment in existing train services?
  504
  We want assurances. Yes, we welcome the wonderful new commuter service—it could be superb—but we are also entitled to expect that our existing trains will continue to receive the support they need. Again, we must explore that matter in the Standing Committee and in the Select Committee if we are to secure the benefits for Kent that the high-speed link might provide.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The House should acknowledge that Lady Thatcher and President Mitterrand have their fingerprints on the project. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the project will be a memorial to them. They share two characteristics: greatness and despotism. Such people often wish to leave behind bricks and mortar—big projects—as memorials to themselves, and this is one of them.
  The channel tunnel project is marvellous. It is time that we acknowledged that; the engineering feat is considerable.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mackinlay: No, I shall not give way, because many hon. Members wish to speak and I _want to develop my arguments.
  I pay tribute to everyone involved in the successful construction of the channel tunnel. It is a pity that that great engineering project will be spoilt by the fact that the link is inappropriate, inadequate, late and on the wrong route. The route makes neither transportation sense nor engineering sense. That is a great pity.
  Were it not for the fact that my hon. Friends, together with some Conservative Members, have tabled a sensible and prudent instruction for debate, I should wish to divide the House against the Bill. It is offensive and grossly unfair to many of my constituents, but I join hon. Members in trying to temper its effect and, perhaps, even improve it by the House giving an instruction to the Committee to consider tunnelling in several sensitive areas and to have regard to minimising the environmental loss to people in Kent, Essex and London. For that reason, I will certainly support the motion on the instruction and will refrain from dividing the House against the Bill.
  I should explain why I feel angry about the line of route. Time and again, the public and Parliament have been told that a final decision has been made on the line. What causes us most irritation in Thurrock is that the flagship newspaper announcement during the week of the October 1991 Conservative party conference was by Secretary of State Rifkind, who said that he had decided the final line of route. Everyone in my borough was relieved; the line of route did not go through our borough and ruin industries and properties.
  There was then a change of Secretary of State. As has been the fashion in the project, there was a change of view. Soon after, Secretary of State MacGregor announced a variation in that line of route, bringing it under the River Thames like a bootlace, out at Thurrock, through the pillars of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge on its way westward to London, on its way creating havoc and devastation for many properties and residents in my constituency. We think that it is grossly unfair that, after the Government's announcement at the Tory party conference, the line of route was varied again.

  505
  One must ask why the route was varied. It was varied because of the selfish commercial considerations of those who own or have interests in the site at Ebbsfleet. The variation of route was consequent upon the decision to site the international station at Ebbsfleet. For that reason—I do not say this facetiously—the people who own that site might feel that they should make a contribution to the cost of tunnelling or of ameliorating the effects of the line of route in my constituency and probably in others as well.
  It will not be forgotten in my constituency that a vice-chairman of the Conservative party was able to lobby on behalf of the interests of the Ebbsfleet project and yet, under the rules of the House—I make no complaint about it—did not have to declare it in the Register of Members' Interests. We find that very regrettable. As a side issue, it questions whether hon. Members should be aligned with prestigious commercial and profitable projects that they might be able to affect in their capacity to influence Ministers and to bend their ears.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mackinlay: I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because many hon. Members wish to contribute.
  As a consequence of all that, a very bad taste has been left in my constituency and in the borough. We feel that we have been dealt with unfairly. The line of route has been influenced not by transportation or engineering considerations but by the capacity of some individuals in high places to influence on behalf of commercial interests rather than on behalf of the wider community.
  If energy is not used in this place to persuade the Committee to demand that tunnelling be undertaken or moneys spent—public or private—to minimise environmental effects, it will be a great tragedy. This project is clearly the flagship project of our generation in the House, as it will endure for at least 100 years. It is a pity that we shall spoil it in this rather mean way because we are unable to find the funding to minimise the environmental effects on the community.
  My constituency—other hon. Members have explained the difficulties in their constituencies—will be disadvantaged by an extremely ugly viaduct that will sweep across it. Earlier today, I invited hon. Members to raise their eyes to the Gallery around the Chamber. The viaduct is to be at least as high as the highest seating in the Gallery, and it will be situated at the end of people's gardens. I invite hon. Members—particularly the Minister—to pause and consider how they would feel if they were to discover that such a wretched viaduct was to be built at the end of their garden. It would be wholly repugnant, and the Minister would be as sick as a dog.
  The Minister would not be able to sell his house, and that is the rub. Thousands of people along the route, who are not affected by the line of route going through their front rooms, will certainly have their properties blighted by the loss of visual or aural amenities. The Government must recognise that it is a matter of fairness.
  I do not understood why the Minister has been so grudging. Why has he not said that the Government have been persuaded that there is at least a case for the Committee to examine the tunnelling and other aspects of
  506
  the instruction tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), which is supported by the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and other Conservative Members? The instruction makes sense. It would save a lot of time if the Minister said that the Government will not resist what is demonstrably a reasonable request. It is nothing more than that.
  The instruction does not say that there shall be tunnelling. It says that the House would like the Committee to pay special attention to the need to examine tunnelling. What on earth is wrong with that? I guess that the Minister has been instructed by other Ministers above him. He is a new Minister, and he must not buckle. That is what happens in politics, and it is a pity.
  I should like the Minister to make a name for himself by bucking the trend and saying that he has been persuaded that there is a case for the Government to join other hon. Members in asking the Committee to examine whether tunnelling can be carried out.
  Mr. Watts: I may be able to help the hon. Gentleman, although not quite in the way he hopes. The Government clearly are not persuaded by the arguments; otherwise we would have included them in the Bill. It is for the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who support the options to persuade the Select Committee that, notwithstanding the view of the Government, it should look at the options for which they have argued cogently.
  I will urge the House to resist the instruction to the Committee. I believe that the Committee is better able to use its discretion if it is not fettered. Committee members should take account of the cogent arguments that the hon. Gentleman and other Members have made during the debate. Those arguments will no doubt be made in support of the petitions that will be presented to the Committee for consideration.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I am disappointed that the Minister is not able to be anything other than churlish. He has not read the mood of the House, where there is widespread support for the instruction.
  The Bill faces a long road. Like many other Members, I shall join my constituents in petitioning against the worst aspects of it.
  Sir Roger Moate: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Hon. Members: Keep going.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I wish to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not aware of anything that would prevent the hon. Gentleman from concluding.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister will not be able to pretend that he is the Archangel Gabriel in this matter to constituents in Kent, Essex and London whose properties have been blighted. I acknowledge that many of the Conservative Members who have already spoken will use their good offices, in the House and outside, to argue that the need to minimise the environmental effects should be considered sensitively.
  The Minister will be blamed in constituencies that are suffering, and I will not hesitate to draw attention to the fact that he turned down an opportunity to recognise that this project is affecting thousands of people—often

  507
  Conservative voters—whose properties are blighted and who, in consequence, are suffering great financial and emotional distress.
  6.55 pm
  Sir Keith Speed: May I join other hon. Members who have spoken in welcoming the Bill? I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) in not exactly being overwhelmed with gratitude for all that has happened in the past seven years.
  Many people in Kent—my constituents and those of my hon. Friends—have had a great deal to put up with. First, they were told that there would be no need for a high-speed link at all. Then they were told that there was a strong argument for only one London terminal. Then they were told that there were to be all sorts of different routes with maximum lighting. Then they were told that the Bill would be ready for debate in 1990. Here we are in 1995, and it will still be perhaps seven or eight years before trains run on the line.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling thanked a number of previous Secretaries of State for Transport. I should like particularly to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor). My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) has not been mentioned, but he played a significant part in fielding a lot of difficult balls. He tried to meet hon. Members from both sides of the House and to get sensible answers for them. I should also like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).
  Those three were able to make a significant change in the route by passing it through the centre of Ashford and making the maximum use of Ashford station. That will benefit not only my constituency, but Kent, Sussex, Surrey and many parts to the west. That was a significant success.
  My job—and, I hope, that of the Bill—is to make sure that Ashford station is fully used. We have a big advantage, as the station will open at the end of the year for the existing fast trains to Paris and Brussels. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say how many trains he expects to serve Ashford. People were originally talking in terms of a third of them, and I hope that that proves to be so.
  Problems arise in building a new station route through the centre of the town. As far as I am aware, no major building site for the route has been established within the curtilage or centre of a town outside London. I hope that the Select Committee, which will play a vital part in the matter, will be able to suggest arrangements so that all building works and access to building works can take place. That will include the construction of what is called the Barracks link, and my hon. Friend the Minister should know about that.
  In Ashford alone, up to 600 heavy goods vehicles a day will serve the building sites, which will cause enormous disruption. It is vital that the route and building sites in Ashford are comprehensively considered in co-operation with the local council to mitigate the problems of construction.
  The issue of compensation is also important, and not just during the building of the route. Blight must also be considered, and I echo everything that hon. Members have
  508
  said about that. We are being very mean and niggardly, which is one of the major reasons why this country takes twice as long to build major capital projects as virtually any other country in the EU. It is about time that we told the Treasury, which is the ultimate force in all this, that it could save money and make people's lives a great deal better if it was a mite more generous in compensation, the blight provisions and all the other factors that affect individuals. We have just heard about the viaducts at the ends of streets in Thurrock.
  In the early 1990s, a scheme provided compensation on a discretionary basis if properties were 400 m from the line. The present scheme will provide compensation if properties within 120 m of the line are required. For the new, finalised and published route, Union Railways is prepared to pay compensation only where the property itself is required.
  In October 1993, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering asked Union Railways to provide arid implement a new hardship scheme for properties. I should have thought that this was just the job for the complaints commissioner. We have heard nothing about him so far. He is mentioned briefly on page v of the Bill in the paragraph on manpower requirements.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain what the complaints commissioner will do, what his remit will be and whether he will be able to play a major role between the various participants—the construction companies, Union Railways, individual people and councils—in mitigating problems by means of the hardship fund. We need such understanding now, before the Bill is enacted. If my hon. Friend the Minister cannot provide it tonight, I hope that the Select Committee will take a long look at the matter. I hope that it will also take a long hard look at the question of blight notices and when they are served.
  Freight has been mentioned several times. We are in a total muddle. I am prepared to be corrected if I am wrong, but I do not know of any TGV lines in France that carry major freight other than high-quality parcels on passenger trains. The idea of running freight trains all the way along the channel tunnel rail link is preposterous. Apart from the problems of interlocking passenger trains travelling at 186 mph and freight trains travelling at 70 to 80 mph at various times of the day and night, it just is not on.
  There is no question but that the channel tunnel rail link could free a great deal of capacity not only on the Maidstone line but on the line through Tonbridge, which is now electrified through to Redhill. The line could then join up with other lines to the midlands, the north and the west. If the Ashford to Hastings line was electrified, another line right through to Southampton, Exeter and Devon and Cornwall could also be used for freight.
  The type 92 locomotives that will enter service in a few months are much quieter than the diesels or earlier electric locomotives. That will bring a great deal of relief. Do we need the freight routes? Will they be built or will the land merely be reserved and planted? In my constituency and those of my hon. Friends, a considerable amount of land will be blighted because the freight routes remain in the scheme of things. It would be much better if we could decide, if not tonight certainly during the passage of the Bill, whether we want the freight routes. In my view, we could get rid of them and remove a major blight within the parish of Charing.

  509
  The issue of commuter lines should also be carefully examined. The speed of travel for passengers from Dover, Folkestone, Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Stratford through to London and further on would be increased. Will there be a premium fare? Will it be so large that it will be like a first-class, Concorde-type fare compared with a world traveller fare for everyone else? If the gap was too large, it would be counter-productive, but there might be a reasonable premium that first and standard class passengers were prepared to pay. The advantages for tourism, business and work travel in north and south-east Kent would be considerable. It would perhaps make up for the appalling service that our commuters have suffered in the past 30 or 40 years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) mentioned commuters. Unless we are prepared to replace the existing Kent coast stock in the near future, the number of breakdowns caused by those coaches of great antiquity—many are 35 or 40 years old—will cause increasing delays to Eurostar services. Delays have already occurred because the trains have broken down. I was unable to catch a train on Thursday evening because a train had failed. I am told by railway engineers in my constituency who know about such matters that the increase in failures in the next four or five years will be considerable. I understand that the problem has been taken up by British Rail. It will have to look hard at the problem with my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friends who represent Kent constituencies, who will bring pressure to bear on British Rail.
  We have had a great many problems in the past seven years, a great deal of uncertainty and a great deal of blight. We have had problems of inadequate compensation and lack of information. Only 10 days ago, a couple who own a public house in my constituency learned for the first time that a major part of it would be required for the scheme, yet they are supposed to petition within the next two to three weeks. That sort of thing really must not happen. We have had seven far from satisfactory years. In giving the Bill a fair wind, I hope that we can do much better in the next seven years.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Stephen Timms: I welcome the support that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House so far in the debate for good environmental safeguards and for the international station at Stratford. On the latter subject, I welcome the heartening tone of the Minister's intervention during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I begin by making some remarks about the case for an international station at Stratford.
  Hon. Members may well be aware of the series run by the Evening Standard last week which drew attention to the scale of the problems of urban deprivation in east London. The article focused on Tower Hamlets and painted a powerful picture. My borough, Newham, adjoins Tower Hamlets. According to the Government's analysis of the 1991 census, the level of urban deprivation in Newham is greater even than that in Tower Hamlets. The scale of the problem across east London is beyond doubt.
  510
  In the Bill we have the opportunity to implement the single measure which could make the biggest contribution in a hundred years to tackling that deprivation. We could make provision for the international station at Stratford. The local authorities in Tower Hamlets and Newham are making impressive strides in tackling the deprivation that they face. They are doing so in partnership with the Government and other agencies. They stand together in saying to the Government that they need a firm Government commitment in the Bill to the international station at Stratford. Everyone responsible for advising on the future of London, including the Confederation of British Industry, London First, the London Planning Advisory Committee and the local authority associations agrees. We are deliberating today on a route through east London to secure regeneration in east London. That is the reason that the Government gave for choosing the route.
  On 14 October 1991 in a statement to the House to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has referred, the then Secretary of State for Transport said:
  "our decision means that the line will be built through east London, where the prospect is welcomed for the economic regeneration it will bring."—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol. 196, c. 26.]
  He said later:
  "It is envisaged that the high-speed train from the channel tunnel to King's Cross will stop at Stratford".—[Official Report, 14 October 1991; Vol.196, c.34.]
  That was in 1991. That was the entire reason for choosing the easterly route. It is strange, therefore, that we continue to find it necessary to argue, as we did in the Consolidation Fund Bill debate just before Christmas on the initiative of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for the green light for Stratford. Without it, the whole purpose of the Government in choosing the easterly route will have been thrown away.
  We need Stratford international to be treated in the Bill in the same way as the intermediate station at Ebbsfleet. The Bill provides all the powers needed for a station to be built at Ebbsfleet. It does not rule out Stratford, as the Minister said, but, by contrast with Ebbsfleet, a station at Stratford probably would require additional legislation; it would certainly require additional work.
  The Bill needs to be amended to ensure that there is a level playing field for the two station options, with the powers for Stratford in the Bill as well, and I hope that the Select Committee will make that change. I welcome the Minister's suggestion that there could be an amendment to the Bill, and I hope very much that the Select Committee will make it.
  There has been a good deal of discussion, some of which has been aired in the debate, about the manner in which the decision in favour of Ebbsfleet was reached, and I know that the Nolan committee is inquiring into that. I do not want to comment on it at this stage. Obviously, there is a case for a station at Ebbsfleet on the M25, and I have no problem with that as long as it is treated even-handedly in relation to the east London station.
  However, let us be sure about this. Not only would a station at Ebbsfleet alone in no way constitute the regeneration in east London to which the Secretary of State committed the Government, but development at Ebbsfleet alone would grievously undermine the regeneration of east London to which the Government have committed themselves.

  511
  I emphasise that important argument. It was expressed with great force and clarity by the London Planning Advisory Committee, which is the statutory organisation representing all the London boroughs and the City, which, in its 1994 "Advice on Strategic Planning Guidance for London" and in other reports on that issue in the past year or so, has made the following points:
  "the provision of an international station at Stratford, with the necessary public sector support, is seen by LPAC as a pre-requisite to securing regeneration in East London.
  If Ebbsfleet were the only international station to be provided, serious detriment to the cause of regeneration in East London would result. …business and investors would be attracted out of London to where access to the European railway exists. This would reinforce the spiral of decline in the inner part of the metropolis."
  So, if the Government's commitment to a station at Stratford were to be abandoned, not only would there be none of the regeneration that the Government promised, but there would be a sucking away of investment that might have been attracted to east London, but which would instead relocate to the M25 and the green-field sites there. The development would leapfrog east London, wrecking the prospects for the economic regeneration that the line was supposed to achieve in east London and giving another boost to, the downward spiral that the Evening Standard graphically described last week. I think that we can avoid it. We must avoid it, and that is what the Committee must ensure that we avoid.
  In March last year, the Government issued planning policy guidance note 13, which discusses transport. Paragraph 1.8 advises that planning and land use policies should
  "promote development within urban areas, at locations highly accessible by means other than the private car".
  They should also
  "locate major generators of travel demand in existing centres which are highly accessible by means other than the private car."
  That is the Government's policy and it is clear. Urban regeneration or brown-field development should be promoted at the expense of out-of-town development. Developments should be encouraged in locations with good public transport access, not merely good car access. Government policy, in other words, points unequivocally to Stratford. All that we ask is that the Bill should reflect the Government's policies on regeneration. It needs to be amended to do that.
  Even without the regeneration considerations, there is an overwhelming case for the Stratford station. At peak times, 15 trains per hour will run on the high-speed rail link. That is five international trains and 10 domestic commuter trains. If all those passengers can get out only at St. Pancras, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, there will be a 50 per cent. increase in the number of passengers using the underground at King's Cross. That could be managed only with an enormous investment in the underground network, which, I suggest, is not at the moment on the cards.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that. in previous debates on the old and unlamented proposal to make King's Cross the final destination of the channel tunnel trains, it was obvious that, without any commuter trains on that line, it would be impossible for the public transport network, never mind the road network round King's Cross, to cope with the extra traffic? Therefore the
  512
  case was made then for an alternative London station. Does not that emphasise the importance of the Committee seriously considering the Stratford alternative?
  Mr. Timms: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's argument and I think that it is essential for that reason, as for the other reasons that I have outlined.
  In any case, why compel people to go all the way into St. Pancras when, in very many cases, they would be better off changing at Stratford? People going to the City would be better off, if they were travelling by public transport, changing at Stratford and using the upgraded Central line than continuing to St. Pancras and having to return along the Circle line to Liverpool Street.
  The same applies to many other people. People going to Essex and East Anglia would be better off changing at Stratford. I welcome the support for the station that was expressed by hon. Members representing constituencies in Essex. With the construction of the M11 link through east London and its spur to Stratford, there will be excellent motorway access directly to the Stratford station.
  This morning, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I visited the site of the proposed royal docks exhibition centre. Under the Government's private finance initiative, the competition to implement that project has been won by the London International Exhibition Centre Ltd. We visited the site with officers from that company, and they explained the scheme that they envisage, to go on site, they hope, this year. They propose an exhibition centre that, in phase 1, will be bigger than Olympia and ultimately will be as large. as Earls Court and Olympia put together. It is a very important project for London, which I welcome.
  The officers of the company emphasised to us the importance for the success of their project of siting the international station at Stratford. What is true for that project is true, on the larger plane, for docklands and for east London as a whole. We are not asking for subsidy, because the Stratford Promoter Group, which is an excellent example of the type of partnership that the Government advocate, has shown that the station will pay for itself. We are asking, however, for the Government's commitment and for an unambiguous green light. That is the way to secure the benefit for the area of the investment that the Government have already made.
  The location of the station at Stratford is the key issue in the Bill for the long-term future of east London, but there are many other issues of importance to us in the Bill too. The line will run in a tunnel under my constituency and under the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Two vent shafts will be constructed in Newham and Union Railways tells us that in Newham, between Stratford and Woodgrange Park, approximately 350 properties will be affected by perceptible vibration once the tunnel is operating, and 390 by ground-borne noise and perceptible vibration as well.
  The Bill needs to ensure that the best engineering methods are used in constructing the tunnel, to minimise and cushion those problems, instead of the cheapest methods. The environmental statement prepared for Union Railways says that ground-borne noise could be mitigated by an amended tunnel design and amended track form design. I hope that those aspects will be carefully considered by the Select Committee. We need safeguards to control the noise levels from the construction sites—

  513
  the major site at Stratford and the construction sites for the vent shafts. We need to be satisfied that the tunnelling method adopted will minimise the risk of subsidence affecting the homes above the tunnel.
  Another issue that I hope will be discussed is access for people with disabilities who want to use the channel tunnel trains. The rail link should be an accessible railway and the legislation should contain provisions to ensure that it is. That should be taken for granted for a new railway being built in the late 1990s, and I hope that it will be the case with this one.
  Undoubtedly, the channel tunnel rail link will create serious nuisances for residents in Newham. One of those affected will be my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, who lives directly above the line of the tunnel, but he takes the view that we all take—a constituent said it to me again on the telephone last night—that we shall take the grief if, as part of the package, we secure the regeneration benefits that the Government have promised through an international station at Stratford. It is a matter of good faith and commercial good sense. We look to the Government to put their policies in that area into practice.
  7.19 pm
  Dame Peggy Fenner: In introducing the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the project was of major significance to the people of Britain. All hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon have concurred with that view.
  The people of Kent well understand the need for a link, inconvenient though it may be in some cases. We have willed the completion, with the help of private enterprise, of the channel tunnel and we must will a link to it. But in building the first main line railway for more than 100 years, we must make absolutely certain that we maintain, as far as possible, the living environment of the people of Kent.
  I speak today for the concerns of my constituents who are affected. All my constituents want an improvement in commuter services. Those who live in the Medway towns and on the Kent coast have suffered badly for years. British Rail has, almost unashamedly, admitted that the two worst lines in the whole of Network SouthEast are the line out to the Medway towns and the line to Southend. So a large proportion of my constituents want an improvement in the domestic service.
  The Department of Transport investigated a widening of the M2 between junctions 1 and 4. I am bound to say that it was not done totally in secret because it was known to anybody who wanted to purchase a house through searches carried out by solicitors, but it was still veiled in such a mist that Kent's highways authority and Rochester city council had to ask me whether I could find out what the Department of Transport was doing in respect of the M2 widening. Coincidentally with the rail link issue, we discovered that it had ascertained that the current Medway M2 motorway bridge was not strong enough to take extra lanes.
  Thus my constituents are confronted with the need to build another road bridge over the Medway at that point plus a rail link bridge. They defy anyone else to show
  514
  them where there are three bridges in conjunction, all three as high as the viaduct in the constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).
  My constituents are not satisfied that real consideration has been given to building a tunnel under the Medway. A tunnel is already being built under the Medway between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) to take traffic out of the Medway towns. My constituents suggested the solution of a tunnel, but do not believe that the Department had a good reason for not building another tunnel under the Medway.
  Nor do they believe that the Department seriously considered their suggestion, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) proposed, of a combined road and rail bridge across the Medway. After all, as my hon. Friend pointed out, such a bridge operates in Newcastle, so we did not see why it could not be considered to avoid the three-bridge solution.
  That is the first matter about which my constituents are concerned. The second, concerning noise pollution, is by far the most important. Noise on the existing Medway motorway bridge has increased considerably over the years. Just over a year ago, it was resurfaced and my constituents specifically asked whether the resurfacing could be done in a material that would minimise the noise. They were assured that that would be done, but less than a year later they tell me that the noise has definitely increased. I suppose that that may be due to an increase in traffic, which was a good reason why the Department wanted to provide extra lanes. But my constituents do not feel adequately reassured on the question of noise protection and noise pollution. They do not believe that enough scientific evidence is available to ascertain the waves of noise pollution that would emanate from such an elevated bridge to the people who live almost underneath.
  In the petitions which the Select Committee will carefully consider, my constituents have insisted on the state of the art in building to minimise noise and on the most up-to-date and proven protection against noise pollution. Given that the bridge will last for more than 100 years, the least we can do is use the most up-to-date systems of protection against pollution.
  My constituents also seek assurances that the problem will be constantly monitored. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to that matter. Although noise protection has already been put in hand in respect of a train travelling at 140 to 150 mph, if trains are expected to run at a higher speed, what is the use of installing noise protection for the lesser speed?
  My constituents' third concern is about the construction of the link, which is why we asked for a simultaneous presentation of this issue in a single Bill. We did not want the people who live in the vicinity of those three bridges to have to sustain a programme of work for one Bill which was then followed by a programme for another. We want the maximum noise protection and we want it to be sequential so that it is completed in one period, not two.
  Although Boxley long tunnel is not in my constituency, I share the wish of the county of Kent and the other districts that the Select Committee should consider the matter. Given the Government's assurances, I expect no less from the Select Committee than that it will carefully consider all the petitions placed before it. I do not see why I should ask the Minister to instruct the Committee to do so because a Select Committee of the House is set

  515
  up to ensure not only that justice is done but that it is absolutely seen to be done. It will be done only if the Committee has a free mind to consider the petitions placed before it.
  I support my constituents' concern about that arid trust the Select Committee to consider any petitions on the long tunnel. From the point of view of my constituents and the city council, the matter is exceedingly important, because we should not prejudice the openness of the Medway gap. A conurbation that included Maidstone and the Medway towns would be a city to challenge the metropolis not far away.
  I refer to compensation, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) has concentrated and built up considerable expertise. Rumour has it that the French pay more compensation, more humanely and more realistically than we do. I know that they have more land, which gives them greater scope to permit things, but a few years ago the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors produced a considerable document on the need to revise the compensation system in this country. In the first new major railway line this century, compensation of a fair amount and a fair acceptance of blight is essential to ensure justice to those on the route.
  In my constituency is an area called the Nashenden valley. Residents there have the widened M2 on one side and the rail link on the other. There they are in a pocket in the middle. I demand that they get some realistic assessment of what the two projects mean to the 13 or so households in that valley.
  There are many details—I will not go through all the details that worry my constituents—but I have highlighted the greatest of them. I rely on the Select Committee to listen carefully to all the petitions. I hope very much that it will follow the wise precedence of earlier Select Committees, which chose to hold some of their meetings in the areas in which the problems are occurring.
  7.30 pm
  Ms Margaret Hodge: Even the most sceptical of the Euro-sceptics must, I believe, support the construction of a rail link through Britain to enable us to take proper advantage of the opportunities that the opening of the channel tunnel and the development of the Community offer.
  The Government have shown the same incompetence on this issue as they have on so many others. As other hon. Members have said, this debate should have taken place six or seven years ago; the rail link should have been up and running in time for the opening of the tunnel before Christmas. Now, when the Government have finally come to the House with a Bill, their proposals in relation to my constituents are damaging and unacceptable.
  My constituents support the construction of a rail link in Britain. They are not adopting a NIMBY-like attitude to progress. But equally, it is neither fair nor just that they should be expected to tolerate the unnecessary destruction to their lives and homes that the current proposals entail. All hon. Members who have been most closely connected with the development of the current proposals, including the Minister for Transport in London, now recognise that the citizens of Barking will get an unacceptably raw deal if the Bill and the route are enacted as they stand.
  516
  In Barking, there are not 13 families affected, as in Medway. Some 5,000 people live within a quarter of a mile of the rail link, so more people in Barking will suffer more than anywhere else along the whole route.
  The proposed route goes through the centre of Barking, tears the heart out of my constituency and destroys a close and stable community. Thousands of families are affected. There is an absurd inconsistency between the Government's proposals for the channel tunnel rail link and their expressed wish to see regeneration in that part of London. How can one regenerate an area when, at the same time, one blights thousands of homes and ruins the lives of thousands of families? There is not one hon. Member in the Chamber who would not be utterly horrified if such proposals threatened to affect their own homes. None of us would tolerate it, and the Minister responsible knows that I am right.
  Union Railways, in looking at the impact of atmospheric pollution during construction, estimated that 1,990 properties in Barking would be affected by such pollution. I believe that even more homes are blighted.
  Let me explain to hon. Members the impact that the proposals will have on Barking, on its people—not on trees, not on toads, but on its people. Some 321 homes open directly on to the railway, but many more will be hit by the proposals. They are not large homes with extensive gardens. Rather, they are modest homes for young couples on the first rung of the ladder of owner-occupation. They are homes for elderly couples who want to see out their retirement in peace and quiet. They are homes for council tenants who cannot choose to move.
  The Minister for Railways and Roads has been with me to the homes—homes in which the distance from the kitchen window to the rail track is a mere 2.5 m. That is less than the distance between myself and the Minister who sits opposite me today. At present, three trains go past every hour; very few use the line in the late evenings and at weekends. The trains travel at less than 50 mph.
  When the CTRL is completed, there could be one train every three minutes, at 185 mph, with more at weekends. That is without having regard to the likely increase in the use of the line for freight, to which other hon. Members have referred. That could increase threefold in the first 10 years of operation.
  Just imagine eating one's tea while trains go by 10 ft from one's window every three minutes at 185 mph. Just imagine putting one's baby to sleep while those trains are going by at the bottom of one's short garden. Just imagine letting one's children play in the garden in those circumstances. Just imagine if one is old and poorly and trying to get some rest. How can a competent Government seriously propose such a scheme? Current noise impact studies compare existing midweek noise with future midweek noise, ignoring the expected increase in weekend traffic on a line that is scarcely used at weekends.
  No owner-occupiers living near the CTRL route can sell their homes. For them, the Conservative dream of owner-occupation has become a personal nightmare. About half those affected by the proposals are owner-occupiers. At the height of the housing market, their homes sold for £85,000. Today, no building society will lend on any property in the area. The only sales are to unscrupulous landlords offering a mere £20,000 to £25,000 to home owners, for whom their house is their only form of savings.

  517
  I have a cabinet full of cases from constituents needing to move, who are trapped and forgotten. They include an elderly couple whose 43-year-old son has learning difficulties and needs constant care—they want to move closer to their other son in New Zealand before they die, so that he can care for his brother with learning difficulties, in the community. A widow has become mentally ill because she cannot move closer to her daughter. A man has impaired hearing and could not live with more and noisier trains. A woman needs to sell the empty house that she inherited from her mother, to pay for her daughter's higher education. I could go on.
  The scandal is that, under the current rules set by the Department of Transport, Union Railways is offering to purchase only eight properties along that part of the route—eight out of 2,000-plus. The truth is that the Government got their fingers burned with early acquisitions along the Kent stretch of the route, so they amended the regulations, and my constituents are being forced to pay the price.
  I have held meetings with the Minister for Railways and Roads, and he has said that he considers the current proposals on compensation inadequate. In my view, they are grossly inadequate and completely unacceptable, but he has not come back to me since the end of November with any sensible alternative proposals, and none is suggested in the Bill. I again ask that both the Minister and the Select Committee look for a new and more realistic compensation package, along the terms suggested by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malting (Sir J. Stanley).
  Building the CTRL is not like building a new road. The homes are blighted until construction starts; then there will be at least five years of construction. We all know, from the experience of the tunnel itself, that we could be talking about seven or eight years of construction.
  Obtaining information from Union Railways is as difficult as getting the Home Secretary to admit responsibility for anything that happens in the Prison Service, but I understand that its plans for my constituency involve one major construction site, 12 secondary sites, two railheads and a potential spoil disposal site. That will cause immense noise, disturbance, pollution, congestion and danger.
  Union Railways itself predicts that 300 lorries will come in and out every day. Those lorries will rumble past hundreds of front doors, past a primary school and past the homes of shift workers who are used to a quiet residential street—and not just during the day. Imagine living with that for five, six or seven years—it simply is not on. The local council has been told that it will be consulted on the construction code of practice only if it has signed a planning agreement with the Government, which could fetter the council's discretion as a local planning authority; that too is absurd, and I ask the Select Committee to examine the matter.
  When I spoke about the impact of the proposals on my constituents in an Adjournment debate on 21 July, I asked the Minister to consider widening the limits of deviation for the route so that a practical solution for the problem in Barking could be found. He chose not to accede to my request; again, I urge the Select Committee to consider the matter. I still believe that it would be feasible to re-route the CTRL either across or under Barking reach,
  518
  and that that would be the best solution for all concerned. It was what Ove Arup originally proposed, and it would work for both the people of Barking and the promoters of the link.
  We are building a line that we want to last not for a mere 10 years, but for a long hundred years. Getting it right for the communities of tomorrow is our responsibility; bulldozing a route through people's homes and destroying their lives represents a scandalous dereliction of duty.
  In the light of the current proposals, I urge the House to give unanimous support to the instruction that has been drafted for the Select Committee. The people of Barking must be treated in the same way as everyone else along the route, including the people of Kent.
  Not one of my constituents has chosen to argue against the development of a CTRL; not one has tried to argue that the route should not go through part of Barking. They know how important the development is for Britain as a whole. What they and I will not accept, however, is a short-term quick fix that ignores their legitimate demands that—both during the construction period and when the route is completed—they should enjoy the same protection as others, and appropriate compensation for disturbance and loss.
  The people of Barking feel that, during the past few years since the proposals were first developed, they have become the forgotten people. Since I became their representative, I have tried to promote their cause. It is now up to the House to instruct the Select Committee to do all it can to protect the people of Barking.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Although the Channel tunnel rail link does not pass through my constituency, it should benefit my many thousands of commuter constituents, and the major improvement works to the A2 and M2 from junctions 1 to 4 should help to ease the congested stretch of two-lane motorway from Three Crutches to the turn-off to Gillingham.
  This morning, I re-read the Official Report's record of the announcement, in a statement to the House on 20 January 1986, of the Government's decision to accept the Channel Tunnel Group's bid to build the tunnel, the debate on 10 February of that year on the White Paper, and the Second Reading debate on what became the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. There was much praise, from hon. Members on both sides of the House, for the Government's initiative in promoting this great civil engineering project—not least because of the impetus that it would give to the railway network, and particularly the opportunity that would be afforded to the transfer of long-distance freight from road to rail.
  There was, however, little mention of a high-speed dedicated rail link from the channel to London or beyond. In answer to a question from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) about his statement, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Nicholas Ridley, said:
  "It is not planned to increase the standard of the track that runs from Folkestone to London to enable it to take very high-speed trains. Such work would cause major disruption and would inflict immense damage on the environment. We have made it clear that that will not happen."—[Official Report, 20 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 32.]

  519
  During one of the debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed)—I am sorry that he is not present now—reminded the House that the 1974 Channel tunnel project, cancelled by Labour in 1975, had involved a high-speed rail link, but said that he hoped that such notions had been buried with the 1974 tunnel.
  I regret that the Government and Parliament did not decide to build the rail link with the tunnel, as an integrated project. I have always been an enthusiastic supporter of the Channel tunnel, viewing it as a major artery for the United Kingdom to exploit the potential market in Europe in a way that has always been constrained by the 22 miles of the English channel; however, the scheme approved by the House in 1986 was clearly flawed in not including a rail link, and also, in my opinion, by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which stipulated that no Government grant or subsidy could be paid for international rail passenger services. That section was a sop to my Europhobe colleagues who wanted to ensure, if possible, that the tunnel project would founder and we could return to our little Englander isolation.
  It was obvious from the outset that the success of the project would be greatly enhanced by a high-speed rail link at least from the coast to London, and early in 1988, British Rail began—in an unbelievably ham-fisted way—to plan for such a grande vitesse rail link. The past seven years have seen a tortuous progress from the kitchen-table plans, mentioned earlier, that blighted wide swathes of Kent, to today's substantially planned route and project, presented publicly by Union Railways last autumn.
  During even the worst days of British Rail's mishandling of the project—the first major new rail route in Britain for a century, as hon. Members have reminded us—no one proposed a route that went through, over or under Gillingham. My constituents were therefore not subjected to the agonies of planning blight that afflicted many of my hon. Friends whose constituencies lay on the various proposed routes. Thus, at the many meetings of Kent Members with successive Secretaries of State for Transport—and there have been a good many—I have been able to support the fast link without fear of upsetting my constituents, and to use the occasion to urge my various right hon. Friends to maximise the new line's potential to improve conditions for commuters who live in Gillingham and currently endure appalling conditions on the north Kent line of British Rail's Network SouthEast.
  The Bill includes
  "the outline of an intermediate station at Ebbsfleet"
  and, more importantly, connections with other existing lines. There is a prospect that the new line proposed in the Bill will indeed offer commuters from north Kent an opportunity, at a premium, to speed up their journeys: daylight, perhaps, at the end of a very long tunnel.
  We should be able to greet that news with unequivocal pleasure, but in the past few days a cloud has appeared, in the form of a letter from British Rail to my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, saying that BR sees no commercial case for ordering the next tranche of Networker trains for the Kent coastlines before 1999.
  I understand that the present ramshackle rolling stock on the Kent coast line through my constituency at Rainham will not be able to function on the new high-speed line, so the mirage of a speeded-up journey
  520
  for my commuters—and beyond—again disappears into the distant future. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister would care to comment on that undesirable news when he winds up the debate.
  The Bill is not simply to enable a much-needed railway line to be built. For reasons which my right hon. Friend feels are good and substantial, this already complex Bill includes in part II clauses 39 to 42 which allow the widening of the A2 at Cobham and the M2 between junctions 1 and 4. My constituents are most directly affected by that part of the Bill.
  During the debate in February 1986 on the channel tunnel White Paper, I predicted that the tunnel would make the M2 too busy for it to remain a local bypass around the Medway towns. I pleaded with the then Secretary of State, Nicholas Ridley, to expedite the northern relief road for the Medway towns and a new Medway tunnel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) has said, this important local bypass is now being constructed. However, congestion on the M2, even though the A20-M20 is now signposted as the main route to the tunnel, justifies widening the westernmost miles of that underbuilt road.
  I regret that it is in connection with part II that my local authority, Gillingham borough council, proposes to petition against the Bill on the narrow issue of arrangements for junction 4 of the M2 in my constituency. It will do so because the council believes that the current scheme proposes to place traffic lights only on the elevated roundabout at junction 4, the Gillingham turn-off. The Highways Agency has already stated that that arrangement will not cater for high traffic growth for the design life of the scheme. The council considers that junction 4 should be properly modified as part of a scheme to cater for the predicted traffic flows.
  There will be enormous disruption to the M2 between junctions 3 and 4 as a result of the widening works, and an alternative route must be provided. Such a route, the Medway towns southern peripheral route, could be completed, and would provide a suitable link between junctions 3 and 4. That should be funded through the Bill.
  The volume of traffic using the motorway could be reduced by transferring people from private cars to coaches. There is already substantial coach traffic from the Medway towns to London each day, and that could be enhanced if a proper coach park for commuters could be provided at junction 4.
  My council is also worried that the Bill does not include provision for the local planning authorities to control matters relating to the detailed design and management of the motorway project. That involves matters such as minor construction works, lighting, accesses, spoil disposal, landscaping, screening, hours of working and noise suppression. The Bill includes provision for those things for the rail link, and the council considers that the Secretary of State should enter into agreements with local planning authorities for the motorway work as well.
  Although the Select Committee may feel that my council's petition will be out of order, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give due consideration to the council's valid points.
  I have been convinced since 1986 of the need for a fast link. The benefits to my commuter constituents of an express route to London merely confirm my conviction, but the real clincher for me was my journey to Brussels

  521
  on 10 November as the guest, along with many other hon. Members, of European Passenger Services on the Eurostar. The splendid Eurostar train took longer to complete the journey between my local station in Bromley from Waterloo than had the slow commuter train that I had caught in the opposite direction two hours earlier.
  We had plenty of time to admire the Kent scenery as we dawdled across the Weald, and it was only when we reached the tunnel that the train began to achieve a speed that suggested some urgency to our journey. The first section between the French portal and Lille served to emphasise the slowness of the English and Belgian sections of the journey.
  I look forward to a two-and-half-hour journey to Paris. Not only the ferries will be unable to compete with that: the miserable air journey between Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle will also become a thing of the past. I am delighted to support the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assuage my local council's fears about junction 4.
  7.53 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I begin by declaring not one but two interests. First, I am the only Member to be sponsored by the rail drivers' union ASLEF. Secondly, I am one of two Members whose constituencies are within the borough boundaries of the London borough of Camden where the terminal of the channel tunnel rail link, St. Pancras, is to be found. I do not intend to speak for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He is more than capable of doing that himself.
  I am anxious to speak because for many years that terminal will be a massive building site which will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on my constituents. In common with hon. Members of all parties, my constituents and I welcome the idea of a high-speed railway. Any railway which helps to push this country and its transport system into the 21st century is welcome. Also in common with my constituents, however, I am concerned about the environmental impact of the proposals and the possibility that petitions from areas which the Government may not deem at this stage to be affected by the proposals for the building of the line will not necessarily be accepted by the Select Committee. I hope that the Minister will deal with that matter.
  Some of the proposals affecting St. Pancras deal not only with the construction of major new lines and connections to a line which certainly affects my constituents—the north London line, where four separate lines need to be built—but with new roads which will have major works beneath them such as sewers and piping and works of that nature. My constituents and I agree with the hon. Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) that environmental protection should be the most modern available.
  The Minister spoke of the environmental considerations which apply now, but we are learning from day to day and from month to month of more and more possible environmental dangers. One hopes that at the same time we shall learn of measures to ameliorate those environmental dangers and hazards. The project is extremely long-term, and I ask the Minister to consider
  522
  and advise the Committee that changes within the plan may be considered on grounds of increased environmental knowledge in the many years ahead.
  In a telling contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) asked the House to imagine what it would be like for her constituents to have a railway line at the bottom of their gardens at a distance somewhat less than that between the Front Benches. There is no need to ask hon. Members to imagine what it will be like for my constituents who will have to live in close proximity to a major building site, because Members fortunate enough to have offices in the Norman Shaw North building know precisely what that is like. The building site there has been occasioned by the work that is under way, seemingly for the foreseeable future, on Westminster bridge and on the Jubilee line extension at Westminster underground station.
  Little or no protection was offered to hon. Members and their staff who work in the Norman Shaw buildings during the destruction which had to take place before construction could be undertaken, although the fascias of Government buildings in Whitehall were protected by sheets of blue plastic. I doubt whether the dust and debris, which I know from personal experience sift into my office every day and cover every piece of equipment, sift into Government offices. If there is to be a double standard as to what constitutes environmental protection, it should be weighted towards the people who have to live around, for example, the St. Pancras terminus and its concomitant areas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking spoke of 300 lorries trundling through residential streets. That will inevitably happen in my constituency and my constituents will suffer from that sort of pollution. The members of the Committee should also consider whether there should be published, well in advance so that there can be genuine consultation, details of the possible implications of approach to the site of equipment. That would give information on equipment and the type of heavy duty machinery that would be required. Overridingly, there should be strict guidelines as to the hours at which such materials and machinery can work and on the kind of light that will be necessary to facilitate the work without causing danger to those engaged in the work or to people who live in the areas.
  I know that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, so I will conclude my remarks. In a sense, I shall end where I began. My constituents and I would welcome anything that provides the nation as a whole with a transport system which fits us and our economic requirements for the 21st century. As the link will be a national resource, however, the nation as a whole should carry a fair proportion of the burden.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken about levels of compensation for those who will lose their homes. I would argue that during the period when the line is being constructed there should also be compensation for people who will have their environment distorted by noise, pollution and the other factors that I have mentioned.
  A leader in today's Manchester Guardian —[Interruption.] That gives Conservative Members an idea of how long I have been reading newspapers. I am, of course, referring to The Guardian, in which a leading article today said, in effect, that 80 per cent. of the costs of the link are being met by the taxpayer, yet the lease is being sold for 999 years. One Conservative Member

  523
  earlier suggested that British Rail should increase its contribution towards compensation; I believe that the private firms which eventually win the contracts to build the line should also be asked to make a sizeable contribution to compensation. The link is a national resource, so it should not be just one section of the nation that has to pay not only in cash but in kind.
  8.1 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: This debate is a milestone in the six-year-old drama of the rail link, which has afflicted Kent since 1988. Over those six years, engineers and enthusiasts have drawn lines across my Kentish constituency affecting almost every square mile, to the detriment and anguish of residents. The drama first hit the village of Istead Rise and the parishes of Meopham and Luddesdown in 1988, with the farce of a British Rail manager telling anxious residents in Istead Rise that he had used his children's crayons and his wife's greaseproof paper to draw up the map of routes. New routes have swung from north to south since then, ending up with the route before the House today. Some 11 miles of it passes through my constituency, which is 17 per cent. of the entire link.
  The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made great play of the delays that have ensued. Of course the decision could have been made immediately if the people of Kent had been literally bulldozed aside and taxpayers' money wasted in vast quantities. I preferred the matter to be investigated thoroughly to ensure that we got it right. There has been no rush. Who needed the rail link anyway? Where would the cost benefit have been? Eurostar and tunnel freight are operating well now and passenger traffic would gain only 20 minutes in any event. The key is the rail capacity across Kent. It is adequate now for local and international needs, but on forecast growth it would reach saturation point early in the next century. A new rail line would then be inevitable, so it may as well be designed for high-speed operation—and that is what we are debating today.
  Some say that the Government have delayed too long and have paid too much attention to residents' concerns. A certain Opposition right hon. Member is alleged to have complained about "those pampered Kentish whingers" and unfavourably compared British progress with the French HGV route construction, but we should not compare the vast empty landscape of northern France with the rolling, beautiful, populated countryside of Kent. That is why environmental protection must be high on the House's agenda in considering the Bill.
  We must ensure that guarantees are built into the Bill to require its promoters to honour undertakings already given by Union Railways and to prohibit any backsliding. If the impact of the rail link on my constituents were confined to environmental damage, I would vote against the Bill today. However, my constituency also stands to gain a great deal from the decision to locate the intermediate international and domestic station within the constituency at Ebbsfleet. That totally tilts the balance in favour of the link and I shall therefore support the Bill today. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Select and Standing Committees going into the details very thoroughly indeed.
  The Ebbsfleet international and domestic station is essential. The Government's decision to approve the station was wise, of great value to international travellers
  524
  and of great importance to local commuters and passengers. Located within a few miles of the M25, it is ideally located for international travellers from the south-east, East Anglia and, indeed, east London. Plenty of parking will be available. For my constituents it will mean only 20 minutes commuting to London instead of the current 50 minutes. It will act as a catalyst for new developments on the exhausted chalk workings, which will bring thousands of new jobs. It will bring new relief roads and improve house prices.
  I must say that I resent the gutter campaign by Opposition Members—understandably talking up Stratford, which is anyway provided for in the Bill—with their allegations of sleaze and the talk and cartoons of "Fartyswamp". That cartoon in The Guardian—so close to the heart of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson)—is the sort of abuse that my constituents have had to put up with and which was further exemplified today by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). The Ebbsfleet decision was the culmination of an excellent campaign by local Members of Parliament, business men and councils. Furthermore, it was the right decision.
  However, conditions must be put on station development. We must be assured that, even before work starts on the link or the station, the Northfleet town bypass, known as the south Thamesside development phase 4, will be constructed. Designed for dual carriageway, at least one carriageway must be functional as soon as possible. The west end of the phase 4 road must link up with Stonebridge road, thus bypassing Northfleet town. It is essential not only to bring relief to Northfleet but to provide from the outset for construction traffic to be kept well out of residential areas. I very much regret the fact that Kent county council gave the project such a low priority that it will not be constructed during this coming year. Nevertheless, the council should make haste in designing the bypass and submitting it to public consultation.
  Another of my concerns is the Ebbsfleet water course, its environment and wildlife habitats—part of which is a designated site of special scientific interest—and the footpaths throughout that area. We also have the unique Blue lake in the Ebbsfleet valley. In this modern age of environmental expertise, all those issues should be examined. In particular, I commend to the Committee a paper prepared by the Northfleet action group which highlights the issues.
  The Ebbsfleet valley was the site of an ancient Roman settlement, and the competent archaeological authorities must give their clearance before work starts. The valley also houses the valuable Blue Circle sports facilities. Blue Circle industries, as the landowner and developer, has much to gain from the development and must give a. commitment to replace those facilities in the immediate area for the benefit of local residents.
  The Ebbsfleet valley will also be the location for the connection to British Rail's north Kent line. That is very valuable and will allow appropriate passenger trains from the Medway towns, Higham and Gravesend to access the high-speed link to London. However, the environmental impact of the embankment of the connecting line must be reassessed.
  There are also plans for a light railway, to be known as Union Metro, which will use the north Kent line onwards through south-east London and then cross the Thames to

  525
  connect with docklands. That project needs favourable consideration in the context of the development of the Thames gateway—the new title for the east Thames corridor.
  The House will recall the battle of Pepper hill, which attracted its own debate in the House. My right hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) and for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), when Ministers at the Department of Transport, took the momentous and, I believe, courageous decision to re-route the link out from under some 300 houses at Pepper hill and to force Union Railways to design an alternative route in cuttings past that location and in a tunnel under the A2 motor road. I should like to be assured that that crossing will be by bored tunnel at a low level, which would further minimise the impact on the residential area of southern Northfleet. It would also have the advantage of eliminating the disruption of heavy traffic on the A2 which progressive cut-and-cover construction methods would cause.
  I pay tribute to the hard work of the A2 rail action group, led by Mrs. Celia Jones. I should also draw the Committee's attention to the continuing concern of local residents. The deep cuttings near New Barn road should be covered over, which would protect the residents perched above at Pepper hill. The land sandwiched between the A2 motor road and the rail link opposite urban Northfleet and Gravesend should be either returned to agriculture or set to woodlands. In no circumstances should there be any construction development which would breach the long-standing defence of the metropolitan green belt. To protect local residents, commitments should be extracted from the promoters about the landscaping to be put in place. That should no doubt include consideration of lowering the running level at that point.
  I turn to one of the remaining contentious points which should be rethought—the crossing of the A227 Wrotham road at the Tollgate. Current plans for a viaduct over the valley known as Northumberland Bottom have led to fears of noise reverberation towards Istead Rise and northwards to a residential district overlooking the Tollgate. I have read no convincing presentation which calms the fears of local residents. I hope very much that Gravesham borough council will petition on that point and will commend to the Select Committee the professional presentation made by the Istead Rise rail action group, whose voluntary work over the years has been invaluable. In particular, the group highlights the possibilities for passing under the A227 carriageway. We also require assurances about any construction sites at that point.
  Concern about the rail link remains high in the village. An opinion survey carried out last month in Istead Rise brought a 74 per cent. response from residents to a detailed questionnaire. Seventy-two per cent. of those respondents remain opposed to the rail link and 82 per cent. are very concerned about the proposed multi-span bridge, with a further 14 per cent. moderately concerned about it.
  The impact of the landscaping and elevation requirements of the passing loops at Singlewell remain a concern. The passing loops are allegedly required for freight operation, allowing high-speed trains to pass. I do not understand the need for freight on that line, and a number of hon. Members have said the same in the course of the debate. The existing routes can more than adequately
  526
  handle freight, especially for destinations in the midlands and northwards, which can skirt London to the south. I do not understand why the peace and quiet of south Kent should be bought at the expense of my constituents.
  I should like the Committee to consider whether freight working is necessary. I reject the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who supports the building of the passing loops at Singlewell. Incidentally, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, also wants those passing loops to be inflicted on my constituents. Alternative consideration should be given to whether the track facilities at Ebbsfleet make the earlier plans for Singlewell passing loops obsolete. The Committee should therefore consider scrapping freight loops, with consequent opportunities for environmental improvements and improved landscaping.
  Perhaps the impact of most national significance is that proposed for Ashenbank wood and Cobham park. Ashenbank is real, ancient woodland. It is of significance for wildlife habitat and a site of special scientific interest. Cobham park and its ponds alongside the route are a fine example of a Repton landscape that would be damaged by the link. The current proposal provides for a wedge to be driven through the woodlands and for a railway to be driven along the edge of Cobham park. The devastation would be considerable.
  A whole range of respected environmental organisations have expressed their dismay. I mention but a few: the Woodland Trust, the National Trust, the Kent Trust for Nature Conservation and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Many of those organisations will be petitioning. It is my regret that Kent county council is not petitioning on that point. I therefore strongly commend the petitions of those environmental and heritage organisations and also the petition of Cobham parish council, which is being made jointly with the Kent Association of Parish Councils.
  Engineering consultants Travers Morgan have carried out a study of the engineering viability of a tunnel beneath the wood and the sensitive parts of Cobham park, with tunnelling through the sound chalk strata. That is worth careful consideration. The cost could be financed by a specific grant from the environmental fund controlled by the environmental directorate of the European Commission. I am very disappointed and frustrated by the lack of progress in obtaining commitments from those funds by the new Member of the European Parliament for West Kent.
  Mr. Dunn: He is a Labour MEP.
  Mr. Arnold: Indeed he is.
  Incidentally, those funds could also finance other environmental improvements along the link. I am likewise surprised that the Opposition amendment makes no mention of Ashenbank wood or the urban fringe of Northfleet and Gravesend, where there are thousands of houses, in their call for tunnelling to protect the environment. The feeble excuses for the omission offered by the hon. Member for Oldham, West will not wash with my constituents in Northfleet.
  Another major point of concern for local residents is the location, scale and operation of construction sites. Those should all be immediately adjacent to the A2 motor road and access to them should not be through residential areas. Strict management should be applied.

  527
  The site for the Thames tunnel work, if it must be on the south side, should be on Botany marshes, and it should be served by a rail spur from the north Kent line and by road access from the new Northfleet bypass. Both works should be constructed in advance of the link and river tunnel.
  One specific site included in the safeguarded areas is the remote Hoo junction in the parish of Higham. That is apparently required for transshipment of aggregates and construction material. I have been assured by Union Railways that no materials or aggregate will be shifted in and out by road. As such roads are tiny country lanes, that must be rigidly enforced.
  Lastly, with regard to compensation arrangements I believe that the boundaries of the safeguarded zones have been drawn in a very mean spirit, narrowing significantly to exclude badly affected homes and thus avoid compensation obligations. That is particularly noticeable at Longview, Henhurst road and The Lodge, Scalers hill, where five properties, all badly affected and sandwiched between the A2 motor road and the rail link, are left in limbo. Two have been offered voluntary purchase, but without the mark-up or assistance with costs. In a project of this size, that action is mean-minded and petty and it should be corrected.
  This is a major civil engineering project and clearly the House favours it, but I ask the House not to forget that it affects people—real people—and Kentish people, my constituents. I hope that during the passage of the Bill careful attention will be given to the many concerns that I have raised today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We have one hour before the winding-up speeches. Six hon. Members wish to make speeches, so I make that 10 minutes each.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. John Heppell: First, I must comment on the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who managed to prove to everyone that he could read quite well and possibly write quite well, if he wrote the speech, but if he is going to—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) had been reading his speech, I should have drawn his attention to that fact.
  Mr. Heppell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not for a moment suggest that you missed that, so I shall say that when the hon. Member for Gravesham is debating and not reading from written notes, he should at least ensure that events that have happened during the day are reflected in his speech. When he includes inaccuracies that have been cleared up in the debate he makes himself look foolish. He asked earlier whether it made any difference how quickly the proposal was passed as it meant a difference of only 20 minutes in journey times, but later in his speech he talked about savings of more than 20 minutes. That proves how foolish he is.
  I shall support the Bill because I have a record of supporting such Bills. I supported the King's Cross (No. 2) Bill, much to the annoyance of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). I did so because I am in favour of railways and all forms of public transport that take traffic off the roads. I shall support the Bill but it will be in spite of, rather than
  528
  because of, the Government. One hon. Member said that the Bill was five years too late. That is quite late, even by British Rail's standards, so it is with considerable annoyance that I support the Bill.
  I am angry with the Government for the delays and because the alignment of the route has been changed so many times, sometimes for what appear to be arbitrary reasons. More than anything, I am angry at the Government's insistence on bringing in the private sector. In fact, it is not an insistence on bringing in the private sector but an insistence that the public sector should not be involved.
  I have been involved in plenty of local projects, such as the Greater Nottingham light rapid transit system; we wanted to bring in the private sector for the Robin Hood line. Many Labour Members want to bring about a partnership with the private sector in this case but the problem is that the Government want to involve the private sector and exclude the public sector altogether. Everyone in this country, in Europe or in the world who knows anything about railways knows that public sector involvement is required—everyone except the Government.
  We could have had a real partnership in this project as was the case with the Greater Nottingham light rapid transit system. In Nottingham, there was a partnership between the city council, the county council and the private sector. We advertised for private sector partners for the Robin Hood line. All parties would welcome that in this project but we have passed up every opportunity of a real partnership with the private sector. Even when people were literally offering money, the Government said no because that money was conditional on some public sector money.
  In the event, the partnership is very strange. It is like a marriage but, in some respects, it is an arranged marriage. We have to pay a dowry to enter into it and we are paying it with public assets; we are paying it with the European passenger service, a public asset built with public money. It is not being sold but given away as part of the deal. Waterloo station, which is a public asset, is also being given away. The freehold of Ashford international station is also being given away as part of what I would describe as a bizarre arrangement. We are talking about maintenance depots in London and Manchester being given away as part of the same deal. The same is true of property in Olympia, not to mention the locomotives and rolling stock that will be given away, not sold.
  When the deal has been done, the Government will purchase the right to use some of the capacity on the line for domestic trains. I am not sure that this is the type of partnership that we might have expected at the beginning of the process. I put that down to the Government. However, I shall still support the Bill.
  Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I realised that many people have a romantic view of the golden age of steam engines and diesel trains. I too am a member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, so I must declare an interest. However, I have worked on such trains and I do not have such a romantic view of them. When one is crawling under a bogie changing brake blocks and traction engine motor bushes, frozen stiff at 1 am, covered in grease and oil, one does not get quite so romantic about the railway as the railway enthusiasts.

  529
  I accept, however, that the golden age of rail will come again, because there is no alternative for the future. Increasingly, the Government are making noises to the effect that the railways and public transport systems are the future, and I want that idea developed. People must realise that we are talking not about an antiquated, romanticised idea but about a vision of how transport should be in the future.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned compensation and environmental protection. I hope that the Minister will go to the greatest possible lengths to ensure that compensation is adequate and that there is as much environmental protection as possible built into the scheme. I do not say that because I have any special remit to speak for the constituents of the hon. Member for Gravesham or for those of my hon. Friends. I see no reason why they should benefit from any greater environmental protection or compensation than people affected by the road schemes in the north of England or Scotland or by rail schemes elsewhere in the country. However, I want people to see proper environmental protection built into this scheme. I want more railways built in the future and, if we can dispense with some opposition in this case, we may be able to dispense with it in the future.
  I am not sure how much remains of my 10 minutes but I finish by mentioning freight. Everyone who understands railways knows that the channel tunnel has the potential to open markets for this country and could provide the opportunity to shift freight from the roads to rail for lengthy journeys, which would not have been possible in the past. If we do not take advantage of that, we shall be betraying future generations, our children and their children. We must take this opportunity to shift as much freight as possible from the 44-tonners on to the railway.
  Everyone seems frightened of freight trains but they are not the rattly old trains of years ago. Proper braking systems mean that they do not rattle like they used to. Some hon. Members have said that they do not want freight loops to blight their constituents' property but, if we remove any protection from the planned freight routes, we shall be blighting this country.
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) has done the House a service by speaking in favour of this type of infrastructure project.
  When I was first elected to the House nearly 20 years ago, we would approve, in an hour and a half's debate late at night, sums equivalent to the whole cost of this Bill and the environmental protection costs. We approved the equivalent of £2,000 million or £3,000 million, often the recurrent costs of some nationalised industry which brought virtually no return.
  However, the expenditure involved in the measure that we are debating, whether for environmental protection or for the railway line itself, will generate employment not only along the line of route—although that will clearly be the case, and in London—but in factories and industries around the country. I am thinking of the service industries and the engineering, drafting and supply industries, all of which will help to keep this country's economy on the move as well as improve the railway.
  530
  I must declare various interests as I have had connections with Eurotunnel, ferries, hovercraft and Seacats and the aeroplanes that provide competitive services. However, I am making a speech partly in the interests of my constituents and partly in the national interest.
  The first option of the old British Rail scheme could have run through my constituency. When that possibility existed, none of the environmentalists stood up for those elected to represent Kent and London constituencies who were willing to examine the choices rationally—they went to ground. One of my partisan remarks is that the local Labour party, after making the initial error of saying that it wanted the rail line to come through Eltham, started to exploit the possibility that it might come through in a constituency-political way that was a disgrace to it. I hope that the new modernisers will not do that.
  The rail line is being built in the interests of travellers. There may have been a time when most people using the railways had no alternative. Nowadays, almost everyone who uses the railways has an alternative. There will be benefits for travellers in Kent; Ashford and Ebbsfleet being good examples. When we start to halve journey times and when people can get into the city centre more easily, they will make the choice to use the railway because of personal advantage.
  In international links, it is the city centre to city centre time that matters. I am not talking just about London to Paris or London to Brussels; I am talking about the other cities to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) referred. Taking an hour off east coast main line journeys to France, Belgium and other European mainland countries will make a dramatic difference to the competitive advantage of the railways.
  What is more, there will be an advantage for those on lines that are not served directly by the high-speed link. As people come into Waterloo, as more traffic moves to go into St. Pancras and as some traffic gets a chance to move straight through London, lines such as the Eltham and New Eltham lines should have improvements. From the point of view of self-interest and national interest, this infrastructure project has a great deal to recommend it.
  The trouble is that the House has not been very good at giving the operators the consistent backing that they need. We have had feast and famine in capital investment. That is better than the position in the railways a few years ago when there was just famine. The fact is that London Underground and British Rail, for example, have been told before general elections to expect significant extra capital funding which then ebbs away after the election. That makes the money they spend far less effective. Engineers around the country must be tearing their hair out at the ups and downs. I hope that we can find some consistency. As we edge more into private finance initiatives, we may be able to achieve that.
  We have had problems with other major infrastructure projects. There were delays in getting permission for the Heathrow express, yet who wants to go out to Heathrow on the M4? It is an irrational choice which is forced on people. The underground service is useful and more reliable than using the road, but we should have had a Heathrow express and we should already have a crossrail system under London which would also relieve the pressures. There has been enormous delay, but crossrail is coming. I do not want to waste the time of the House in going through the problems that crossrail has faced.

  531
  There have been problems with the decisions made by Committees of the House. There was the engineering misjudgment by the Committee that considered the Dartford-Thurrock bridge. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) will forgive me; I recognise the service he has given and I leave him on one side.
  That misjudgment illustrated that the House had not learnt much since the days when the Manchester-Liverpool railway line was delayed because a clever parliamentary lawyer persuaded Members of Parliament that it was not possible to have a moving engine on a moving wagon pulling freight. He persuaded Parliament that one could have permission to build a railway line only if the engine was put on the side of the track and the train was pulled with ropes and pulleys—
  Mr. Henry McLeish: An exaggeration.
  Mr. Bottomley: An exaggeration? Perhaps.
  We have had problems with infrastructure projects. We have had problems with critical projects, such as the Borough Market junction just near London Bridge station where doubling up the railway track would allow Thameslink services to go to London Bridge, where most people want to go—it is certainly where my constituents want to go—rather than to go in the rush hour through Elephant and Castle.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not just go for the Thameslink provision at St. Pancras. He should start to go for parliamentary or statutory approvals for doubling up the rail service at Borough Market junction. That is the key not only for traffic going under the Thames to north London and to the north of London, but for services to Cannon Street, Blackfriars, Waterloo East and Charing Cross. These things matter locally, nationally and internationally.
  The issue of private finance came up originally with the Dartford-Thurrock bridge. Such finance was easier because there was a revenue stream to come. When I was Minister for Roads, I went to Japan in the last 1980s and I went on a Shin Kan Sen train—one of the bullet trains. It had new investment, a virtually dead straight line, no commuter trains in the way, no freight trains in the way and it was over-staffed. The Japanese were managing to run their trains 10 mph faster than British Rail was managing on the east coast line on a railway built 100 or more years ago.
  Those who criticise British Rail management do not realise quite how effective the railway management and staff have been over the years in keeping an old system going, in modernising it and in keeping the service going. There has not been nearly enough tribute to the people who have managed to achieve that with the ups and downs of Government.
  My next point is political. If the way that the Labour party sat on its hands, to put it most gently, over the signalling staff dispute had had the effect of the signalmen's claim, which was totally unjustified, being met, the railways would have been put back 20 years. We were slow in getting matters moving.
  There are two key points about railways. One is reliability. The service cannot be interrupted by strikes or disputes—certainly not by unjustifiable strikes and disputes.
  532
  The second key point for the railways is capital investment, not current subsidies. What is important is going for competitive advantage. With new technology, we can run trains faster on existing lines. We are getting greater advances in signalling. We are taking out many of the staffing costs and we are taking out many of the bad jobs to which the hon. Member for Nottingham, East referred.
  I also echo the point about reducing the noise from freight and passenger trains. The advances that we made through research into the quiet, heavy lorry are coming in terms of quiet, heavier trains. The combination of the technology of the train, the engine and the track will help to reduce the amount of noise to which people are exposed. If more freight goes through residential areas on old, established lines, that is a duty that we owe to local people who will be inconvenienced by what I am told is aural pollution—or is it aural loss?
  Mr. Mackinlay: It is spelt A-U-R-A-L—aural. There is a loss of aural amenity. It is a bloody great noise.
  Mr. Bottomley: I know how it is spelt and I know what it means, but I tend to call it noise pollution, which is a more straightforward way to refer to it.
  My next point is linked to the debate on through ticketing which will be held on Wednesday. There have been jokes about whether people will be able to buy a through ticket from Peterborough.
  I believe that it is possible for through ticketing to be available not just at railway stations. On the day that the regulator's options came out, I received a letter from an operating company in my constituency saying that the ticket offices in my stations would be open for longer hours and not shorter hours.
  About 40,000 establishments will soon be able to provide national lottery expertise. With new technology, we should be able to buy tickets off line, in advance and at best value prices; that is not available now. The idea that people should buy tickets only at stations is out of date and we do not always get the best value from that.
  I look forward to a better future. The people who will gain most from the Bill are those who do not move from the roads as the rest of us switch to trains as often as we can.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me for a rare foray on the Back Benches.
  I begin by declaring a personal interest. The channel tunnel traffic, having passed for most of its route through north London in a tunnel, will come whistling out of the tunnel about 70 yd behind the back wall of my house. I therefore have a personal interest in what is happening. I also have a deep constituency interest, because several thousand of my constituents are likely to be adversely affected by the current proposals.
  I support the principle of the Bill; I support having the channel tunnel high-speed link. The approach through east London is the best approach that could be devised, and St. Pancras is probably the right destination for the link. However, I want it to be done properly, and that is the whole point of the instruction that has been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is also the tenor of the debate on both sides today.

  533
  The original proposal from Union Railways was that the channel tunnel trains, throughout their passage to Islington, would be above ground, using the existing north London line. After vigorous representation and after a campaign led by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and myself, we managed successfully to persuade the Government to put the line in a tunnel under the north London line for most of its passage through Islington.
  There is, however, a remaining problem, which relates to the western edge of the borough. One of the arms of the line will now rise towards the surface just to the east of Caledonian road. Under the proposals currently in the Bill, it will cross Caledonian road in cut and cover. It will then come up on to the surface behind Gifford street and run on the surface from there into the grade-separated junction behind St. Pancras. It is that piece of its travels from the area just to the east of Caledonian road into St. Pancras about which I am especially concerned.
  The impact of such proposals will be severe. There will be noise, vibration and disturbance to people who, of course, already encounter considerable disturbance from traffic along the north London line as it exists at the moment. Perhaps even worse will be the impact of construction, because the area to the north of Gifford street and the area immediately to the east of Caledonian road will be used as a large-scale construction site for the whole period of construction—again, under the proposals as they stand in the Bill.
  There will be a traffic impact of about 290 lorry movements per day on the Caledonian road. If the cut-and-cover operation across Caledonian road is decided on, together with the proposed work to the Fleet sewer, there will have to be either partial or wholesale closure of Caledonian road, with the diversion of traffic which will inevitably follow, into all the surrounding residential streets. The impact from disturbance, from noise, from vibration, from construction and from traffic diversion on a large number of my constituents will be adverse.
  Union Railways has said that it is prepared to look at an alternative: to move the tunnel portal further to the west and perhaps avoid the necessity of cut and cover across Caledonian road by instead going in a bored tunnel under Caledonian road. Kindly, the Minister, in a letter of 3 January, confirmed to me that Union Railways is considering such an option.
  But that is not the option in the Bill. If we pass the Bill as it stands, we have no guarantee that Union Railways or the private bidders who will come forward for the work itself will undertake that alternative option. It would be useful if the Minister could give us some guidance on whether we will end up with that proposal rather than the specifics in the Bill, which are not as favourable as those about which Union Railways is now talking.
  However, there is a third option, which is favoured by all local residents, is favoured by Islington council and is certainly the option which I have argued—directly to the Minister and to Union Railways—should at the very least be considered. That option is of a tunnel all the way into the railway lands behind St. Pancras.
  A study by Alan Baxter Associates has shown that such an option is perfectly technically feasible. It involves putting the grade-separated junction below ground rather
  534
  than above ground. Yes, it will cost a little more than the current proposals. However, the Cally Rail group, which has been arguing the case very strongly, has demonstrated very clearly that there are compensating advantages in land value in the railway lands which could offset some of that extra cost.
  That is a much better option. Union Railways, however, has reacted very dismissively. It has not talked at all about what work it has done or what calculations it has made about the cost of that option. However, it is the best environmental option, it is the best option from the point of view of residents, and it would greatly lessen the impact of construction. The Select Committee ought at the very least to look at that option, to question Union Railways about it, and to see whether it would be technically and financially feasible, as I believe it would be. Having a tunnel all the way into the railway lands would be of enormous relief to my constituents.
  So there are four key questions that I would like the Committee to address. First, will it look properly, fully at the option of a tunnel to the west of Caledonian road leading into the railway lands? Secondly, will it ensure that, when construction takes place, it takes place from within the railway lands and not from construction sites immediately next to residential properties on either side of Caledonian road?
  Thirdly, what provision will there be for compensation for those residents who are adversely affected not only by the line in its final form, but by the five to seven years of construction work which is likely to take place immediately beside their homes? Fourthly, what future does the Secretary of State have in mind for what is known as the Lough road site, which is excluded from the Bill but which was previously earmarked, disastrously and unnecessarily, for a concrete batching plant? I hope and trust that that plan will now be consigned to the dustbin.
  I do not urge that the Bill is abandoned—I think that it should go ahead—but I urge that it should go ahead properly. If it does not go ahead with full environmental protection for those who are affected by it, the lives of hundreds of my constituents, which are currently blighted, will continue to be blighted.
  The instruction to the Committee would at the very least give us some hope that the concerns of those people would be considered. I urge the Government and the House to support, if not the letter of the instruction, the purpose of it, and to ensure that the Select Committee considers the needs of those residents who will be affected directly by the proposals in the Bill.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Bob DunnMany hon. Members have said that the proceedings of this debate will be obligatory reading for those members of the Select and Standing Committees ultimately dealing with the Bill when it leaves the Floor of the House. I hope that the Select Committee will pay attention to the comments made by all hon. Members, but especially to those my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who encapsulated the particular problems of north-west Kent. In the minutes that I have, I shall try to follow some of his arguments.
  One aspect is clear for the members of the Select Committee: those of us in north-west Kent are not in favour of any deviation from the route as set out. The

  535
  route, while not entirely acceptable and while having implications for the communities that I represent, is in fact at the point beyond which I would not be prepared to tolerate any further deviation or change.
  That is simply because, in the congested area of north-west Kent, any further movement one way or another is bound to impinge and impact on communities that hitherto have thought themselves unaffected. It would be the height of cruelty to them, and it would be misleading and disingenuous, for there to be further changes of which they have not yet received notice.
  I want to state at the outset that the decision to site a station with domestic and international links at Ebbsfleet is right. The implications for north-west Kent and for the regeneration of what we used to call the east Thames corridor—now the Thames gateway—is immense. While I listened with interest to Opposition Members with constituency interests which led them to consider Stratford to be more significant than Ebbsfleet, I see no reason why the two stations cannot be built side by side, or alongside each other, at some time in the future.
  Hon. Members will understand that Ebbsfleet must be my prime consideration. The implications for employment, regeneration and the long-term development of north-west Kent are great. Colleagues on both sides of the House have stressed that the Government, the Select Committee and Union Railways must get this right, because they have only one chance to do so. We cannot come back in 10, 15 or 20 years' time and decide to unravel what this House has sanctioned. There is no second chance.
  I firmly believe that the proposals in the Bill as they will be dealt with by the Select Committee should be related to the impact of construction. The communities near Pepper Hill, to the south and to the north of the A2, face the prospect of many difficult challenges in terms of construction. There will be problems with the passage of vehicles and the movement of spoil, and access to open land, although partly scrubland, will be denied to local people.
  While the period of construction may be relatively short in the long-term life of the project, every step must be taken now to safeguard the communities to the south of the A2, and to safeguard the community of Swanscombe to the north. There must be proper and detailed negotiations between the promoters of the Bill and the project and the villages and communities which will be affected unless great care and consideration is taken—the villages of Southfleet, Betsham, Westwood and, slightly further away, of Longfield and New Barn.
  I welcome that part of the Bill which relates to the code of practice for construction. I hope that that code will be meaningful, and that it will have teeth. I hope that the functions of the independent commissioner for complaints will be made known to us by the Minister.
  Several of my colleagues referred to the implications of freight. I advise the House and the Select Committee to be cautious about the endorsement of freight on the new track. That would be a very dangerous position to endorse, as it has implications for the communities in north-west Kent. If freight is to move along the high-speed link, along the A2, and north from Ebbsfleet to Essex, there are implications for communities on both sides of the river. However, if freight is then to be used on the Gravesend west line to join with the London and
  536
  Chatham line for onward transmission to Waterloo, there are implications for the movement of freight throughout the night for many of my constituents.
  The compensation arrangements are inadequate and poor. We have not learnt the lessons from 1988 and 1989. It is unfair to expect people in stable communities to accept that, for the national good, they must lose real and big value—
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: A clear lesson on compensation should be learned in respect of the arrangements that Eurotunnel reached when dealing with the problem of house values and sales at Cheriton. Those arrangements were extremely generous, and worked extremely well. They minimised a great deal of the delay which might otherwise have occurred.
  Mr. Dunn: I am sure that my hon. Friend's words are a lesson to all of us, and particularly to those who will read the report of our debate. There is no doubt that there is a need for a hardship scheme and a need for generosity and sensitivity. Nothing must be done on the cheap, so that my constituents, and those of many hon. Members, lose real value in what is very often their only asset: their home. Better arrangements are needed.
  I welcome the Bill, because it positions a station at Ebbsfleet. I welcome it for the regeneration argument and from the point of view of the commuter. I disagree with colleagues who claim that the Southend line is infinitely worse than the north Kent line. The north Kent line is by far the worst line in our region. Anything that can reduce the journey time for people travelling from the Medway towns, from Swanscombe or from Dartford proper, must be welcome. A proper integrated system for train movements on the Waterloo line and the north Kent line is an essential part of the development of the project.
  I welcome the project. It must be a proper costal scheme. It must have real environmental considerations and it must not be done on the cheap. None of us in the Chamber now will want to be reminded one day that we got it wrong. There is a real chance to get it right, and I wish the Government every success in their endeavours.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. William O'Brien: I support the Bill, because it is important and significant to the economy and well-being of all our people, and particularly of the people in the north and in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, the area that I represent.
  I intervened twice during the debate on the subject of the transfer of freight from the north of England, through the tunnel and into Europe. I want also to consider passenger traffic. People from the north of England should be able to board a fast link train at a station in the north—in Leeds in my area, or in Wakefield—so that they can be transported through the tunnel and into Europe on the same train. I support the Bill, because the sooner we have this high-speed link connection from the tunnel into St. Pancras, the sooner people will be able to travel from Yorkshire and the north on the same train and unit.
  In many ways, it is important that the Bill receives its Second Reading tonight. It is important that it receives an endorsement and a speedy process through Committee.
  I realise that there are environmental problems. Hon. Members who have an interest because of the link passing through their constituencies have made it clear that they

  537
  want to safeguard their constituents' interests in the light of the environmental problems that can develop with the high-speed link. I endorse hon. Members' request that the Secretary of State and the Committee ensure that their constituents' interests are fully safeguarded. That is why I support the instruction. I sincerely hope that there will be strong regard for the instruction, in order to protect the environment if problems develop or if safeguards are not properly undertaken.
  In my interventions, I raised the need to consider the east coast line, because that line will be used extensively to bring passenger and freight traffic from the north of England, through London to the tunnel. Over the past two years, we have seen tremendous problems on the east coast line causing difficulties and extensive delays. Obviously, if we are to spend the necessary money to develop the high-speed link from London to the tunnel, it is important to have the same facility and the same efficiency on the east coast line as we are looking for in respect of the high-speed link.
  It was against that background that I raised with the Secretary of State and with other hon. Members the need for special attention to the east coast line. I am pleased that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members have supported my view that it is important that the east coast line is as efficient as the link between London and the tunnel.
  Dr. Mawhinney indicated assent.
  Mr. O'Brien: I am pleased that the Secretary of State nods in agreement.
  I raised the importance of freight, because, in my constituency, Wakefield metropolitan district council is building the rail freight terminal, which is due to be completed by the end of this year. I hope to see freight trains leaving Normanton and delivering, through the tunnel, goods which were manufactured or assembled in Normanton. That is an important issue. It means much to the economy and well-being of my constituency. As we have suffered many job losses because of mine closures, it is important that we have the link between Yorkshire and Europe.
  One disappointing point for me and for my constituents is that the terminal, which is very important to our area, is receiving no support from the private sector. We have heard much today about the importance of private sector money helping to develop such projects, yet the scheme is being developed only because of the initiative, drive and courage of Wakefield metropolitan district council. I hope that the Secretary of State will impress on his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment the importance of supporting the application of Wakefield metropolitan district council for European money to help to finance that Euro-terminal.
  I bring together freight and passenger transport, because it is important that we in the north of England have the link through London, through the channel tunnel, and into Europe. Freight from the north should be allowed to use the high-speed link. It is important to many manufacturers and commercial undertakings that provide employment that goods arrive in Europe as speedily as possible. That may mean using the high-speed link.
  538
  I suggest to the Secretary of State and to the Committee that we ought to consider using every possible moment on the high-speed link for carrying freight from the regions into Europe. Therefore, I hope that we will get some support, and that there will be a constructive investigation into the use of the high-speed link for the transport of freight from the regions through the tunnel.
  I welcome the debate, and I support the principle of the Bill. I ask that the instruction be given serious and favourable consideration by the Committee. I hope that my plea for the quick development of passenger transport from the north into Europe via the high-speed link is heard. I also hope that conveying goods and freight from the north is given the same significance as passenger transport. Therefore, I appeal to the House to support the Bill and the instruction.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: My constituents had—and still have—considerable reservations about the channel tunnel. We believe that the ferry industry of Dover has served the country well for many years. It has certainly served the country well financially, as there is only some £1 billion of capital in total in the ferry industry on the south coastal routes to the continent, compared with an investment so far of £11 billion in the channel tunnel. With the channel tunnel rail link forecast to cost at least £3 billion, it is possible that investment costs will be £15 billion or even £20 billion if there is an overrun on the rail link.
  The channel tunnel has already run into considerable financial difficulties. I must recognise, however, that the rail link may bring some travel benefits to my constituents. We are told that travel times to Dover will reduce, and I hope that they will. British Rail's announcement last week that it was not prepared to provide Networker trains to Dover was a disgrace, considering that we have some of the worst timetable problems in the country. British Rail continuously fails to meet a reasonable timetable commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir K. Speed) has, along with me, fought consistently in the campaign, and I pay tribute to him. He fought for better Networker and rail facilities before I came to the House. Something must be done to improve the rail line.
  My support for the Bill is limited to the extent that it could benefit my constituents, but I would certainly want it to be amended. My constituents' concern about the Bill is in relation to clauses 30 and 31, which deal with the potential of a Secretary of State to give unlimited financial subsidies to the operator of the channel tunnel rail link. The port of Dover and the ferry industry have hitherto relied on the protection given to them under section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which states that international passenger services shall not be subsidised.
  The Transport Select Committee believed that the ferry industry should be protected against unfair subsidies. My constituents are concerned that clauses 30 and 31 are extremely widely drawn. Subsidies could be unlimited. No clearly defined or specific reason is given for a subsidy. Under the Bill, it is possible for a subsidy to be given for negligence, incompetence or even unfair competition. No audit trails are open to public scrutiny, and no mention is made of whether a subsidy is to be for capital, operating or financing costs.

  539
  There is no mention of a required rate of return on the subsidy that might be provided; the public sector is being asked to give a blank cheque. Originally, the subsidy was said to be for extraordinary environmental costs. I had a meeting with the Minister at which that possibility was discussed, yet that is not made clear in the Bill. It was suggested that the subsidy was needed to purchase capacity for Kent commuters, but Kent commuters may get only a tiny proportion of the available use of the link. Therefore, I am worried about how the calculation is to be done to justify using that reason for the subsidy.
  I want the Select Committee to put some detailed questions about the subsidy. If there is to be a subsidy, the channel tunnel rail link must be economically unjustified. The Committee should ask why the link is to be constructed in a way that requires subsidy. If a subsidy is necessary for the link, why is subsidy not made available to similar or even better transport projects? What is to be the audit trail for transactions between the channel tunnel rail link company and Eurotunnel? Will public money be used to improve the finances of Eurotunnel? How are we to use appropriate audit methods to avoid that happening?
  In a speech on 3 February 1987, the Minister of State said that railways should not
  "serve as a channel for Government funds to be provided to Eurotunnel."—[Official Report, 3 February 1987; Vol.109, c 863.]
  How is that commitment to be met in the Bill? If the rail link is to be subsidised, why not subsidise the roads to the ports? The port of Dover still does not have a good connection with the A2. I accept that it has a very good connection to the A20, which was provided as a result of recommendations made by the Select Committee that considered the Channel Tunnel Bill. Perhaps the Select Committee that will examine the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill will also consider the need for fair play and for the A2 to be properly dualled between Lydden and Dover under the Bill.
  If public money is to be used, it should be used fairly. That is what I want to see for my constituents in relation to the port of Dover. It is also important that we recognise that the channel tunnel and the channel tunnel rail link company will have several extra legislative benefits in addition to this Bill. They have a dispensation under the Immigration (Carriers' Liabilities) Act 1987. In addition, 44-tonne lorries will be permitted on roads travelling to railheads in connection with the channel tunnel. The French taxe uniforme applies only to the port and ferry industries; it does not apply to passengers using the channel tunnel. It is a grotesque tax that is unfair in its operation. It acts as a tax on the port and ferry industry.
  I hope that the Select Committee will also consider the economics of the link and the fact that it may be a loss leader. That could have implications for the fairness of travel costs between the port and ferry industry and the rail link. There is not much time left to go into the detail. Suffice to say that the current forecast is that 10 million passengers will use the rail link. The average single journey revenue will be some £70. I understand that to be a reasonable figure. The railway companies of the three countries will share only some £55. That would give the channel tunnel rail link company some £15 and only some £150 million in revenue.
  If the cost of building the link is £3 billion, £420 million of return on capital would be required for a 14 per cent. return on capital. In other words, a loss of some
  540
  £270 million might be incurred. Even if the rate of return is reduced to that on public sector projects—about 8 per cent.—a return of £240 million would be required, and there would be a shortfall of about £90 million. That shortfall would be considerable, and I hope that the Committee will consider the unfairness of further financial support to the rail link in those circumstances.
  I do not have time to make some of the arguments that I wished to make, but I hope to have the opportunity of presenting them in evidence to the Select Committee.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am grateful for the opportunity to use the last few moments of the debate from the Back Benches to make three brief points.
  First, I welcome the Bill, which is certainly not before time; we have waited for it for a long time. It is essential to the continued growth of the economy, and it will be a great success. The public and private sectors working together to achieve a result is especially beneficial. I believed from the outset that the line would never be built unless there was some public sector involvement. That was not always a popular argument to advance from the Conservative Benches, but it has proved to be right. I am sure that it will make a major and necessary difference to the commuting journeys of constituents from Kent.
  That brings me to my second point. It is essential that the project is prosecuted to be achieved as rapidly as possible. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would pay attention to the fact that my Sevenoaks constituents already have evidence that, on occasion, Eurostar trains are being given priority on train paths to London, at the expense of regular services.
  From the beginning, the House was given assurances by British Rail management, and by Ministers, that the existing timetables and services provided to commuters from Kent would not be disadvantaged by increased traffic serving channel tunnel passengers. It will be unacceptable if people who pay regular season ticket fares, and who depend on British Rail services to take them into London, find that their service, which is not always as good as it should be, is made even worse because of priority being given to Eurostar trains.
  It has always been my nightmare that my constituents should stand, shivering, on the platform at Sevenoaks, waiting for a delayed or slow train, while the Eurostar flashes through, with the passengers enjoying their croissants and coffee in comfort. That must not happen at the expense of commuters from my constituency. Therefore, it is necessary to put the line in place as rapidly as possible and take the pressure off existing lines.
  Thirdly, I add to the demands made from both sides of the House that the Select Committee must consider the compensation package. It will never be popular with any Government to increase compensation for the disadvantages of blight and of damage done to people's main investment. However, after debating the matter at considerable length in the Standing Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill, Eurotunnel developed a good arrangement for solving the problems of buying out and compensating people living in the Cheriton district, where the terminal has now been built. That was a private sector company taking a very liberal and positive approach to compensation.

  541
  I would commend to the Select Committee that it study those arrangements and, possibly, require private sector operators to take a positive and similar approach to compensation. Ultimately, proper compensation will mean that the relatively few people whose lives have been or will be heavily damaged by the provision of the link will not have their lives wrecked when the rest of the country benefits in a major way from such an essential development.
  I welcome the Bill and hope that the Select Committee will pay attention to the wide range of views on compensation expressed in today's debate.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Henry McLeish: I preface my remarks by saying that it was a privilege to listen to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) urging the Government to give more subsidies to ferry companies in his area.
  Mr. David Shaw: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly. I was saying that, if subsidy is to be given to a connection to the port—in this case the channel tunnel—we should have a proper road connection to Dover.
  Mr. McLeish: I understood perfectly well the import of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and thought it useful to place on record the fact that the hon. Gentleman is considering subsidies.
  I do not wish to introduce further discordant notes, because this has been a good-natured and constructive debate in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed issues which relate to their constituencies and are at the forefront of the minds of individuals, organisations and groups within their communities. It is evident from the debate that there is consensus that the Bill should proceed. We can take it as read that there is wide support for this important measure.
  We also seek a broad consensus on some of the major unresolved issues. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned compensation, tunnelling and environmental concerns. All hon. Members have said that they are happy to sign up to the Bill, as long as their constituents and organisations are treated fairly and sensitively by all those concerned in the process. That must be said at the start of the wind-up debate because it is a credit to the House.
  This is an interesting time to discuss railways. When we discuss through ticketing on Wednesday, we may have more acrimonious exchanges than we have had this evening. The process is vital because, as many hon. Members said, this is not an ordinary construction development. It will take years and years, and many communities will be disrupted in terms of environment, nuisance, noise and general inconvenience. It is therefore right that the House should debate those issues constructively rather than be taken on a tangent to discuss other aspects of the ensuing railways debate.
  It is vital that we give a strong lead to the Select Committee and, subsequently, the Standing Committee. The House can do everyone a favour by agreeing to the instruction.
  542
  This is also an historic occasion for the House because it is the second biggest investment in rail since we have had railways. That is important because it puts in context the importance of rail in the future, especially if it is to be linked to the trans-European network.
  Europe has a vision of an integrated transport system, whether it be road or rail. Fortunately, this project has been included in the 13 key projects that will link Europe and, I hope, other parts of Britain for a more prosperous future. It is therefore important in a European context. It is also vital for Britain. For far too long we have dragged our feet in terms of the nature and level of the investment required to take seriously the idea of improving economic prosperity and giving the passenger a better deal.
  The link is also about the regeneration of the south-east, particularly London. Many hon. Members have identified that crucial fact. When considering the benefits that will accrue from this development, it is important that the Select Committee take that issue on board. Obviously, it is not only a matter for the south-east and London. As a Scot, I want to see the benefits of the link experienced by other parts of the United Kingdom. That is absolutely crucial. I do not think that it is a matter of the south-east and London. It is a matter for the wider interest of the United Kingdom.
  On a positive note, the Bill is also symbolic of a new age. We can have debates about public and private, and about the degree of investment from either party, but this is an historic event in that we want it to succeed. We want the west coast main line to succeed. We want crossrail to succeed. We want to open up a new era on the railways. Yes, we can have differences on ideology and have ownership discussions, but at the end of the day the travelling public expect a better deal. It is high time that the House accepted that the passenger and our economic prosperity should be high on the agenda.
  Those are laudable objectives, but from the discussion this evening, other concerns must be reconciled—whether they be Kent, Thurrock, Barking or Islington—because at the end of the day individuals, groups and organisations will be affected. Communities may be badly affected, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge). It is right that we take some time to identify the key areas that the Select Committee should address, because I would not like to think that the House could take historic decisions without taking into consideration the views of many groups and organisations which are fearful of the implications of a new technology: high-speed trains, the like of which most parts of Britain have not yet seen. All those individuals, groups and organisations need to be treated with respect.
  A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the issue of finance. It is clear, whether it be inspired speculation or detailed fact, that there is substantial public investment in the so-called "private" link. Whether one measures that in cash assets being transferred into the project from the Euro-passenger service, or whether it is in commissioning track for use by commuters, we are talking about substantial sums of public money.
  I raise that matter not to open up a debate on private and public investment but to say that the House, supported by the Government, should use that public investment as leverage with all those involved, to secure the benefits that we have discussed this evening. If we are talking—the figure may be debatable—of a £1.7 billion

  543
  contribution to a £3 billion project, the cost of which is rising daily, that is a significant figure. On behalf of all the taxpayers of Britain, whom we represent, we should ensure that Union Railways, the successful nominating undertaker, should be assured that we have an investment and that we want to see a return, not only for Britain but for the communities and interests that we represent.
  I had the privilege of accompanying my hon. Friend the Member for Barking on a visit to some of her constituents. I understand that the Minister also visited her constituency. I was appalled by some of the hardships that many of her constituents will have to endure. I would not like to live beside the new tracks that will service the rail link, but they are willing to support the principle of the Bill as long as they get a fair deal. I have to say to Union Railways and to the Government that they do not believe that they are getting a fair deal. That is one of the challenges of the Select Committee: to ensure that the views that have been expressed this evening are taken seriously.
  The Government, Union Railways and others are talking about speeds of 145 mph. But we now know that those speeds may be exceeded and that the maximum might be 186 mph. Many people want to be assured that environmental assessments fully acknowledge that those extra speeds may be achieved. That is significant.
  In Barking, one of the key issues for the residents was the alternatives to the current route. We have talked about Barking reach and about tunnelling, but those people are equally concerned about compensation. Union Railways' activity on that so far, supported by the Government, has been tawdry. We cannot expect people to have their lives disrupted and their communities ruined, and to be permanently inconvenienced not only for the future but through an intense construction period, without their feeling very angry, dejected and dismayed. Those people are looking for a lead from the House. Again, I urge the Minister to reconsider the instruction.
  If the whole of Britain is to benefit, let us not have casualties along the way. People in Barking simply want a fair deal, and I do not think that they are getting one now. Union Railways, the Government and the winning nominated undertaker must think again. We need compensation that is fair, and alternatives that have been properly considered and analysed: if people in Barking are signing up to a principle for Britain, they should also be signing up to a fair deal for themselves.
  We have heard representations from Conservative Members about Kent, which contains areas of environmental and conservation interest that should be protected. We are talking about a multi-billion pound project, and I do not think that we should be niggardly about environmental protection. That is why I raise the issue of a substantial input from the public purse. I believe that if we are investing, as custodians of the taxpayers' money, we should look for the best deal possible and not be niggardly. Kent Members more eloquent than I have expressed their concerns.
  I mentioned regional development at the outset. This is a project for the whole of Britain, not just the south-east, and we hope to ensure that it is a success. The same model is being used for the west coast main line, and cross-rail may be involved in the future. As I have said, we are talking about a multi-billion pound programme for Britain, and we must get it right. We must consider not only local environmental issues but key funding issues.
  544
  Although the risk is being taken by the private sector, it must be acknowledged that a substantial amount of public money will be spent.
  People on the periphery of Britain feel remote from the south-east, from London and from Europe. We now have an ideal opportunity to say to them, "Have confidence in our railways and our economic future." More important, the House must show that we are concerned about regional infrastructure and key links between the new stations and the east and west coast main lines. That is crucial for all concerned.
  I have mentioned compensation and do not wish to dwell on it, but I do not think that we can get away with our current programme procedures. In Barking a handful of people have been offered compensation, but literally hundreds of householders should be able to receive some cash. Is it too much to ask the Minister to say that the Government will look at the matter again? We are not talking about more multi-billion pound investment; we are talking about a price for justice.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who made a case for Stratford station to be considered on the same- basis as other options. It is vital for regeneration that such projects be considered seriously. This is a once for all: few channel tunnel rail links will be produced in Britain in the future. That may comfort some hon. Members who fear the consequences, but we must take advantage of what is on offer at every opportunity. As some of my hon. Friends pointed out, the economy of some of the areas involved, especially the east end, requires radical treatment.
  I mentioned the construction period earlier. I was struck by my visit to Barking; I am sorry that I could not visa other areas, but the new transport team has been in place for only a few weeks. I realised that the area would not only suffer massive inconvenience, but would be a construction site for many years. It appeared, however, that no thought had been given to road access, road damage, the size of the lorries that would come in and all the other inconveniences. I ask the Select Committee and Ministers to think seriously not only about compensation for the future, but about a way out to compensate for some of the ravages that many people in London and elsewhere will endure throughout the construction process. The issue is the instruction that we are asking the House to support.
  Some of the Minister's responses have been helpful, but I do not think that he is willing to accept the instruction as it stands. There are three ways forward. First, he can ask his colleagues to vote against the instruction. That would be a tragedy because some Conservative Members want to support it. It would be folly to vote against an instruction in which many people see common sense.
  The Minister's second option is to say, "I do not want to sign up to support it but I will not obstruct it." That would give the right lead to his colleagues who would support an instruction with so much common sense and which does nothing other than ask for the consideration of environmental issues and tunnelling. If the Minister suggests in his winding-up speech that his hon. Friends should oppose the instruction, it will be viewed badly.

  545
  The Minister's third way out is to say that he will not vote against the instruction. The best message that we can send to people in the communities who will be affected is that the House did not divide. That would ensure that the instruction goes forward as a vote from the Chamber.
  Mr. Spearing: Although the instruction is not in my name, it affects parts of east London to which my hon. Friend has referred. Is he suggesting that, because we have not had an intimation that is, in effect, an instruction from the Government, the Committee shall not take particular account of the environmental advantages of tunnelling in some areas? Is it possible that the Minister would say that?
  Mr. McLeish: That is a timely intervention. It seems that rhyme and reason are on the Opposition side and that they are shared by many Conservative Members.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: What scale of priorities is demonstrated by the instruction? It omits any reference to the urban areas of Northfleet and Gravesend which are close to the rail link.
  Mr. McLeish: It refers to the whole route. The spirit of the instruction encompasses many other aspects of the debate. It is about tunnelling and environmental protection. How will it look to the many communities that are affected by our deliberations if the Government decide to vote down an instruction which is so reasonable and which wishes to take people forward in consensus? I hope that the Minister will rethink that issue before delivering his winding-up speech.
  It is evident from our tackling of the Bill that we support progress. This is an ideal opportunity to consider issues raised by hon. Members in all parts of the House and come up with solutions. I hope that the Minister will not say that the suggested solutions are far too expensive. This is a multi-billion pound project and we are discussing communities of real people. We are debating the environment generally, but we are also dealing with people's lives and we cannot put a price on what we should do to ensure that their quality of life remains at least as good as it is.
  I hope that the Minister will respond positively to all those hon. Members who have raised local issues. At the end of the day the House can claim credit if it supports the principle that puts railways and Britain's economy at the top of the list of priorities. Let us not at the same time make constituents throughout Britain feel like second-class citizens because we have neither the time nor the money to invest in them.
  9.39 pm
  The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): This has been an interesting, good-natured and, for the most part, well-informed debate. I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) that it has shown a strong consensus in favour of the channel tunnel rail link. Of course, much of the debate has focused on important matters of detail affecting certain communities along the route—matters that are not, of course, mere details for those who live there. It is wholly appropriate that their Members of Parliament have so fully represented their interests and concerns in the debate this evening.
  546
  I am afraid that the consensus cannot stretch to the instruction to the Committee tabled by the Labour party. First, I do not favour instructions to the Committee which would tie its hands on which matters it should consider and which it should not. There is no getting away from the force of the words:
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that".
  My right hon. Friend and I, in earlier interventions, stressed the difference between an instruction such as that tabled by the Opposition and the advice or guidance that my right hon. Friend or I might give to the Committee. If the Government had wished to give an instruction to the Committee, we could have tabled the proper motion and specified that matters outside the line of deviation set out in the Bill should not be considered. We have not chosen to do that because, in our view, it is better that such matters are left to the wise discretion of the Committee and that it should not be constrained.
  Secondly, if the instruction were to be accepted it would undoubtedly mean fresh property blight and continued uncertainty over a wide area, especially in regard to the options in east London. It would not be possible to adopt the various tunnelling options without affecting the line that the route takes as it comes towards the terminal. Hon. Members' constituents who are not currently affected by the proposals would have their fears raised. It is not in anyone's interest to spread the problem of blight. Indeed, a number of hon. Members have said how devastating the blight has been for their constituents. One effect of accepting the instruction would be to widen the scope and the impact of the blight.
  Thirdly, if the instruction was approved it would inevitably lead to considerable delay for the Bill. That would not be in the interests of the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening and urged the need for the link to be provided quickly.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I have carefully followed what the Minister has been saying, but it seems to be inconsequential. He said that he did not want to rule anything out of the Committee's consideration, but then said that there would be a delay if the Committee considered some of the matters raised by my hon. Friends. If he is worried about delay, that means that he wishes to rule things out. Which is it? I hope that he will not rule out some of the options from the Committee's consideration.
  Mr. Watts: As my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, we hope that the Committee will not consider it necessary to spend time examining options that were considered many times before the Government reached a final conclusion on what we thought was the best route. However, that is very different from either an instruction to the Committee that it should not do so or, as proposed by the Opposition, an instruction that it must do so.
  Mr. Spearing: If my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) moves the motion and the Government oppose it and win, is the Minister confident that that will not constrain the Committee from doing what is suggested in the instruction if it so wishes? Negativing the instruction would be a serious matter if it constrained the Committee in the way that the Minister claims he does not want.
  Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman almost takes my next words out of my mouth. I was about to urge the hon. Member for Fife, Central not to press the instruction to a

  547
  vote, because if the House rejects the instruction, as I urge it to do, the Committee may feel constrained by that expression of the opinion of the House from considering these matters, even if it might otherwise have been minded to consider them.
  Therefore, from the point of view of hon. Members who want the Committee to consider petitions relating to those options, and from the point of view of hon. Members whose main concern is that we should make rapid progress with the passage of the legislation and with the implementation of this important project, it is wise for the House not to give such an instruction.
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you help the House at this crucial point? There has been some discussion as to whether, in the opinion of your Clerks, the decision to vote down an instruction constitutes, in effect, an instruction to the Select Committee not to do something.
  Madam Speaker: The playing field is as level as it ever was. Such a decision does not constitute an instruction of that kind.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Minister. I think that we are getting into a contradictory tangle. If the Minister was right to say that the defeat of the instruction would preclude the Committee from taking it into consideration, that would elongate the process even more. As Madam Speaker has now said that the instruction would not be precluded, I presume that this is all irrelevant and that hon. Members on both sides of the House can do what they want and vote for the instruction to guide, to use the Minister's own word, the Committee on how it should proceed.
  Mr. Watts: I did not say that the voting down of the instruction would preclude the Committee from considering it. I said that, if the House rejects the instruction, the Committee may feel constrained, by that clear expression of the will of the House, not to consider these matters, even if it might otherwise have been minded to do so. Sound reasons exist as to why there should not be an instruction from the House to the Select Committee, but the House should have confidence in the hon. Members and possibly right hon. Members who will be appointed to the Committee to use their judgment, to take into account the cogent arguments that have been advanced today and the representations that will be made to the Select Committee, and then to reach their own judgment.
  Mr. McLeish rose—
  Mr. Watts: I give way for the last time.
  Mr. McLeish: Clearly, we are becoming a bit disingenuous. Will the Minister sum up the position by saying why he will not support the instruction? We now have a double view of what may happen in Committee if we do not do pass the instruction. Is it not right and proper for the Minister either to support the instruction or not to vote against it, to allow the general will of the House to go forward to the Committee?
  Mr. Watts: It would not be right for me to try to sit on the fence. If I cannot recommend to the House that it should accept the instruction, it is right for me to advise the House to reject it.
  548
  Many points have been raised during the debate. I have 12 minutes left. I shall try to cover as many points as I can, but I give an undertaking to hon. Members to whom I may not have time to respond, that I shall seek to do so in writing after the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will forgive me if I do not seek to respond immediately to the figures that he quoted. As one accountant to another, I undertake to reflect on them when I see them in the official record.
  Not surprisingly, one of the major issues this evening has been the station at Stratford, which I and several Newham Members had the opportunity of debating in the early hours of the morning shortly before Christmas. I accept that a station at Stratford would assist the regeneration of the Stratford area. As I have explained, the option of a station there remains open by the provision in the Bill for the construction of a large open box.
  The decision on whether there shall be a station at Stratford will be taken when we have received the bids from the four consortiums in March. As the House will recall, the bidding consortiums have been required to bid on various permutations, including the possibilities of a station at Stratford and no station at Stratford. This will be a good way to assess the economic viability of a station at Stratford in addition to the other two intermediate stations already provided in the Bill. We shall be in a position to make a proper and objective judgment on the basis of that evidence.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) mentioned connections to crossrail. We have long made it clear that we have not ruled out the possibility of a connection from crossrail to the channel tunnel rail link, but it must be a matter for the private sector promoters of the two projects to agree, first, that it is in their mutual interests to secure the provision of such a link and, secondly, to seek the powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to provide for it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) raised an important issue which was also mentioned by other hon. Members—how important it is that the benefits of the fast link should not be exclusively for London and the south-east but for the regions. In fact, it will be a requirement on the promoter of the project to build junctions outside St. Pancras to allow through services from the channel tunnel rail link to the east coast main line serving Peterborough, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh and to the west coast main line serving Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow and Manchester. St. Pancras will provide an easy interchange within the station to the midland main line serving Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. The House will know that it is already intended that services from Wales and the west country to Waterloo will commence in the near future.
  The Government therefore remain firmly committed to ensuring that the benefits of this important new piece of transport infrastructure shall be of benefit not only to London and the south-east but to the regions. Bringing the whole country closer to our European markets where we do so much business is an important benefit that we seek to secure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised the issue of noise mitigation and reminded us that the mitigation incorporated in the Bill has been designed for train speeds of up to 140 mph, whereas there is at least an expectation in many people's minds that the promoter will want to run trains at the maximum feasible speed of

  549
  186 mph. If that proves to be the case, the arrangements will ensure that the mitigation provided must be equivalent to that which would have been provided for the lower speed and, if the noise mitigation required for higher-speed operation cannot be provided, a limitation on speed would be imposed.
  I am advised that over the vast majority of the route there is no difficulty about the adequacy of the land designated in the Bill for mitigation measures for the higher speed. It would be reasonable to expect that, if the private sector operator of the route intended to run trains at the higher speed, he would wish to build the mitigation to the higher standard from the outset rather than adding additional measures at a later stage.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) raised the issue of the 3 m upward limit of deviation. Most of the 3 m upward limit of deviation is needed for technical reasons to do with the accuracy of the mapping base and the way in which Parliament requires sections to be prepared, but we are considering carefully whether there are ways to meet the concerns about the 3 m limit without undermining the promoter's ability to build the new line.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) spoke about the route through Rainham. Having listened carefully to the views expressed locally during the consultation exercise, we decided to provide an additional 10 m gap between the rail link and the London-Tilbury-Southend line as it passes residential areas in Rainham. This has allowed for further mitigation to provide noise protection from the channel tunnel rail link and the London-Tilbury-Southend line. However, the alignment proposed by the Rainham residents association was considered to be unacceptable as it would have resulted in the rail link severing a series of industrial and development sites, thus constraining development in the area.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised the important issue of the Mardyke Park housing estate. It is true that the viaduct carrying the rail link past the estate will have noise and visual impact. There is, however, scope for reducing the number of houses affected by means of revised mitigation proposals, such as the use of higher or different types of noise barriers. We did not accept the alternative options for the alignment of the route in the area which were put forward during consultation, notably the short and long tunnel option or the viaduct option, as they all proved to be extremely costly in relation to the environmental benefit that they could deliver.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) and for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) both spoke about the crossing of the Medway. Having road and rail viaducts adjacent to each other will require careful attention to design. In principle, it must be preferable to concentrate crossings at a single point rather than to create a fresh crossing further upstream. Furthermore, having a single new structure is impractical for a number of reasons, including the fact that access to the M2 at junction 2 would be restricted. A tunnel would be very expensive, with an additional cost of more then £100 million.
  I cannot give an absolute commitment that the two structures will be built concurrently. The co-ordination of funding and contract-letting would be a major challenge.
  550
  The Government recognise, however, that concurrent construction may have some advantages in reducing the environmental impact and there is continued co-operation between the two project teams. It may help that, as I have ministerial responsibility for railways and roads, I may be able to have some small part in trying to ensure this co-ordination. I am well aware of the local concerns about the environmental impact of both the rail link and the widened M2, especially in terms of noise pollution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred to the problems of Pepper Hill housing estate. There should be no physical impact on the housing estate from the construction or the operation of the rail link. Following the announcement of the route in the area last April, the rail link route no longer passes underneath the estate, but goes through a cut-and-cover tunnel under the A2 to the west of the estate. The residents may, however, experience some impact from the movement of construction traffic.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malting (Sir J. Stanley) and other hon. Members referred to the purchase proposals. As I said to my right hon. Friend in the debate on 15 December, I recognise that there should be a read-across between the compensation for road schemes and rail schemes, and I recognise the merits of having a set of schemes that apply with equal validity to both modes. The schemes currently operated have been designed to be broadly comparable, although my right hon. Friend, I know, believes that in a number of respects, they fail to meet that objective.
  The Government have undertaken to consider what more might be done to help people who, despite the best efforts that have been made to minimise the impact, are seriously affected by the construction and operation of the channel tunnel rail link. In addition, the Department is considering the implications of a recent decision by the Court of Appeal. In the light of that, decisions will be taken on how to deal with applications for road schemes. Given the similarity in operation of the separate channel tunnel rail link scheme, a decision will be taken on how that should read across to the channel tunnel rail link.
  I met many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), in her company, before Christmas. I recognise that there are serious problems for many of them from the construction of the route and, in some instances, from its subsequent operation. I know of the strength of feeling among the hon. Lady's constituents that more should be done. As I have just explained, we are giving further consideration to the property purchase arrangements currently in place.
  I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that the House will reject the instruction proposed by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), his hon. Friends and other hon. Members.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second Time.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Secretary Mawhinney relating to the committal of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill to a Select Committee and any Motion for an Instruction to the committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Willetts.]

  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of nine Members, five to be nominated by the House and four by the Committee of Selection.
  That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—
  (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 30th January 1995, or, in a case where the Petition is that of a single individual or of individuals in their capacity as residents, at any time not later than 6th February 1995, and
  (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,
  being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
  That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on Petitions against an opposed Private Bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the Bill, in the case of any such Petitions as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above on which appearances are not entered at that meeting, the Select Committee shall appoint a later day on which it will require appearances on those Petitions to be entered.
  That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.
  That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it.
  That Three be the Quorum of the Select Committee.—[Mr. Watts.]
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee that in any consideration of any evidence relating to the Boxley Long Tunnel, the Caledonian Road area of Islington, the West Thurrock and Purfleet section, and the Barking and Dagenham section, they shall take particular account of the environmental advantages of tunnelling as against the proposed surface works; and that the Committee shall satisfy itself that the best possible provision for both environmental protection and compensation has been achieved throughout the length of the route.—[Mr. Meacher.]
  The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 286.

  Division No. 37]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Ainger, Nick

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

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barnes, Harry

  Church, Judith

  Barron, Kevin

  Clapham, Michael

  Battle, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coffey, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cohen, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Blunkett, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Boyes, Roland

  Corston, Jean

  552

  Cousins, Jim

  Lewis, Terry

  Cummings, John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dafis, Cynog

  Litherland, Robert

  Darling, Alistair

  Livingstone, Ken

  Davidson, Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

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

  McAllion, John

  Denham, John

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Dewar, Donald

  McCartney, Ian

  Dixon, Don

  Macdonald, Calum

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McFall, John

  Dowd.Jim

  McKelvey, William

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McLeish, Henry

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McMaster, Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Enright, Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Etherington, Bill

  McWilliam, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Madden, Max

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maddock, Diana

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Marek, Dr John

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Meacher, Michael

  Foulkes, George

  Meale, Alan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Michael, Alun

  Galbraith, Sam

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Galloway, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Miller, Andrew

  George, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morley, Elliot

  Godsiff, Roger

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mullin, Chris

  Gordon, Mildred

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hain, Peter

  Olner, Bill

  Hall, Mike

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hanson, David

  Parry, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Patchett, Terry

  Harvey, Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Henderson, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  Heppell, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pope, Greg

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Home Robertson, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hood, Jimmy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Radice, Giles

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Randal, Stuart

  Hoyle, Doug

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rendel, David

  Hutton.John

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Illsley, Eric

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Ingram, Adam

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jamieson, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Short, Clare

  Jowell, Tessa

  Skinner, Dennis

  Keen, Alan

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

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Snape, Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Spellar, John

  553

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Wallace, James

  Stevenson, George

  Walley, Joan

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winnick, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Turner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tyler, Paul

  Mr. George Mudie and Mr. Joe Benton.

  Vaz, Keith

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Day, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Den

  Atkins, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baldry, Tony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Eggar, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribbie Valley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Evennett, David

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Faber, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Fabricant, Michael

  Boswel, Tim

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bowis, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Forman, Nigel

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Forth, Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bright Sir Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Browning, Mrs. Angela

  French, Douglas

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Gale, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  Gallie, Phil

  Butcher, John

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Butter, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Butterfill, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Carrington, Matthew

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Cash, William

  Grant, Sir A (Cambs SW)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Churchill, Mr

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Clappison, James

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hague, Wiliam

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Congdon, David

  Hannam, Sir John

  Conway, Derek

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Harris, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Couchman, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cran, James

  Hayes, Jerry

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

  Heald, Oliver

  554

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hendry, Charles

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hicks, Robert

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Pickles, Eric

  Horam, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Alan (S upon Avon)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Richards, Rod

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jack, Michael

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, Sir James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Shersby, Michael

  Knox, Sir David

  Sims, Roger

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Soames, Nicholas

  Legg, Barry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Leigh, Edward

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lidington, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sproat, Iain

  Lord, Michael

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Luff, Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Steen, Anthony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stephen, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Stern, Michael

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Alan

  Madel, Sir David

  Streeter, Gary

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Sumberg, David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sweeney, Walter

  Malone, Gerald

  Sykes, John

  Mans, Keith

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mates, Michael

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Thomason, Roy

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mills, Iain

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townsend, Cyril D (Baxl'yh'th)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Trotter, Neville

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Vaughan, Sir Gerald

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Walden, George

  Norris, Steve

  Waller, Gary

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Ward, John

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Watts, John

  Paice, James

  Wells, Bowen

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  555

  Whitney, Ray

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Whittingdale, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL RAIL LINK 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 Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State under the Act.—[Mr. Willetts.]
  Question agreed to.

  CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(5) (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.
  Question agreed to.

  CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) 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 Children (Scotland) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the provisions of the Act; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Willetts.]

  Question agreed to.

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That, during the proceedings on the Matter of the Welsh economy, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of Standing Committees), the first such sitting shall not commence before Eleven o'clock and the second such sitting shall not commence before half-past Two o'clock and neither sitting shall continue after the Committee has considered the Matter for two hours at the sitting.
  Ordered,
  That, in the course of its consideration of the Matter of the Welsh economy, the Welsh Grand Committee may meet in Cardiff on Monday 30th January at Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Willetts.]

  Flooding (Strathkelvin)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Willetts.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: The very notification of the debate tonight on the flooding in Strathclyde region has already wrung some concessions from the Government, and Opposition Members welcome that. I trust, however, that the debate will wring further concessions and clarifications of the Government's position on an important topic.
  There are two main issues associated with the flooding, the first of which is the immediate funding package made available by the Government and its inadequacy. That has already been dealt with extensively by myself and my colleagues, and it will continue to be the subject of debate and pressure in the future.
  I wish to concentrate tonight on the whole question of the prevention of flooding within the areas involved. More than anything, our constituents would now like a reassurance that such flooding will not happen to them again.
  As background, Madam Speaker, I shall introduce you to a part of my constituency and explain what happened during the flooding. The flooding resulted from an overflowing of the main River Kelvin, its tributaries in the Allander valley—the Glazert and the Luggie—and a small contribution from the Park burn. That produced extensive flooding throughout the Kirkintilloch and Hayster areas, at Eastgate, Summerfield and Ledgate. The flooding extended to the village of Torrance, and into Bardowie and Lennoxtown.
  As a result, 271 houses in my constituency were evacuated. Most, but not all, of those were private accommodation. Here I pay tribute to my constituents for the fortitude and good humour with which they bore the disaster. When I toured on the Monday, the place was awash and it was impossible to see anything. By the time I came back on the Wednesday, floorboards were up, walls had been chipped away and dehumidifiers were in. Their conduct was a tribute to them, and to the area in which they live. The second difference in the flooding in my constituency was the amount of business that was affected. It is reckoned that about 400 jobs were lost, at least temporarily, as a result of the flooding. It affected 30 small businesses and two large businesses, at a total cost of £4.2 million.
  The third difference was the vast amount of agricultural land involved. It will cost thousands of pounds to pick up the debris and deal with the soil erosion. The fourth and most tragic difference was that there was loss of life in the neighbouring constituency. Sadly, two young boys were swept away. I know that I speak for the whole House when I send my condolences to the relatives of those involved.
  Flooding in the Strathkelvin and Cart valleys and other areas is not a new problem. The first recorded incident in my area was in 1892. In 1906, Broomhill hospital was once again isolated. That happened again this time. There have been extensive floods in the past. The first attempt to prevent flooding occurred in 1903. A petition was raised to Dumbartonshire and Stirling district council to persuade it to raise the banks of the Kelvin.

  557
  The matter was first raised in the House of Commons by Tom Johnston, the then Member of Parliament. According to The Herald of 20 June 1923, he asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health
  "if he was aware of the loss of national resources occasioned by the continual flooding of the River Kelvin between Kelvin Head and the weir at Killermont".
  The response that he received from a Captain Elliott was:
  "Neither the Board of Agriculture nor any other Department has any power to carry out a scheme to intervene in such proceedings."
  That was an ominous sign. Even then, no one was accepting responsibility. The Minister said, "It is not my problem. Please go away."
  As a result of pressure from Tom Johnston, the Land Drainage Act 1941 was passed. I am sure that the Minister will tell us about it tonight. In 1936, the first flood prevention scheme was set up in the Kelvin. The river was widened and deepened, and the banks were built up. The weir at Garscube was removed.
  The question of prevention was finally raised in the House in 1945. The boot was on the other foot now, and Tom Johnston was in charge. He said in response to a question from Mr. Adam McKinlay about flooding in the Kelvin valley that the recommendations made in the engineers' report were receiving consideration with a view to determining what further remedial work could most successfully be undertaken under the statutory provisions of the Acts of 1930 and 1935.
  So there we have it. An engineer's report in 1945 was being given further consideration. That brings us to today. Almost nothing new has happened. I trust that that will not be the outcome of the most recent floods.
  What of the future? What can be done to prevent flooding again? It is not new. We had floods in 1991 and 1992, although they were not so extensive. I pursued them with the Scottish Office. Contained in the usual fairly long letters again was the sentence:
  "The Regional Council has wide powers under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 to protect non-agricultural land against flooding. Schemes confirmed by the Secretary of State under the Act can attract grant assistance."
  I was not happy with that, so I wrote again. On 18 June 1992, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who will answer the debate today, replied:
  "Nevertheless, the regional and islands councils have wide powers, either to contribute towards the cost of flood prevention works or to carry out themselves works on any watercourse which they regard as necessary".
  In the package that has been announced by the Scottish Office, again we have the statement:
  "Should Strathclyde Regional Council as the flood prevention authority decide in the light of that study, or following their general consideration of the issues arising, … a grant of 50 per cent. will be payable on the cost of any such schemes which may be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State."
  That is all very well, but there are a number of problems. The regional council's powers are only permissive. If they want to do anything, the statutory authority of the Secretary of State is needed. That is a lengthy, difficult, time-consuming process. We want something to be done now, not some time far in the future.
  558
  Another problem is that it is all very well for the Scottish Office to say that 50 per cent. grants are available, but first the regional council must be given permission by the Secretary of State for the borrowing power to obtain the original 50 per cent., which he almost always refuses. In other words, the Secretary of State has the power over the whole 100 per cent., not simply 50 per cent.
  The final problem is that the regional councils will be wound up in a short time, and different authorities will then be involved. The matter will be passed on to successor authorities, and we shall be back in a shambles.
  If one considers who has the powers at the moment concerned with flooding prevention, one will see that it is the riparian owners for private land, the Department of Agriculture for agricultural land and the Clyde river purification board, and the Government have their own statutory responsibility under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Acts 1930 to 1941. That obviously is a shambles, which allows the buck to pass from one authority to another: as I, my constituents and my colleagues have found, everyone says, "It isn't me. Go away. Please see someone else about it."
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while that buck is being passed around, many of our constituents in Strathkelvin and elsewhere will be buying new furniture and spending thousands of pounds preparing to move into their homes again, and that they want to know that the floods will not happen again, and that their furniture and their lives will not be destroyed again?
  Mr. Galbraith: My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. I pay tribute to him and all his colleagues in the area, who work hard, together with many others, on behalf of the people in their constituencies.
  It is obvious to everyone that all roads on the matter lead to the Secretary of State. He alone has the powers and the money to tackle the problem. The only way to co-ordinate it—to pull all those bodies together and tackle matters in the future—is for the Secretary of State to act.
  Therefore, we are asking for a number of things from the Minister. First, we would like funding of a comprehensive hydrological study into the whole river system—the Clyde, the Kelvin, the Cart and its tributaries—and the means of preventing further damage. The Government have announced that £10,000 will be made available to the Clyde river purification board. We welcome that, but we doubt that it is even remotely enough to solve the problem. It is nothing more than a drop in the ocean. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) obviously likes that metaphor.
  Will that money allow for a study of the dredging of the Clyde? It is suggested that that is one of the problems in the Kelvin. Will it allow for a study of the infill by dumping of the flood plains, such as those at Twechar, Kilsyth, Bardowie and Somerston, with rubbish? Will it allow for consideration of altering the course, raising bridges, building up the banks and controlling flood plains? We need answers, and we suspect that the money is not enough.
  We also wish the Minister to give some assurance that, when problems are identified, the Scottish Office will not merely consider solutions, but will approve them and fund

  559
  them. Until the Scottish Office gives that borrowing consent, as I said, the other 50 per cent. grant is not available. We want some reassurance from the Scottish Office that it will do that, and further, that, as a consequence of that, it will follow up with extensive statutory powers, and do so quickly. We cannot allow the matter to drag on year after year, month after month. We need the statutory powers to be given quickly, so that the work can he done.
  Finally, it is important for the future that planning authorities have a statutory obligation to consult some organisation when they are considering changes that might affect flooding—for example, filling in the flood plains or altering roads, as happened in Stirling.
  Mr. Brian Donohoe indicated assent.
  Mr. Galbraith: It is also possible in my constituency, where the Kelvin low road was raised and is now the Kelvin high road. That probably acts as a barrier, which caused flooding of the industrial estate.
  Planning authorities have no statutory responsibility to consult. I think it would be proper if, in the Environment Bill currently before the House of Lords, the new Scottish Environmental Protection Agency were the organisation that had to be statutorily consulted. Those are the further requests that we make of the Minister tonight. All our constituents throughout Paisley, Irvine, Renfrewshire, Pollok, other parts of Glasgow, Rutherglen, Cathcart and my area of the Strathkelvin valley have suffered. That suffering will show no barrier, but will cross social paths and geographical boundaries. The despair, desperation and absolute abjectness has been felt by everyone in all those areas.
  Those people are looking for some appreciation by the Government of their problem, and some financial compensation for the expenses involved for the local authorities and sometimes the individual. But, more than anything else, they seek reassurances about the future. Within what is physically possible, given the limits of human power, they want a reassurance that such a disaster will not befall them again. They seek hard-headed, concrete, extensive reassurance from their Government tonight.
  10.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) on obtaining the Adjournment debate tonight, and thank him for the manner in which he has presented his case. I also thank his many colleagues who have stayed behind to listen to what he had to stay on this extremely important matter.
  The Government fully appreciate the concerns and distress caused by the floods. We have every sympathy, particularly with the families of the two young men who lost their lives in the bridge accident, which was a great tragedy to the family and all concerned.
  I accept absolutely what the hon. Gentleman said about the devastating effect on residents and businesses during the run-up to Christmas. I know that many, many houses were damaged—the hon. Gentleman said that the figure was 271, whereas I was informed that it was 255 in Strathkelvin. Furthermore, the industrial and business
  560
  premises of some 60 companies at five industrial parks were severely damaged. Transport, electricity and other services were seriously disrupted.
  To put the matter in context, the flood was exceptional, as there had been exceptional rainfall. Interestingly, in the Kelvin catchment area, no less than 7.1 in of rain fell over two days. Normally, we get excited if an inch of rain is recorded at any one time, which shows what a phenomenal downpour it was. It is no consolation to those involved that it was the highest recorded rainfall.
  I am told that, statistically, it happens only once every 500 years. The rivers rose dramatically: the Clyde was 4.5 ft higher than ever previously recorded at Daldowie, and the Kelvin was 5 ft higher than its previous maximum. Those are all exceptional figures, and it may be that no reasonable flood bank could have withstood the rise in the rivers on that weekend.
  Obviously, action has been and will be taken. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Secretary of State visited Kirkintilloch, and the Ministers responsible for industry and for housing visited Paisley and Renfrew respectively to help assess what needed to be done. I commend, as they did, the local authorities. I mention in particular Mr. Neil McIntosh, with whom I worked closely in Lockerbie, who quickly set up an operation centre. I also commend the fire service and the voluntary and private sectors, which provided hot meals and supporting activities, and all the officials who did excellent work, particularly during the critical weekend.
  Contrary to some attacks on the Government, we felt that we responded quickly and well. The Department of Social Security immediately made £120,000 available to the social fund, and we were soon able to trigger the Bellwin system, which made available an 85 per cent. grant on local authority expenditure.
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Those of us who have experienced for the first time floods that bad now know that the Bellwin formula is a con. We heard today from the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who is an Under-Secretary of State, that the Secretary of State has powers under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to spend whatever money he deems necessary. There is no need for the Government to stick to the Bellwin formula, so will they now use those powers to help our people to rebuild their lives and their homes?
  Sir Hector Monro: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and appreciate what he and his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) have been through and what they have attempted to achieve in recent weeks on behalf of their constituents. The answer today is important, and my hon. Friend will act on it. But the hon. Gentleman must not decry the Bellwin scheme. He is wrong to do that.
  The Bellwin formula has worked effectively over a number of years—perhaps 15—and is triggered as soon as the figures are available, to ensure that they reach the trigger levels. That was done within the week after the flooding. No firm figures are yet available, although one estimates that it could well be £10 million in Strathclyde alone. We will look at the capital costs as sympathetically as possible. As Opposition Members know, we fulfilled the request of Strathclyde region for the supplementary

  561
  capital allocation of £1.365 million in full. The main beneficiaries should be the roads, water and sewerage areas that were badly damaged in the flooding.
  Some £100,000 is available for the Renfrew housing capital allocation, and £150,000 to other authorities. We will look sympathetically to the 1995–96 capital allocations in that area.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: Does the Minister agree that all that is being offered is borrowing consent? The very people who were flooded and who have suffered most will pay back most, through extra council house rents and council taxes. The Government are giving nothing more than a loan to people who have already lost everything—a loan that will have to be paid back.
  Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying, but one might say that the world of local authority finance cannot really be changed overnight. It has operated through all forms of disasters over many years, relative to the Bellwin scheme and the capital allocation.
  Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Hector Monro: No, I have not very much longer to complete a number of points raised by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden.
  We have agreed today with the Clyde river purification board to provide £10,000 for a comprehensive hydrological study to help the future issue of flooding.
  Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister give way on that point?
  Sir Hector Monro: Very quickly.
  Mr. Donohoe: Will the Minister tell us why, when Windsor castle burned down, overnight the Government were able to find £35 million, yet some six weeks after the flooding, all they have found is £10,000? Is that not a ridiculous state of affairs?
  Sir Hector Monro: That is a totally irrelevant issue.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden was generous enough to say that he was pleased to hear about the arrangement to provide a contribution to the studies on the hydrological survey. The issue of Strathclyde is taking a lead over urban water courses and sewers. A great deal is going on, and one must not decry the efforts that are being made.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Kelvin became a raging torrent. As I said, it rose 5 ft above its previous maximum. He wanted to know what action will be taken. He went through some of the history of flooding, but he really cannot go past the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961, which puts the responsibility on local authorities. [Interruption.] That is the position. Flood prevention must he provided by local authorities.
  The hon. Gentleman said that 50 per cent. had gone on the capital costs when approved by the Secretary of State. There is no reason why he should not approve capital expenditure on flood prevention. Local authorities, which are there to look after their constituents, must present schemes for flood prevention, and when they have presented such schemes throughout Scotland, we have been glad to provide the required allocations.
  Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie: When Glasgow presented such a scheme 20 years ago, the then Secretary of State—Campbell by name—refused to provide any assistance.
  Sir Hector Monro: Well, there is some more history for hon. Members.
  If a reasonable council presents constructive plans for flood prevention—we encourage councils to do that, but they rarely give flood prevention priority—we are glad to consider the matter carefully, and give as much help as we can. We are currently considering the severe flooding on Tayside a year ago, and exactly the same considerations apply to the Clyde river basin as to the Tay river basin. Councils must present proposals. They have powers to deal with maintenance, and a 50 per cent. grant for capital expenditure. That applies throughout Scotland.
  Water and sewerage capital expenditure in Scotland is now running at £720 million over the next three years. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is irrelevant."] No, it is not; it is very important. It is part of the duty of local authorities to present flood prevention schemes where they are required, and a percentage of the large sums involved should be spent on flood prevention.
  Strathclyde's current expenditure programme for water services is £89 million—double the figure set five years ago. It should have considered spending some of that money on flood prevention. Only about £4 million has been spent on the Brock Burn scheme on the White Cart. I hope that the region is looking seriously at its priorities.
  The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden mentioned severe agricultural damage. Farmers were alert, and most of the stock was removed; I do not think that the damage was very severe, although a good deal of damage was done to fencing and drainage. It will be easier to clarify the position once the land has settled down again, and it has been possible to assess the damage. The Agriculture and Fisheries Department expects expenditure to be around £20,000 in the Kelvin catchment area.
  There is a 50 per cent. grant towards repairs to flood banking and so forth in the less-favoured area, and one of 40 per cent. in the non-LFA region. We shall examine all the issues very carefully when considering the provision of grant to support agriculture: the Government are as concerned about people in that industry as they are about businesses and householders.
  There is also the issue of dredging. I was interested to note that the Kelvin scheme, for which the Scottish office is responsible, has been running at around £10,000 a year; I hope that that will continue, so that there is no possibility of the Kelvin's silting up and making floods more likely in the future.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned dredging the Clyde, which is a matter for Clydeport plc. Dredging is for navigation rather than flood prevention. Clydeport plc has no responsibility for flood prevention—nor, indeed, had the Clyde port authority beforehand—but the present dredging policy is unlikely to affect flood levels in either the Clyde or the Kelvin.

  563
  We understand that Strathclyde and Glasgow districts have agreed to contribute to dredging in the upper Clyde. That may alleviate flooding further upstream than is covered by Clyde port authority.
  Mr. Donohoe: The Minister has not mentioned Irvine.
  Sir Hector Monro: No, because the hon. Gentleman did not mention it. I know that other areas in Scotland, including Dumfries, were flooded. Whitesands was flooded, and I am afraid that that probably happens every year. Many areas of Scotland suffered from the downpour, and some areas suffered severe flooding.
  In a wet country such as Scotland, we cannot always guarantee that such flooding will never happen again. I agree that we want proper flood prevention where that is possible. The local authorities must take a lead, because they are nearest to the areas. They must present the necessary plans for the Government to approve, so that we can provide 50 per cent. capital allocation.
  A note has reached me which states that the works at Irvine are in hand via the development corporation. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) has not been overlooked—as, of course, he never would be.
  564
  We are conscious of the devastating effects of the flooding, and we are anxious that the hydrological survey should point a way to the future. I am insistent in highlighting the point that Strathclyde must present plans for areas where serious flooding is likely to recur. If such plans are presented for consideration by the Government, they will receive capital allocation approval.
  Too often, regional authorities have stood back and spent little on flood prevention. When serious issues such as this arise, everybody tries to blame the Government rather than the authorities which ought to have the prime responsibility for carrying out the work. I assure the House that we are anxious in every way that I have mentioned to assist the constituents in those areas that were severely hit, on whom the flooding had such a devastating impact. We shall help them in every way we can, and I am very glad—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  EC Referendum
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the cost to public funds of the referendum in 1975 on membership of the European Community; what that cost would be at today's prices; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The cost to public funds of the 1975 referendum on membership of the European Community was approximately £6.1 million, equivalent to £25.5 million at today's prices.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government agencies have regional offices in the west country and in Bristol; and how many jobs have been created in each area as a result.

  The Prime Minister
  At 1 October 1994, there were 43 Government Departments and next steps agencies with regional offices in the west country employing over 26,000 staff, and 45 offices in Bristol employing nearly 5,500 staff.

  No. 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister when was the last occasion that an item from the state property inventories maintained at No. 10 Downing street was discovered missing; what was the item; whether the item missing was discovered by the Cabinet Office internal auditors, or by one of his officials responsible for making periodic checks of the inventory; where the item missing was discovered; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  Since I became Prime Minister no item of state property has been found to be missing whenever a check has been made of an inventory.

  Company Political Donations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to ban company political donations.

  The Prime Minister
  No. The present policy is sufficient. The Companies Act 1985 requires companies to disclose, in the directors' report, political donations exceeding £200.

  Peerages
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the peerages created since 30 November 1990, together with the dates on which the holders were introduced.
  276
  The Prime Minister
  Peerages created since 30 November 1990 are listed, together with the dates on which the holders were introduced.

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Waddington

  4 December 1990

  4 December 1990

  Lord Sterling of Plaistow

  17 January 1991

  23 January 1991

  Lord White of Hull

  25 January 1991

  29 January 1991

  Lord Runcie

  1 February 1991

  26 February 1991

  Lord Palumbo

  4 February 1991

  12 February 1991

  Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach

  5 February 1991

  20 February 1991

  Baroness James of Holland Park

  7 February 1991

  19 February 1991

  Lord Laing of Dunphail

  8 February 1991

  19 February 1991

  Baroness Seccombe

  14 February 1991

  26 February 1991

  Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale

  26 March 1991

  26 March 1991

  Lord Desai

  5 June 1991

  18 June 1991

  Baroness Hamwee

  6 June 1991

  12 June 1991

  Lord Marlesford

  7 June 1991

  11 June 1991

  Lord Judd

  10 June 1991

  25 June 1991

  Baroness Denton of Wakefield

  11 June 1991

  11 June 1991

  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

  14 June 1991

  2 July 1991

  Baroness Mallalieu

  19 June 1991

  19 June 1991

  Lord Hollick

  20 June 1991

  25 June 1991

  Baroness O'Cathain

  21 June 1991

  3 July 1991

  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

  24 June 1991

  9 July 1991

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

  26 June 1991

  26 June 1991

  Lord Skidelsky

  15 July 1991

  17 July 1991

  Baroness Perry of Southwark

  16 July 1991

  16 July 1991

  Lord Cheshire

  17 July 1991

  24 July 1991

  Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden

  29 July 1991

  15 October 1991

  Lord Craig of Radley

  30 July 1991

  16 October 1991

  Lord Browne-Wilkinson (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1991

  15 October 1991

  Lord Mustill (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  10 January 1992

  11 March 1992

  Lord Rix

  27 January 1992

  12 February 1992

  Lord Prentice

  30 January 1992

  12 February 1992

  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

  12 February 1992

  25 February 1992

  Lord Wilson of Tillyorn

  14 February 1992

  15 July 1992

  Lord Slynn (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  11 March 1992

  11 March 1992

  Lord Wakeham

  24 April 1992 am

  28 April 1992

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

  24 April 1992 pm

  28 April 1992

  Lord Taylor of Gosforth

  27 April 1992 am

  29 April 1992

  Lord Rodger of Earsferry

  29 April 1992

  29 April 1992

  Baroness Thatcher

  26 June 1992

  30 June 1992

  Lord Finsberg

  27 June 1992

  13 July 1992

  Lord Parkinson

  29 June 1992 am

  7 July 1992

  Lord Healey

  29 June 1992 pm

  1 July 1992

  Lord Owen

  30 June 1992 am

  8 July 1992

  Lord Howe of Aberavon

  30 June 1992 pm

  1 July 1992

  Lord Lawson of Blaby

  1 July 1992 am

  6 July 1992

  277

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Merlyn-Rees

  1 July 1992 pm

  7 July 1992

  Lord Howell

  2 July 1992

  9 July 1992

  Lord Moore of Lower Marsh

  3 July 1992

  6 July 1992

  Lord Tebbit

  6 July 1992

  9 July 1992

  Lord Younger of Prestwick

  7 July 1992

  14 July 1992

  Lord Amery of Lustleigh

  8 July 1992 am

  8 July 1992

  Lord Walker of Worcester

  8 July 1992 pm

  21 October 1992

  Lord Archer of Sandwell

  9 July 1992

  14 July 1992

  Lord Ashley of Stoke

  10 July 1992

  13 July 1992

  Lord Eatwell

  14 July 1992

  19 October 1992

  Lord Weatherill

  15 July 1992

  15 July 1992

  Lord Ewing of Kirkford

  17 July 1992

  26 October 1992

  Lord Geraint

  18 July 1992

  27 October 1992

  Lord Stewartby

  20 July 1992

  20 October 1992

  Lord Clark of Kempston

  21 July 1992

  28 October 1992

  Lord Plant of Highfield

  24 July 1992

  4 November 1992

  Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare

  27 July 1992

  20 October 1992

  Lord Ridley of Liddesdale

  28 July 1992

  28 October 1992

  Baroness Jay of Paddington

  29 July 1992

  21 October 1992

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  30 July 1992

  26 October 1992

  Lord Braine of Wheatley

  10 August 1992

  2 November 1992

  Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

  11 August 1992

  3 November 1992

  Lord Barber of Tewkesbury

  12 August 1992

  2 November 1992

  Lord Hayhoe

  21 August 1992

  3 November 1992

  Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar

  25 August 1992

  4 November 1992

  Lord Elis-Thomas

  18 September 1992

  27 October 1992

  Lord Woolf (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1992

  11 November 1992

  Baroness Williams of Crosby

  1 February 1993

  17 February 1993

  Lord Kingsdown

  14 July 1993

  21 July 1993

  Lord Dahrendorf

  15 July 1993

  21 July 1993

  Lord Menuhin

  19 July 1993

  20 July 1993

  Lord Attenborough

  30 July 1993

  25 October 1993

  Lord Lloyd of Berwick (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1993

  12 October 1993

  Lord Haskel

  4 October 1993

  12 October 1993

  Lord Dean of Harptree

  5 October 1993

  13 October 1993

  Baroness Gould of Potternewton

  6 October 1993

  13 October 1993

  Lord Dixon-Smith

  11 October 1993

  19 October 1993

  Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde

  12 October 1993

  19 October 1993

  Lord Lester of Herne Hill

  13 October 1993

  3 November 1993

  Baroness Miller of Hendon

  14 October 1993

  20 October 1993

  Lord Tugendhat

  15 October 1993

  27 October 1993

  Lord Nolan (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  14 January 1994

  18 January 1994

  Lord Wright of Richmond

  14 February 1994

  16 February 1994

  Lord Nickson

  22 March 1994

  4 May 1994

  278

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Quirk

  12 July 1994

  20 July 1994

  Lord Phillips of Ellesmere

  14 July 1994

  12 October 1994

  Lord Sheppard of Didgemere

  6th September 1994

  26 October 1994

  Lord Hambro

  26 September 1994

  26 October 1994

  Lord Dubs

  27 September 1994

  19 October 1994

  Lord Gladwin of Clee

  28 September 1994

  18 October 1994

  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

  29 September 1994

  11 October 1994

  Lord Shaw of Northstead

  30 September 1994

  11 October 1994

  Lord Nicholls of Brikenhead (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  3 October 1994

  19 October 1994

  Lord Tope

  4 October 1994

  12 October 1994

  Baroness Rawlings

  5 October 1994

  18 October 1994

  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

  6 October 1994

  2 November 1994

  Lord Kingsland

  7 October 1994

  2 November 1994

  Lord Blaker

  10 October 1994

  25 October 1994

  Lord Steyn (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  11 January 1995

  18 January 1995

  Windsor Castle (Oil)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister who is entitled to revenues accruing from oil found in the grounds of Windsor castle.

  The Prime Minister
  The holder of the petroleum licence concerned—CANUK Exploration Ltd.—is entitled to revenues accruing from oil found in the grounds of Windsor castle. The company will be liable to corporation tax on its profits.

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Prime Minister which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations.

  The Prime Minister
  The preferred carrier for any particular civil servant's travel will depend on the circumstances of the journey concerned and value for money. For civil servants travelling in connection with the Prime Minister's overseas visits on scheduled flights, preferred carrier arrangements have been made with:

  British Airways

  British Midland

  Virgin

  Austrian Airlines

  Lufthansa

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last visited Paisley or Renfrewshire.

  The Prime Minister
  I have not had the opportunity to include Paisley or Renfrewshire in my visits to Scotland, since becoming Prime Minister.

  Natural Disasters (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet the hon. Member for Paisley, South to discuss the
  279
  provisions of the Natural Disasters (Scotland) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for industry and local government at the Scottish Office to contact the hon. Member with a view to an early meeting.

TRANSPORT

  Data Protection Register
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the list of file names registered with the Data Protection Register as requested by section 21 of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Mr. Norris
  Details of the Department of Transport's registrations are held by the Data Protection Registrar in the Data Protection Register. The register is available for public scrutiny at the DPR's office.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make a statement on the future of collective pay bargaining in the Driving Standards Agency;

  (2) if he will make it his policy that a Welsh language service will still be available following market testing of the driving test booking section of the Driving Standards Agency;

  (3) if all bids for the contract for driving test booking work have taken account of the cost of possible redundancies;

  (4) if he will make a statement on the applicability of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to staff in all regional offices in the event of the contract for driving test bookings being won by EDS;

  (5) how many staff within the Driving Standards Agency have entered into individual pay contracts with the agency.

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Driving Standards Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letters from L M. Manley to Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, dated 16 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question requesting a statement on the future of collective pay bargaining in the Driving Standards Agency.
  I can confirm that the Driving Standards Agency is fully committed to the principles of collective pay bargaining both at the present and in future negotiations.
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about whether he will make it his policy that a Welsh language service will still be available following the market testing of the Driver Test Booking Section of the Driving Standards Agency.
  The Invitation to Tender for the driver test booking service specified that staff must have the skills necessary to provide the service required, which includes the provision of a Welsh language service.
  280
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about whether all the bids for the contract of driver examiner booking have taken account of the cost of possible redundancies.
  The estimated cost of redundancies associated with each bid has been taken into account in the evaluation process.
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question about whether TUPE will apply to staff in all regional offices in the event of the contract for the driver test booking being awarded to EDS.
  No decision has yet been taken on the result of the market test. If the contract were awarded to EDS Ltd., then TUPE would apply to those staff wholly or substantially engaged in the provision of the booking service.
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of Driving Standards Agency staff who have entered into individual pay contracts with the Agency.
  No members of the Agency's staff have entered into individual contracts with the Agency. However at present 403 staff have signified their acceptance of the Agency's 1994 pay award.

  Marine Safety
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has, following the findings of the recent report into seaworthiness by the Marine Safety Agency, to bring forward further regulations aimed at(a) tightening existing laws and safety standards and (b) giving greater powers of detention to the Marine Safety Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norris
  The Government believe that proper enforcement of existing international conventions is the key to securing better standards. The Department of Transport will continue both to operate an effective programme of port state inspections and to publish details of substandard ships. We shall also maintain our efforts within the International Maritime Organisation to ensure that all flag states exercise proper control over their ships. We are considering the scope of the United Kingdom's powers of detention as part of our response to Lord Donaldson's report into the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping.

  Doncaster Relief Road Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to public funds on(a) the design and (b) the pre-planning work his Department carried out into the north bridge relief road scheme at Doncaster.

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 16 January 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the cost of planning and designing the Highways Agency's A638 Doncaster North Bridge Relief Road scheme which is currently under construction.
  Up to the start of construction at the beginning of February 1992, the cost of planning and design work for this scheme was £467,738.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Rail Ticketing Services (Scotland)
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the proposed introduction of core railway stations for
  281
  through-ticketing purposes on rail services in the Scottish Highlands; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Watts
  None. The proposal for core stations is just one option for ticketing arrangements at railway stations on which the Rail Regulator is currently consulting.

  Donaldson Report
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his full response to the Donaldson report recommendations.

  Mr. Norris
  Shortly.

  Radioactive Freight (Stratford Station)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about circumstances of the train carrying radioactive spent fuel rods from Bradwell power station in the last week of November; for how long the train was halted at Stratford station in east London; for how long it was left unattended; and what assessment he has made of the implications for public safety.

  Mr. Watts
  On 1 December 1994 a train carrying irradiated nuclear fuel was delayed for 21 minutes at Stratford by the action of two trespassers on the track, who were removed by British Transport police. At no time was the train left unattended. There was no radiological hazard to the public from this irresponsible action. The trespassers themselves risked fatal injury by interfering on an electrified track.

  Cargo Boats
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for new or amended regulations governing the maximum number of people allowed on non-passenger cargo boats.

  Mr. Norris
  The maximum number of passengers permitted on non-passenger cargo ships is 12. This limitation is accepted nationally and internationally through long-standing safety conventions and there are no plans to change it.

  M25
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet received a report from the Highways Agency on the options for increasing the capacity of the M25 between junctions 10 and 12.

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency has been working on options for increasing capacity between junctions 10 and 12 but I am not yet in a position to make an announcement.

  Railway Tracks (Drainage)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his estimate of the extent of the use of tin slag as drainage material under railway tracks.

  (2) what is the level of radioactivity in tin slag used as drainage material under railway tracks.

  Mr. Watts
  Tin slag is not used by Railtrack as a drainage material under railway tracks, nor was it used previously by British Rail.
  282

  Air Travel (Pollution)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the research being done or commissioned by his Department into pollution caused by expanding air travel in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the European Union and (c) worldwide.

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is supporting collaborative European research into the effect of aircraft emissions of oxides of nitrogen upon processes such as global warming and ozone depletion. Further joint projects to develop this work and examine other pollutants are being considered. Results are being fed into the major international scientific assessments under the auspices of the intergovernmental panel on climate change and the United Nations environment programme. In turn, these assessments inform deliberations within the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which is the appropriate body for setting emission standards for aircraft worldwide.

  Radioactive Material (Air Transport)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the revised International Atomic Energy Agency guidelines on air transportation of radioactive material over the United Kingdom will be issued; and if he will prohibit such activity until the guidelines are in place.

  Mr. Norris
  The next edition of the IAEA regulations for the safe transport of radioactive material is due for publication in 1996. Meanwhile, there is no reasons for prohibiting the air transport of radioactive material on safety grounds.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will now publish the full west coast main line feasibility study, including costings, recommendations and conclusions, submitted to him by Railtrack and West Coast Main Line Development Co. Ltd. in December 1994.

  Mr. Watts
  We expect that Railtrack will publish a summary of its findings.

  Operation Sea Fire
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, at what time during Operation Sea Fire a call was received by HM Coastguard from the chief fire officer of West Glamorgan fire service requesting 10 firefighters urgently.

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 23 November 1994]: This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 16 January 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  10 firefighters were requested by the Chief Fire Officer of West Glamorgan Fire Service at 0744 during exercise Seafire on 10 October 1994.
  283

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ministerial Talks
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Solana; and what issues were discussed.

  Mr. Baldry
  Mr. Solana visited Chevening on 19 to 20 December. He and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs had very useful discussions covering a wide range of issues including the future of Europe and the 1996 EU inter-governmental conference, future enlargement of the EU, relations between the EU and the Mediterranean, and future European security arrangements. We also held a Brussels process meeting on Gibraltar in London on 20 December. A joint statement was issued, a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Arms Embargoes
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries currently subject to embargoes on the export of British military equipment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We observe mandatory embargoes imposed by the United Nations on Iraq, the former Republic of Yugoslavia, Somalia, Liberia, Libya, Rwanda and UNITA in Angola.

  We also observe embargoes imposed by the European Union on China, Burma, Zaire and Sudan.

  We observe a voluntary embargo agreed by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe on Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  In addition, as a matter of declared national policy we refuse to supply military equipment to Argentina and Iran.

  Algeria
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to protect British diplomats and other British nationals in Algeria.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have reduced the number of our diplomats in Algeria. Those that remain benefit from the protection of a team of Royal Military police. Other improvements have been made to the security of the embassy. The embassy remains in close touch with the remaining members of the British community in Algeria, who have been advised to leave unless they have effective protection. British nationals are strongly advised not to travel to Algeria.

  Constituency Party Correspondence
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report his letter to Conservative constituency parties setting out the benefits of EEC membership.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The article to which the hon. Member refers was prepared for Conservative party use and can be obtained from Conservative central office.
  284

  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international initiatives are under way to resolve the dispute between Iraq and Kuwait about Kuwaitis missing since the Gulf war.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Tripartite Commission—composed of the ICRC, Iraq and former coalition countries—chaired by the ICRC is the key forum for discussion of the cases of Kuwaitis missing since the Golf war. At its December meeting, the commission agreed to the establishment of a technical sub-commission to speed up the substantive review of ICRC case files. We attach great importance to the fate of missing Kuwaitis and take every opportunity—for example, at the Security Council's reviews of sanctions—to remind Iraq of its obligations under Security Council resolutions.

  Pirates, Brazil
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Brazilian authorities regarding the threat to British shipping from pirates around Brazilian ports.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  British embassy staff made representations to the Brazilian authorities about security problems off Brazilian ports, either on a bilateral basis or with our European Community partners, on four occasions in 1994.

  The Brazilian authorities have acknowledged that problems exist but have yet to find the resources to allocate to improving the situation.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of proposals by western nations to send nuclear waste to Russia for reprocessing in respect of(a) environmental concerns and (b) nuclear weapons proliferation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are not aware of any proposals by western countries to send their nuclear waste to Russia for reprocessing.

  Weapons Conventions
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government expect to ratify (i) the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions and (ii) the 1981 inhumane weapons convention.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have made clear our intention to ratify the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions at an early opportunity. This depends, however, in part on securing parliamentary time for domestic legislation which will be required for ratification.

  We expect to ratify the 1981 inhumane weapons convention within the next few weeks - in good time to be states parties for the review conference of the convention due to take place in September of this year.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the division
  285
  of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The FCO diplomatic wing's only executive agency is Wilton Park. FCO Ministers are responsible for determining the policy and resources within which Wilton Park organises its programmes of conferences on behalf of the FCO. Operational matters and day-to-day management of the agency are the responsibility of the chief executive.

  The Wilton Park departmental board is responsible for advising FCO Ministers on matters relating to Wilton Park policy and activities.

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will support a global ban on the production, sales, stockpiling and use of anti-personnel mines;

  (2) if he will call for the United Nations to impose a global ban on production, stockpiling, sale and use of anti-personnel mines.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We support international efforts to strengthen controls on the stockpiling, transfer and use of anti-personnel land mines but believe that a complete ban at this stage would neither secure broad international support nor be properly implemented.

  Civil Servant Travel
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which airlines have been granted preferred carrier status for civil servant travel to overseas destinations.

  Mr. Baldry
  The preferred carrier for any particular civil servant's travel will depend on the circumstances of the journey concerned and value for money. For regular requirements my Department has entered into arrangements with:

  British Airways

  British Midland

  Virgin

  Austrian Airlines

  Lufthansa

  School Fees

  School Fees
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many children of employees of his Department currently attend private or independent schools and have their fees funded by his Department.

  Mr. Baldry
  Some 746 children of diplomatic service and ODA staff currently attend boarding schools in the United Kingdom. Details of the total number of children attending fee-paying schools at posts overseas are not available.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total costs to his Department of funding the children of employees of his Department who attend private or independent schools in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Baldry
  In each of the last five years expenditure on children attending boarding schools in the United Kingdom was as follows:286

  Financial Year

  £ million

  1993–94

  8.69

  1992–93

  7.88

  1991–92

  7.73

  1990–91

  7.58

  1989–90

  7.21

  Expenditure on children attending fee-paying schools overseas was as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1993–94

  2.31

  1992–93

  2.00

  1991–92

  1.80

  1990–91

  1.68

  1989–90

  1.58

  Embassy Costs
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which 25 embassies had the highest running costs for the latest year for which information is available; and what was the amount spent in entertaining for that year and the number of butlers, cooks and other household staff employed.

  Mr. Goodlad
  [holding answer 19 December 1994]: The latest available information, mainly in respect of 1993–94, is contained in the following table. Entertainment by all staff at the post concerned is included. Costs reflect local wage and price levels as well as the type of entertainment and numbers entertained. Staff numbers are of the total employed in the residence of the ambassador or high commissioner; not all such staff will be employed wholly or partly on entertainment duties.

  Post

  Entertainment (£ thousands)

  Numbers of Residence Staff

  Athens

  63

  11.0

  Bangkok

  54

  11.0

  Bonn

  155

  9.5

  Brussels

  51

  5.5

  Buenos Aires

  54

  9.5

  Cairo

  48

  14.0

  Canberra

  48

  9.0

  Dhaka

  49

  8.5

  Jakarta

  51

  8.0

  Lagos/Abuja

  109

  8.0

  Madrid

  130

  9.0

  Moscow

  105

  10.0

  New Delhi

  58

  18.0

  Ottawa

  68

  7.0

  Paris

  331

  17.0

  Peking

  75

  9.0

  Riyadh

  68

  4.0

  Rome

  107

  10.5

  Seoul

  65

  5.0

  Singapore

  61

  11.0

  The Hague

  53

  7.0

  Tokyo

  317

  13.0

  Vienna

  59

  8.0

  Warsaw

  42

  6.5

  Washington

  270

  19.9

  287

TREASURY

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if the law on insider dealing warrants review;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the Stock Exchange review of insider dealing.

  Mr. Nelson
  New legislation on insider dealing came into force on 1 March 1994. The Government will keep its effectiveness under review but have no plans to propose any changes.

  I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the London Stock Exchange's recent consultation document on preventing disorderly markets, entitled "Orderly markets: Dealings ahead of the disclosure of price sensitive information". The Government are generally supportive of action by the London Stock Exchange which is designed to prevent disorderly markets.

  VAT (Northern Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of VAT in Northern Ireland for(a) gas for domestic heating and (b) the rental of the fuel tanks containing the gas; and what are the rates in Great Britain.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The rate of VAT applicable both to gas for domestic heating and the rental of tanks containing such gas is 8 per cent. throughout the United Kingdom.

  VAT Investigations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was recovered through VAT investigations and the control programme in the last financial year; and how many staff are employed on these duties.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1993–94, HM Customs and Excise finalised approximately 1,150 cases of fraudulent evasion of VAT. Some 109 cases were dealt with through criminal investigations using the VAT Act 1994 and other statutes, and the rest were dealt with using the civil penalty regime introduced in the Finance Act 1985.

  These cases involved VAT arrears and penalties in excess of £40 million and custodial prison sentences in the order of 100 years.

  By its nature, the detection of fraud also prevents further evasion. We estimate the evasion prevented for 1993–94 to be in excess of £120 million as a result of the investigation effort.

  Some 613 staff were employed in 1993–94 on VAT investigation work.

  In the financial year 1993–94, 5,429 staff years were utilised in VAT assurance visiting. Gross additional liability identified in the course of the visiting programme was £2,140 million. Taking over declarations of VAT into account, the net additional liability discovered was £1,324 million.

  VAT Offices
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost, including building,288
  refurbishment and staff allowances, of merging the London-south collection local VAT and excise office into the single integrated office located in Southwark and officially opened in March 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total cost including building, refurbishment and staff allowances of merging the London south collection local VAT and excise offices into the single integrated office located in Southwark and officially opened in March 1993 was £4,898,300.

  The minimum cost of maintaining the separate local VAT and Excise offices was estimated to be £2,836,900.

  Annual savings on running costs from merging the offices were calculated to be £663,800 at 1993–94 prices, which means that the additional one-off costs of integration will be paid back in about three years.

  The integrated office has a secure lease until 2009 and will continue to be used by Customs following a reorganisation of the regional structure.

  VAT Rates
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what options Her Majesty's Government possess to reduce rates of value added tax from existing levels within the framework of treaties of the European community and directives deriving therefrom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government have the option of applying one or two reduced rates of not less than 5 per cent. to goods and services listed in annex H, the reduced rates list, to the sixth VAT directive.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Nelson
  Roles and responsibilities are spelt out in the relevant framework document, available in the Library.

  Tax Office, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have visited or telephoned Doncaster tax office for information or advice during the current financial year to date; and what were the figures for each of the last four financial years.

  Sir George Young
  During the current financial year to date, 17,093 people have visited and 66,011 people have telephoned the tax offices in Doncaster. Figures for each of the last three financial years are as follows:

  Telephone Calls

  Visitors

  Year to April 1992

  82,685

  27,506

  Year to April 1993

  91,063

  27,584

  Year to April 1994

  101,752

  25,487

  No records are held for the period prior to April 1991. Data for Doncaster collection office are not available for any year and are therefore not included in the above figures.
  289
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to relocate Doncaster tax office; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir George Young
  Plans currently exist to restructure the two Doncaster tax districts together with Doncaster collection into a single new office based in Doncaster.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current annual cost of keeping Doncaster tax office open; and what was the cost for each of the previous four years in real terms.

  Sir George Young
  The Inland Revenue has three offices in Doncaster; two tax districts and one collection office. The figures below, rounded to the nearest £'000, are for all three offices and are in 1994–95 constant prices.

  £

  1990–91

  2,437,000

  1991–92

  2,632,000

  1992–93

  2,595,500

  1993–94

  2,658,000

  1994–95

  2,659,000

  (latest forecast)

  Share Option Profits (Tax)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax share option profits.

  Sir George Young
  I refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Don Valley on 10 January 1995,Official Report, columns 7–8.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many parliamentary questions he has referred to chief executives of next steps agencies in each year since 1992.

  Mr. Nelson
  Three questions on day-to-day operational matters were referred to agency chief executives for reply in October 1992.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was his policy in the EU Monetary Committee towards the admission of Austria to the exchange rate mechanism.

  Mr. Nelson
  The United Kingdom agreed to the terms under which Austria joined the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system as set out in the Monetary Committee communiqué of 7 January 1995. Copies of the communiqué have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Tax Havens
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of tax avoided per annum by the use of overseas tax havens.

  Sir George Young
  The information on which to base such an estimate is not available.
  290

  Investment Magazines
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Treasury subscribes to the investment magazine Best Investment and Small Company Investor.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury does not subscribe to the magazines Best Investment and Small Company Investor.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a list of the investment publications to which Her Majesty's Treasury subscribes.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury subscribes to the following publications which cover investment and related subjects:

  Admissions to Securities to Listing Amendments

  Bank of England Quarterly Report

  Banker

  Banking Technology

  Banking World

  Banker's Almanac

  Corporate Money

  Economist

  Financial Adviser

  Financial Regulation Report

  Financial Services Law Updates

  Futures and Options Plus

  Futures and Option World

  International Stock Exchange Official Yearbook

  Investors Chronicle

  Money Marketing

  Money Observer

  Money Week

  Moneyfacts

  Planned Savings

  Project Appraisal

  Stock Exchange Quarterly

  Survey of Current Business

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of tax relief provided to those eligible who have private medical insurance; and what is the administrative cost of providing such tax relief.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The total cost of income tax relief on premiums for private medical insurance contracts in respect of individuals aged 60 or over is estimated to be £95 million in 1994–95.

  Administrative costs are estimated to be about £150,000.

  NHS Charges
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts of tax revenue are generated from charges in the national health service; and what plans he has to increase such revenue.

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: None.

  Royal Household
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the range of increase of salaries in percentage terms for directors of the royal household over the last 12 months; which receive performance pay in addition to a basic salary; who
  291
  recommended these salaries; and what control is exercised by his Department;

  (2) which directors of the royal household had their salaries linked to that of a second permanent secretary in the civil service in 1992–93 and in 1993–94; and which are currently so linked;

  (3) which directors of the royal household currently have 16.7 per cent. deducted from salary in lieu of rent.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The salaries of the principal private secretary to the Queen, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse have, for some years, been linked to those of a second permanent secretary in the civil service. They and other directors received the 5.4 per cent. increase awarded by the SSRB to comparable civil service grades in 1994 with the exception of one director who is on a short-term contract. Performance pay has not yet been introduced at this level, pending the outcome of a current pay review of senior grades. Performance pay for the individual on short-term contract is determined in discussions with the permanent secretary to the Treasury. Under the present arrangements, all contribute for their official accommodation with a deduction of 6 per cent. of their after-tax salary but most do not have an additional salary abatement.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Disconnections
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many of the water supply disconnections that have occurred in Lewisham over the last 12 months are attributable to cases where customers had water metering;

  (2) how many water supply disconnections there have been in Lewisham over the past 12 months;

  (3) what is Thames Water Utilities' programme for water metering in the London borough of Lewisham.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock) on 28 November 1994,Official Report, column 482.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many landfill sites, which are under consideration for authorisation to dispose of low-level radioactive waste, do not have authorisation at present;

  (2) if he will list the landfill sites that are under consideration for the disposal of intermediate and high-level radioactive waste.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr Betts) on Wednesday 7 December,Official Report, columns 215–16.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) local authority and (b) privately operated landfill sites have authorisation to dispose of low-level radioactive waste in (i) England and Wales, (ii) the east midlands and (iii) Nottinghamshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  A number of landfill sites in England and Wales currently receive low-level radioactive waste for disposal by controlled burial. These sites are not 292
  themselves authorised, but are specified in authorisations under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to receive the waste. The sites, divided into those operated by local authority and privately operated, are as listed:

  Sites

  Operators

  England and Wales (excluding East Midlands and Nottinghamshire)

  Cowpen Bewley Tip, Cleveland

  Privately Operated

  Waste Ponds, Walney Island, Cumbria

  Privately Operated

  Magnesium Elektron site, Greater Manchester

  Privately Operated

  Braziers Landfill, Hertfordshire

  Privately Operated

  SCM Chemicals site, Humberside

  Privately Operated

  Clifton Marsh, Lancashire

  Privately Operated

  Beddingham Quarry, Sussex

  Privately Operated

  Walton Arpley, Cheshire

  Local Authority Operated

  Beighton Tip, South Yorkshire

  Local Authority Operated

  Milton Landfill, Cambridge

  Local Authority Waste Disposal Co.

  Cilgwyn Quarry, Gwynedd

  Local Authority Waste Disposal Co.

  (ii) East Midlands

  Hilts Quarry, Derbyshire

  Privately Operated

  (iii) Nottinghamshire

  Nil

  Four of these 12 sites receive low-level radioactive waste from premises licensed under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, and which are local to the site of burial. The remaining sites receive waste generated by activities which are not a part of the nuclear industry, most commonly hospitals and universities.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what amount of money has been raised by the London Residuary Body since its institution; and how much it has distributed to the London borough of Barnet.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Since its inception, the London Residuary Body has distributed over £576 million in capital receipts and over £223 million in revenue reserves among the London boroughs of which £22.326 million in capital receipts and £8.962 million in revenue reserves has been distributed to the London borough of Barnet.

  Energy Advice Centres
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the locations of each of the pilot local energy advice centres set up under the auspices of the Energy Saving Trust Ltd., to which his Department has given support; and if he will make a statement on how many further pilot centres are proposed.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The locations are listed at the end of the answer.

  It is our policy to set up more pilot centres as and when suitable proposals are made to the Energy Saving trust and sufficient matching funding has been secured. Currently there are four centres which are close to being established—they are as follows:

  293
  Belfast, which is due to start work on 30 January;
  Wirral, which is expecting to start work shortly; and
  Orkney and Western Isles, which are hoped to be operational in the near future, once discussions about the funding arrangements have been resolved. The Energy Saving trust offered both £10,000 each in grant aid in the autumn and are waiting for the matching funding to be provided so that the two centres can be launched.
  Locations of Local Energy Advice Centres

  Aberdeen

  Belfast-operational from 30 January 1995

  Birmingham

  Black Country-office in West Bromwich

  Bristol

  Cardiff

  Coventry

  Croydon

  Dundee

  Glasgow

  Greenwich

  Highland-Inverness

  Islington

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewisham

  Lothian and Edinburgh-Edinburgh

  Middlesborough

  Oxford

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Ryedale-Malton

  Shetland-Foula

  South London-closed down in October 1994.

  Strathclyde-Glasgow

  Swansea

  Tayside-Dundee

  Telford

  Tyneside-Newcastle

  West Wales-Newport

  Water Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to discuss with the Director General of Ofwat the contracting out of sewage contracts by water companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions he has had with the Director General of Ofwat about the advisability of water companies contracting out their care services of water and waste water treatment;

  (2) what powers he has to prevent water companies from inviting bids to contract out their water treatment operations; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what powers he has to prevent water companies from inviting bids to contract out their waste water treatment operations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The decision to contract out the maintenance and operation of services is a matter for individual water and sewerage companies.

  Domestic Plumbing Systems
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research he has commissioned to 294
  examine the overall cost of removing lead piping from the household water systems.

  Mr. Atkins
  The results of research commissioned from the Water Research Centre into the cost of replacing lead pipes were reported in 1992. Copies of this report are being replaced in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to issue new regulations to control standards of work and product specifications with regard to domestic plumbing systems.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on 12 January,Official Report, columns 174–75.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had and from which organisations about establishing a grant-aided programme to replace lead pipes from domestic water systems; and what plans he has to do so.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not aware of any representations for such a programme; I have no plans to extend the present house renovation grant.

  Nuclear Waste Disposal
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he received Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution report on Crooks Marsh farm; and what is his view on its proposals to abandon plans to dispose of nuclear waste in landfill sites.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am not aware of any report specifically relating to Crooks Marsh farm. However, this site is referred to in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution's annual monitoring report for radioactive substances 1992, a copy of which is in the library.

  This site has accepted wastes from local hospitals and universities in the past, but with the transfer of the site from the county council to the Local Authority Waste Disposal Co. the disposers were informed that the site would stop accepting this type of waste.

  HMIP has no proposals in respect of nuclear waste disposal in landfill sites. It would assess rigorously any application from any operation for such disposals and issue an authorisation only when it was assured of the safety of the public.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many grants the Government have given to householders affected by radon gas in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local authorities may give grants to householders affected by radon gas but no information on the number of grants given is held centrally.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many houses in Devon are affected by radon gas; and how many have been treated.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The National Radiological Protection Board estimates that some 17,000 houses in Devon have radon levels in excess of the Government action level. The Department of the Environment has provided radon measurements in response to requests
  295
  from householders in approximately 58,000 homes in Devon, of which 4,150 were found to exceed the action level. The householders have been informed of their results and advised on appropriate action. It is for individual householders to decide what, if any, remedial action to take.

  Merseyside Development Corporation
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Merseyside development corporation will cease to exist.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Merseyside development corporation will be wound up on 31 March 1998.

  Peregrines and Goshawks
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) peregrines and (b) goshawks were bred in captivity in each year since 1990.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer Friday 13 January 1995]: Information available to the Department is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Peregrine1

  269

  319

  290

  360

  289

  Goshawk

  79

  155

  141

  154

  116

  1 These figures include both pure-bred and hybrid birds.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid and Trade
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what trade is estimated to emanate from overseas aid to the third world in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  United Kingdom firms benefit directly from that part of the bilateral aid budget which is tied: in 1993 this was worth over £700 million. More importantly, aid supports economic growth and brings wider benefits to the UK as a major trading nation.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support Her Majesty's Government are currently giving to the Government of South Africa.

  Mr. Baldry
  We have a substantial aid programme, about £16 million this year, in the form of know-how and support to local institutions, to assist directly with the process of transition and reform. We have taken a number of initiatives to develop further our strong trade and investment links, and fund separately a programme to assist the integration of the South Africa national defence force.

  Somaliland
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has 296
  been made through the work of the United Kingdom representative in Hargeisa towards developing the economy and stable government in the republic of Somaliland.

  Mr. Baldry
  From April last year, the ODA NGO liaison and support officer worked with international and local NGOs and the administration in Hargeisa to help to re-establish basic health and education services in the region. Unfortunately, his work was suspended in November following the outbreak of fighting.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid policy to Indonesia.

  Mr. Baldry
  There is a strong economic and social case for Britain, like other major donors, to have a substantial aid programme in Indonesia. The Government of Indonesia are pursuing sound policies and have an impressive record of poverty reduction: but Indonesia still has some 27 million people living in poverty. Our aid programme is focused on human resource development, good government, the environment, power generation and transport.

  International Development Association
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions he proposes to attach to any United Kingdom contribution to the replenishment of the. International Development Association.

  Mr. Baldry
  During the negotiations on the 11th replenishment of the International Development Association, we will be working closely with other donors to enhance IDA's effectiveness and to strengthen its focus on poverty reduction, sound economic management and environmentally sustainable development.

  Kurdistan
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being given to the people of Kurdistan.

  Mr. Baldry
  This financial year we have committed some £5.6 million for humanitarian activities in Northern Iraq.

  This includes nearly £1.8 million through Save the Children Fund for village rehabilitation, £2 million through UNICEF for the provision of kerosene, and over £1.1 million through UNICEF for medical supplies and combating childhood diseases. The rest is for family support, roads, crop protection and a targeting study.

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the full list of United Kingdom companies involved in the Ankara Metro project, sanctioned under the aid and trade provision, detailed in the answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 19 December,Official Report, column 886, was not included in the Library paper No. 663(3s) detailing ATP projects since 1984.
  297
  Mr. Baldry
  The paper placed in the Library details ATP projects only by lead contractor. The answer referred to requested details of all United Kingdom and local companies involved in the Ankara Metro project. It is not possible to give details of all United Kingdom companies and local contractors involved in every ATP project because of the large number of companies involved. This information is not held centrally and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between the Minister for Overseas Development and agencies of the Overseas Development Administration.

  Mr. Baldry
  The ODA has one executive agency, the Natural Resources Institute. The framework of planning, control and accountability and agreed aims, objectives and activities are set out in its framework document.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who have lost entitlement to invalidity benefit have then been deemed ineligible for unemployment benefit in (i) the east midlands, (ii) Nottinghamshire and (iii) Nottingham in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Hague
  The responsibilities of, and relationship between, Ministers and Department of Social Security agencies are set out in the agencies' framework documents, copies of which are in the Library.

  Strathclyde Flooding
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the possession of(a) a bank account or (b) a commercial credit card will disqualify victims of the Strathclyde floods who are not in receipt of income support from securing a crisis loan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Crisis loans are available to people irrespective of whether they are in receipt of income support, to help in an emergency or a disaster, where it is the only means of preventing serious risk or damage to the applicant's or his family's health or safety.

  Even where an applicant holds a credit card, or has a bank account, this need not be a barrier to making an application. Social fund officers take decisions on whether a crisis loan is payable, in doing so they consider all the circumstances surrounding the claim, including the availability of other resources to meet the need.
  298
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what investigations he(a) conducted and (b) intends to conduct to assess the needs of the Strathclyde flood victims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Following a meeting on 15 December 1994 with the hon. Member for Paisley, South and other representatives of the Strathclyde district, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security requested daily reports from each of the five Benefits Agency districts affected, detailing social fund expenditure for the flood victims. In addition, a benefit bus visited the worst-affected areas to offer advice; staff visited the flood centres where victims were being temporarily housed to pay out some money from the social fund and the local press detailed additional funds made available by the Secretary of State from the social fund.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking, or encouraging the Benefits Agency to take, to ensure that victims of the Strathclyde floods are(a) not encouraged and (b) actively discouraged from entering into contracts with loan sharks as the means of obtaining finance to re-establish their homes and lives.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Additional funds of £120,000 were made available to the Benefits Agency district offices affected, specifically to provide assistance to those people in need of help as a result of the floods. So far, 526 awards have been made—421 grants and 105 loans totalling £108,217. Loans are interest free, and repayment rates are set taking into account the circumstances of each individual case. Those people who have received repayable loans will be able to arrange a sympathetic repayment rate appropriate to their circumstances.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet representatives of the insurance ombudsman and the British Association of Insurers to discuss outstanding issues relating to the floods in Strathclyde during December 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend has not received a request for a meeting to discuss these issues, either from representatives of the insurance ombudsman or from the Association of British Insurers.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will detail the eligibility criteria applicable to victims of the Strathclyde floods who make application for(a) crisis loans and (b) grant assistance in respect of (i) immediate help to deal with the aftermath of flooding, (ii) help with making temporary accommodation habitable and (iii) help with establishing permanent accommodation as a warm, dry, comfortable home; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assistance is available to Strathclyde flood victims who are (a) in receipt of income support and (b) not in receipt of income support for domestic fuel bills which are higher than normal due to the additional heating required to (i) dry out flooded homes, (ii) heat temporary accommodation, (iii) heat temporary accommodation while at the same time drying out flooded homes and (iv) make a realistic contribution to the additional fuel costs of host relatives or friends while continuing to pay the fuel costs of drying out flooded homes; and if he will make a statement;
  299
  (3) if he will detail the assistance available from the Benefits Agency for victims of the Strathclyde floods in respect of (a) immediate help to deal with the aftermath, (b) help with making temporary accommodation habitable and (c) help with establishing permanent accommodation as a warm, dry comfortable home for (i) people in receipt of income support and (ii) people not in receipt of income support; if he will also detail the particular help which might be available to people in both categories during all of the three phases, who are (1) insured and (2) not insured; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Disaster relief following flooding is essentially a matter for the relevant local authority. However, people receiving income support are eligible to apply for community care grants, budgeting loans and crisis loans from the social fund. Those people not receiving income support can apply for a crisis loan. Whether an applicant can receive a payment from the social fund is a matter for specially trained social fund officers to decide, using the Secretary of State's directions and guidance, area social fund officer guidance and their discretion. So far, 526 awards have been made—421 grants and 105 loans totalling £108,217.

  Community care grants help those who might otherwise be in danger of going into care; or families who find themselves under exceptional pressure. Budgeting loans help spread the cost of expenses which may be difficult to meet from weekly benefit. Crisis loans are available to anyone in an emergency or a crisis, where they have no other means of preventing serious risk or damage to the health or safety of themselves or a member of their family. Social fund officers will consider whether other help is available, including money from insurance policies.

  Awards made from the social fund to the flood victims may include help to meet immediate needs following the floods; pay higher domestic fuel bills incurred as a result of the floods and provide household items required to make their temporary and permanent home habitable.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will appoint named officers, at appropriately senior level, in(a) his Department and (b) the Benefits Agency to be responsible for all phases of assistance available to victims of the Stathclyde floods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency's area director for the Glasgow and Paisley area, Mr. Archie Roy, is responsible for ensuring that all claims to the social fund from victims of the Strathclyde floods are properly dealt with and for liaison, as necessary, with the Department.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail the specific assistance which is available to claimants of the mobility or motability schemes' who lost vehicles under water in the Strathclyde floods of December 1994, with particular reference to eligibility for assistance under the loss of use scheme; what particular assistance is available to participating claimants who owned, rather than leased, their vehicles; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hague
  Motability is an independent organisation. The administration of the scheme is wholly a matter for Motability and any questions on this issue should be directed to the director, Mr. Simon Willis.
  300

  Natural Disasters (Scotland) Bill
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will meet the hon. Member for Paisley, South to discuss the provisions of the Natural Disasters (Scotland) Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the hon. Member last month to discuss what help the Department could provide to assist those people affected by the flooding in Strathclyde.

  If the hon. Member has further concerns, my right hon. Friend would be happy to consider a request for a second meeting.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of benefit savings to date since 1 April 1994 resulting from(a) non-maintenance cessations of benefit and (b) savings in housing benefit and council tax benefit, following action by the Child Support Agency, calculated on the same basis as the figures given in the letter of 5 July 1994 from the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, published in the Minutes of Evidence of the Social Security Committee, HC 470-iv, Session 1993–94, appendix 2, page 103.

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

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. Frank Field, dated 13 January 1995:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about benefit savings following action by the Child Support Agency.
  From April 1994 to October 1994, benefit savings resulting from non-maintenance cessations in cases where the parent with care withdraws a claim to income support totalled £124 million.
  The consequential savings in Housing and Council Tax Benefit are calculated retrospectively after the end of the financial year from returns provided by local authorities.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Sport
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans he has to ensure an integrated approach to sport following the severing of links between the east midlands regional council for sport and recreation and the English Sports Council.

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council's regional offices will continue to work closely with a wide range of regional parties in furtherance of the council's particular national policy objectives. The regional offices will also wish to maintain close links with local authorities and regional sporting interests as those agencies develop their own wider strategies for general leisure provisions.

  Children's Play
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what financial commitments he has made towards resourcing children's play in future years.

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are currently considering the responses to our current consultation exercise on children's play and will
  301
  be announcing our conclusions in due course along with their financial implications.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for National heritage how much money was allocated by his Department to children's play in the years, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.

  Mr. Sproat
  As part of its annual grant in aid, the Sports Council received earmarked funding for children's play totalling £4.2 million over the period 1987–88 to 1992–93, an average of £700,000 a year. Following the closure of the national children's play and recreation unit in March 1993, it has been for the Sports Council to determine its expenditure on children's play within the overall resources available to it.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My Department is responsible for two agencies, Historic Royal Palaces and the Royal Parks. The division of responsibilities and relationship between Ministers and the agencies is set out in their respective framework documents, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Royal Property
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what different ownership arrangements apply to(a) Buckingham palace, (b) Windsor castle, (c) Sandringham and (d) Balmoral; and what public ownership exists in respect of them.

  Mr. Sproat
  Buckingham palace and Windsor castle are vested in the sovereign in right of crown. Sandringham and Balmoral are privately owned by the Queen.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the latest estimate of the total sum expected to come from public funds for the repairs arising from the fire at Windsor castle.

  Mr. Sproat
  It is at present estimated that the cost of the Windsor restoration will be about £35 million, of which £10.5 million will be met from public funds.

WALES

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent percentage figures of unemployment in Newport, Gwent and Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  In November 1994, the adjusted, workforce-based unemployment rates were 9 per cent. in both the Newport travel-to-work area and Gwent; and 8.7 per cent. in Wales.

  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants from his Department to voluntary organisations in each of the past three years.
  302
  Mr. Richards
  The latest available figures at outturn prices for direct grants are £10.4 million for 1991–92, £12.3 million for 1992–93 and £14.1 million for 1993–94.

  Departmental Priorities
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his Department's priorities for 1995.

  Mr. Redwood
  Details will be in the Welsh Office departmental report, but some of my main priorities are: to further enhance the competitiveness of Welsh industry; to attract more private investment; to press on with work to dual the A465 and the A55 across Anglesey; to reduce waiting times in the NHS and to increase spending on direct patient care; to secure a smooth transition to the new structure of local government; to implement fully the revised national curriculum and develop pupil assessment; and to extend modern and accelerated apprenticeships.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales to discuss the council's budget for the next financial year.

  Mr. Redwood
  I met Mr. Michael Griffith, chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales, to discuss the review of his organisation and its budget on Tuesday 10 January 1995.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest estimate of the capital and revenue spending of the Welsh Development Agency for 1994–95; how much of this is funded by the sale of Welsh Development Agency assets; and what were the corresponding figures for 1993–94.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Latest estimates of capital and revenue spending in 1994–95 are £122 million and £38 million respectively. The agency expects to generate £60 million in receipts from the sale of assets.

  In 1993–94, corresponding outturn figures were: capital spend—£111.733 million; current spend—£39.923 million; and receipts from the sale of assets—£45.548 million.
  303

  Private Health Facilities
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for promoting the extension of private health facilities in the NHS in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I wish to encourage the private sector to provide new facilities within which the NHS can provide clinical services.

  Private Sector Finance Initiative
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress is being made with the private sector finance initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  Considerable progress is being made across many of my Department's programmes. I have already announced plans to attract £1,000 million private investment to the south Wales valleys and am looking to secure another £1,000 million for Cardiff bay.

  General Hospitals
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes to protect the position of smaller district general hospitals.

  Mr. Richards
  Any substantial change in the use of a hospital requires extensive public consultation before it can be put into effect. If the proposals for change do not secure the backing of local community health councils in particular, they must be referred to my right hon. Friend for a decision.

  Workers (Licensed Mines)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many workers are employed in licensed mines in South Wales.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I understand there were around 720 employees as at 1 September 1994.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the development of NHS trusts in Wales.

  Mr. Richards
  There are currently 24 operational NHS trust in Wales. My right hon. Friend and I have received five applications from hospitals, community units and the ambulance service to become NHS trusts from April 1995. Public consultation on three of the applications ended on 4 December 1994.

  In the light of the representations received, and taking account of the individual merits of each application, my right hon. Friend and I have decided to establish a further three NHS trusts to become operational from next April. The details are

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  South Glamorgan Dental Hospital and School, Cardiff

  South Glamorgan Community/Priority Services Unit, Cardiff

  Ambulance Service

  East Dyfed and West Glamorgan Ambulance Services

  The orders giving effect to my decisions have been signed today. The trusts will be formally established on 6 February 1995 with an operational date of 1 April 1995.
  304
  We will announce shortly the details on the chairmen and non-executive directors of the new NHS trusts.

  The University hospital of Wales and Cardiff Royal group and the West Glamorgan east unit (Neath and Port Talbot) district services unit, jointly, have also applied for NHS trust status from April 1995. Both applications are currently subject to three months public consultation. We expect to announce the outcome during February.

  This announcement today means that, from April 1995, some 95 per cent. of acute and community services and 100 per cent. of ambulance services in Wales will be delivered by NHS trusts.

  Road Schemes (Property Acquisition)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated value of those properties purchased by, and currently owned by, his Department prior to the building of road schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The estimated disposable value of land and property acquired in advance of proposed trunk road schemes which is, or will eventually be, surplus to requirements is £4.5 million.

  Non-departmental Executive Posts
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the policy regarding the number of non-departmental executive posts that can be held by individuals.

  Mr. Redwood
  In making public appointments, I take account of any existing appointments held by the prospective appointee, to ensure that the total time commitment is not excessive.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was(a) the total capacity and (b) the total number of abattoirs in Wales in 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994; and how many abattoirs in Wales now conform to the requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of licensed red meat abattoirs in Wales was 79 in 1979, 70 in 1984, 66 in 1989 and 39 in 1994.

  In 1994, all 39 abattoirs were licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992; 33 were operating under temporary derogations while upgrading their premises to comply in full with the structural regulations.

  The Welsh Office does not hold figures on the total capacity of abattoirs.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many consultation papers issued by Government Departments inviting views on matters relating to England and Wales have not been issued in Wales by his Department in each of the last five years, specifying the consultation papers and the reasons for not consulting on the same basis in Wales;

  (2) how many consultation papers issued by the Department of the Environment inviting views on matters

  305
  relating to England and Wales have not been issued in Wales by his Department in each of the last five years, specifying the consultation papers and the reasons for not consulting on the same basis in Wales.

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

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he has made for contacting and counselling those who have received blood transfusions contaminated with hepatitis C; what representations he has received concerning such an information programme; what consultation he has had with the board of management of National Blood Transfusion Service Wales on this issue; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  The Government have asked the chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation to set up a United Kingdom working party of experts to draw up guidance to undertake the "look back" programme and to inform the counselling of those identified as being at risk. Guidance on the treatment options available will also be provided. The National Blood Transfusion Service for Wales will implement the "look back" programme to identify those who may have been inadvertently infected by blood collected by the Welsh transfusion centre. The managers of the Welsh Transfusion Service have been kept fully informed of this process.

  No representations have been received concerning the "look back" programme.

  School Meals
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many pupils aged under seven years, seven to 11 years, and over 11 years respectively, in each local education authority area in Wales receive school meals, and free school meals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Data on school meals are not collected by age. The number of pupils receiving school meals in each local education authority area in Wales as at January 1994, by sector, was:

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Paid meals

  Free meals

  Paid meals

  Free meals

  Clwyd

  9,470

  6,570

  7,693

  2,862

  Dyfed

  13,950

  6,201

  11,476

  2,875

  Gwent

  13,406

  10,744

  11,230

  4,378

  Gwynedd

  7,740

  4,111

  5,111

  1,736

  Mid Glamorgan

  19,637

  15,726

  11,809

  6,612

  Powys

  5,844

  1,212

  3,523

  405

  South Glamorgan

  9,973

  10,125

  5,377

  3,762

  West Glamorgan

  9,917

  8,173

  9,313

  3,789

  Wales

  89,937

  62,862

  65,532

  26,419

  Environmental Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what preparation he is making to implement the recommendation of the Toyne report on the commissioning of a national appraisal of the progress 306
  made in the further and higher education sector in the development of environmental education.

  Mr. Richards
  The Toyne report recommended that the Welsh Office and the Department for Education commission a national appraisal not later than the 1995–96 academic year. It is intended that the appraisal will take place in the 1995–96 academic year.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Bromley (Fraud)
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Attorney-General if charges have now been brought in respect of the allegations of fraud in the environmental health department of the London borough of Bromley.

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service considered the results of inquiries into allegations concerning the environmental health department of the London borough of Bromley and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to justify criminal proceedings against any person.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Solicitor-General
  The performance of the Crown Prosecution Service is monitored at regular meetings between the law officers and the director of Public Prosecutions. The service handles about 1.5 million cases per year, with a conviction rate in the year to September 1994 of 97.7 per cent. in magistrates' courts and 90.3 per cent. in the Crown court.

  Lenient Sentences
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Attorney-General in how many cases where he has referred a sentence to the Court of Appeal as being unduly lenient, the sentence has been increased.

  The Attorney-General
  Since 1989, 189 offenders have had their sentences referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. Some 19 cases were subsequently withdrawn. Of the 161 cases that have been heard, 132, or 82 per cent. resulted in an increased sentence.

HEALTH

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

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 April 1994,Official Report, column 401, for the years 1989–90 to 1992–93. Information for 1993–94 is shown in the table. Community nursing figures, which increased from 29,870 in 1987 to 37,520 in 1993—25.6 per cent.—have not been included in the qualified

  307
  nursing and midwifery totals as community patient data is not collected centrally. Figures for qualified staff show all qualified nursing and midwifery staff, including senior nurses and midwives but excluding those nurses who have transferred to senior management terms but still have a clinical role to play, but who cannot be identified separately from other senior managers. It also excludes pre and post-registration learners and Project 2000 nursing students, those nurses employed through an agency or bank arrangements.

  Qualified nurses and midwives excluding community and agency staff by region-England 30 September total in-patient finished consultant episodes

  Year 1993–94

  Qualified nursing and midwifery staff WTEs (excluding community)

  Ordinary admissions

  Northern

  15,450

  556,147

  Yorkshire

  16,270

  653,378

  Trent

  18,990

  764,167

  East Anglia

  8,430

  334,967

  NW Thames

  12,860

  451,670

  NE Thames

  15,870

  615,132

  SE Thames

  13,850

  565,347

  SW Thames

  12,030

  438,731

  Wessex

  12,650

  491,997

  Oxford

  9,980

  374,205

  South Western

  14,160

  564,886

  West Midlands

  21,750

  869,994

  Mersey

  10,600

  450,427

  Northern Western

  19,010

  757,915

  Total

  201,890

  7,888,963

  Source:

  KM70 and NHS Non-Medical Census.

  Notes:

  1. "Ordinary Admissions" is the term used for "In-Patient consultant episodes".

  2. Ordinary Admissions are taken for the year 1 April to 31 March.

  3. Qualified Nursing and Midwifery Staff are as at 30 September-ie. for the 1989–90 year the figure is as at 30 September 1989.

  NHS Resources
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a paper giving a breakdown of the cash sum attached to each of the health programmes mentioned in annexe 4 to the NHS executive's recent publication "HCHS Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formula" by each of the age groups in table 1 of this publication, using the methods described in annexe 3 of this publication.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information will be placed in the Library. Hospital and community health service expenditure by age group is not routinely available and has been estimated separately for each programme using data from the latest HCHS programme budgets and separate records of patient activity by age.

  Heart Valves
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) who requested 42 heart valves for use in clinical trials in the United Kingdom; and from whom;
  308
  (2) when the request was made to the United States of America for the use of heart valves in clinical trials.

  Mr. Sackville
  Shiley requested permission from the United States Food and Drug Administration to export Björk-Shiley 70° C-C heart valves from the United States of America for use in clinical trials in the United Kingdom. The Medical Devices Agency has no record of the date of this request. In response to a request from Shiley, dated 25 February 1981, the Department of Health issued a letter on 27 March 1981, indicating no objection to importation of the valve for clinical trial purposes.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information was given to patients implanted with heart valves in the course of the clinical trials.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information given to patients before and during the course of a clinical trial is a matter for the professional judgment of the clinicians involved, taking into account the particular circumstances of each patient and the requirements of the clinical trial protocol.

  Health and Safety
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she has taken to ensure that the 1993 legislation on health and safety in the workplace has been implemented in the national health service and social services departments.

  Mr. Malone
  The implementation of health and safety legislation is entirely the responsibility of national health service employers. The NHS executive guidance, "Health and Safety at Work—(EL(93)66)", issued on 29 July 1993, drew the attention of NHS employers specifically to the health and safety regulations introduced in 1993. In addition, the NHS executive's guidance on "Occupational Health Services for NHS Staff (HSG(94)51)", issued to NHS employers on 6 December 1994, underlined the statutory responsibility of NHS employers including that under the 1993 health and safety legislation. Copies of these documents are available in the Library.

  Social services departments are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is responsible for matters relating to local government.

  District Nurses
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment her Department has made of the effects of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 upon the work of district nurses.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Each locality will have different health needs and these will be reflected in the work of the district nurse and other health professionals. It is for local employers of district nurses to continually assess and review their work with them.

  Manpower Control
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when manpower control in respect of medical staff was discontinued; and what statistics exist on medical manpower distribution in England(a) at that date and (b) currently.
  309
  Mr. Malone
  Medical manpower control has not been discontinued. Senior registrar and career registrar quotas are still in operation as set by the Joint Planning Advisory Committee. The number of pre-registration house officer posts is still controlled through negotiation with the Joint Consultants Committee; staff grade posts are controlled by the Advisory Group on Medical Education, Training and Staffing; appointments to the associate specialist grade are personal regradings, and are monitored by AGMETS. Responsibility for senior house officer post numbers has been devolved to task forces and postgraduate deans, but only in respect of reducing junior doctors' hours. There are no controls on consultant or other non-consultant career grades not mentioned above.

  Statistics on medical manpower distribution in England are collected by specialty and region and are published annually in the medical and dental manpower census.

  Obstetric Beds
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of obstetric beds in Northumberland health authority in(a) 1992 and (b)

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of beds is not collected centrally by specialty.

  Consultant Vacancies
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant vacancies are currently unfilled in the Northumberland district health authority; and how many of these have been unfilled for more than 12 months.

  Notifications of all Meningitis and Meningococcal Meningitis in Northern Regional Health Authority and Northumberland District Health Authority, 1988–92

  Year

  Northern RHA

  Northumberland DHA

  All meningitis

  Meningococcal meningitis

  All meningitis

  Meningococcal meningitis

  1988

  166

  72

  4

  0

  1989

  147

  59

  11

  3

  1990

  146

  76

  3

  1

  1991

  192

  79

  11

  9

  1992

  193

  93

  25

  7

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the computer allowance for general practitioners in Sunderland who are(a) fundholders and (b) non fundholders.

  Mr. Malone
  The national scheme for reimbursing general practitioners all or part of their costs in purchasing computer hardware and software, subject to the overall cash limited allocation given to family health services authorities, is as follows:

  For equipment to support general medical services—up to 50 per cent. of costs incurred. For specialised equipment to support fundholding—up to 75 per cent. of hardware costs and up to 100 per cent. of software costs.

  Homeless Mentally Ill Initiative
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons the report of the homeless mentally ill initiative was ordered to be rewritten by her Department;
  310
  Mr. Malone
  Latest figures available are for 30 September 1993 and show no consultant vacancies in Northumberland district health authority.

  Fluorosis
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to maintain records centrally by regional health authority on the number of reported cases of fluorosis; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  We have no plans to collect this information.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women in the northern region have died from cervical cancer in each year since 1987.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information requested is available in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys publication series DH5—"Mortality statistics by area"—copies of which are available in the Library.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of meningitis have been reported in the Northern regional health authority and Northumberland health authority areas in each year since 1988.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table.

  what was the initial proposal for the number of new permanent homes with care provision and the one in the rewritten version; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  No order has been given by my Department to rewrite any report on the homeless mentally ill initiative.

  Patients, Walthamstow
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been removed from general practitioners' lists in Walthamstow in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is available only by family health services authority area and is included in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 3 November 1994,Official Report, column 1269.
  311

  NHS Trusts, Doncaster
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list, for each of the NHS trusts within Doncaster health authority areas those non-executive directors who live(a) within and (b) outside the boundaries of the Doncaster health authority.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 2 November 1994,Official Report, columns 1230–31.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the maximum interval between general practitioner referral and the first out-patient appointment offered under the patients charter.

  Mr.Malone
  We will shortly be announcing the first-ever national standard for the maximum wait for a first out-patient appointment.

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to improve quality in the breast screening programme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service breast screening programme is achieving good results in terms of screening coverage and of cancers detected. The Public Accounts Committee has praised the programme and singled it out as an example on which any future health screening programmes should be modelled. The programme is achieving targets set for it in terms of women taking up screening appointments and numbers of cancers detected.

  One of the main strengths of the programme lies in its robust quality assurance systems, which have identified a higher-than-expected rate of breast cancers being detected in the interval between screening appointments. In order to enhance further the sensitivity of breast screening and to ensure that we detect more cancers at an early stage, the Department of Health is taking action to:
  require two views to be taken of each breast for all women being screened for the first time in the future. Research evidence produced from within the NHS breast screening programme shows that this will increase the number of cancers detected;
  require screening centres to increase the optical density (contrast) of mammograms. Research from within the screening programme has shown that when pictures of the breast are darker, small cancers can be detected more easily; and
  ensure the provision of focused clinical update training for radiologists to improve further the detection of particular types of cancers which are proving most difficult to see on mammograms.

  An executive letter setting out this action in more detail will be sent to health authorities within the next few weeks.

  Community Care
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the Association of Metropolitan Authorities to discuss the community care changes; what representations were made to her; what action she is taking; and if she will make a statement.
  312
  Mr. Bowis
  I met representatives of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other local authority associations on 16 June 1994. Department of Health Ministers and officials regularly meet them to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has had from Lancashire county council to meet her about the funding of "Care in. the Community" in the county; and what plans she has to meet them.

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 December 1994,Official Report, column 207.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish(a) the report into the London ambulance service, (b) the results of the review of weighted capitation and (c) the results of the Inner London health authority chief executive's bed survey; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  The report into the London ambulance service was published on 10 January 1995. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The weighted capitation formula was reviewed in 1994 and guidance—FDL(94)68—as well as a booklet entitled "Hospital and Community Health Services. Revenue Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formula" are available in the Library.

  We understand that the Inner London health authorities will publish their acute bed study shortly.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the number and percentage of emergency ambulance calls in the London area that took (1) 14 minutes, (2) 15 minutes, (3) 16 minutes, (4) 17 minutes, (5) 18 minutes, (6) 19 minutes, (7) 20 minutes, (8) 21 minutes, (9) 22 minutes, (10) 23 minutes, (11) 24 minutes, (12) 25 minutes, (13) 26 minutes, (14) 27 minutes, (15) 28 minutes, (16) 29 minutes, (17) 30 minutes, (18) 31 minutes, (19) 32 minutes, (20) 33 minutes, (21) 34 minutes, (22) 35 minutes, (23) 26 minutes, (24) 37 minutes, (25) 38 minutes, (26) 39 minutes and (27) 40 minutes during(a) November 1994, (b) December 1994, and (c) in total since April 1994.

  Mr. Sackville
  Information supplied by the London ambulance service will be placed in the Library.

  The LAS responded to 7,231 more calls within 14 minutes in November 1994 compared with November 1993.

  The information for December 1994 is not yet available.

  Patient Lists
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 9 December,Official Report, column 400, when comparable information for 1993–94 on patient lists will be available.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply gave him on 28 November 1994,Official Report, column 537. The data are still being collated and a copy will be placed in the House Library when available.

  Blood
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to reply to the letter from the
  313
  hon. Member for Oxford, East of November 1994, relating to the National Blood Authority's new targets for national blood stocks; what assessment she has made of the possibility of surplus blood being thrown away; and what consideration underlay the additional £10,000 allocated to the advertising budget of each blood centre.

  Mr. Sackville
  I replied on 12 January 1995.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to be able to reply to a letter from the hon. Member for Oxford, East of 2 December 1994, relating to the sale of blood voluntarily donated.

  Mr. Sackville
  I replied on 9 January 1995.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the oral answer of the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) of 13 December 1994,Official Report, column 770, what proposals the Government have to privatised the National Blood Transfusion Service;

  (2) what level of savings she expects from the establishment of the new National Blood Authority headquarters at Watford and the proposed zonal management structure;

  (3) what steps she is taking to restore confidence in the public and the Blood Transfusion Service work force following the recent reductions in the level of blood donated.

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no intention to privatise the National Blood Service or any part of the National Blood Authority. The NBA was established to develop and manage a fully co-ordinated blood service in England.

  The authority undertook a radical review of the structure and operation of the network of regional transfusion centres. The object of the review was to produce a safe, high-quality and cost-effective blood service. The proposals from the review were put out for consultation and these are now being reviewed in the light of the comments received. The NBA has announced arrangements to confirm that the comments have been taken fully into account. Savings are envisaged from implementation of the final proposals but can be precisely determined only when these emerge.

  The authority has continued effectively to co-ordinate and manage the blood supply during this period. Levels of donations are generally adequate to meet demand from hospitals, which indicates public confidence in the service. Isolated and localised temporary shortages have occurred, as they always have done at various times of the year. The response of donors to appeals at these times also confirms that the service retains public confidence. The creation of a national authority has, for the first time, provided the opportunity for a planned approach to the supply of blood across the country.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give(a) the date when blood products from the United Kingdom were first exported, (b) the destination of exported blood products, (c) the description of all blood products exported, (d) the annual value of exported blood products, (e) the current level of stocks of blood compared with current targets and (f) the current method used for transporting blood products and the safeguards employed.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Bio Products Laboratory has been exporting surplus products since before 1986. These products have consisted largely of albumin and albumin intermediates, together with small quantities of a range of other products such as factor IX and factor XI as well as 314
  some immunoglobulin. Products are exported worldwide. BPL products are categorised as ethical pharmaceuticals and are transported in appropriate containers. The value of these exports has never exceeded £5 million in any one year.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the compliance by the National Blood Authority with(a) the relevant NHS tendering and contracting requirements and (b) its own standing financial instructions before the appointment of Bain and Co. to carry out the review of the Blood Transfusion Service; and if she will list the dates when the invitations to tender were notified in the journal of the European Community.

  Mr. Sackville
  We are informed by the National Blood Authority that the requirements of national health service procedures and the authority's own standing financial instructions were complied with during the tendering for management consultants. The invitations to tender were issued in May 1993 before the European Community public services directive relating to the award of public service contracts came into force.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons only blood products destined for export are tested for alanine aminotransferase; and if these products test positive for aminotransferase other cellular products from those donations are prohibited for use on United Kingdom patients.

  Mr. Sackville
  No blood collected by the National Blood Service or blood products produced by the Bio Products Laboratory are tested for alanine aminotransferase.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the cost of a computer system for the National Blood Service.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the National Blood Authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Sir Colin Walker OBE, for details.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many units of blood were transferred between blood transfusion centres in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994 in response to unexpected shortfalls in supply.

  Mr. Sackville
  The creation of a national authority has, for the first time, provided the opportunity for a planned approach to the supply of blood across the country. It is not possible to identify separately stock transfers between centres to alleviate temporary shortages and those undertaken as part of good stock management practice to reduce wastage. More than 2 million donations are collected each year. In 1993, there were 32,645 units transferred between centres and in 1994, 59,880 units. This reflects more effective management of blood stocks evidenced by a general reduction in wastage rates.

  Dental Services
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her Department's assessment of the number of dentists who are refusing to undertake work under the national health service.

  Mr. Malone
  Dentists are independent contractors who are free to undertake national health service work, private work or a mixture of the two. At 30 September 1994 there were 15,885 dentists under contract to family health service authorities in England, the highest September
  315
  quarter figure ever. Family health service authorities in England report that they can help patients to find national health service dentists.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have given written notice to each family health service authority to remove their name from the dental list since July 1994.

  Mr. Malone
  The information will be placed in the Library.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have been added to the dental lists for each family health service authority since July 1994.

  Mr. Malone
  This information is expected to be available in February, when it will be placed in the Library.

  Psychiatric Units
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to ensure that full emergency cover is available in residential psychiatric units; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The responsibility for ensuring that residential psychiatric units are adequately staffed to cover emergencies rests with the managers of individual units. Where health authorities and local authorities are purchasing services from residential psychiatric units, they should satisfy themselves that satisfactory arrangements exist to deal with emergencies, as part of the contracting process.

  Private and voluntary homes providing residential care or nursing care for people with psychiatric illnesses are required to register with the relevant local authority or health authority. The authority must be satisfied that the home's staffing arrangements, including those for emergency cover, are adequate before approving registration.

  Insulin
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost per vial(a) of human and (b) of animal insulin.

  Mr. Sackville
  The prices per 10 mililitre vial range from £5.78 to £11.57 for animal insulin and £9.47 to £9.98 for human insulin.

  Software
  Mr Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the terms of the licence given by her Department to ICL to produce the software application IRC-PAS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The principal terms are:

  copyright to remain with the Crown

  ICL would develop and market the IRC-PAS

  agreement to quality of service guarantees

  limitation on charges that could be made.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will own the copyright of the software application OPEN-PAS produced by ICL as a successor to IRC-PAS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The copyright will remain with the Crown.
  316
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tendering procedures were carried out by her Department before the ICL PAS system was accepted.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department does not carry out any tendering for PAS systems. It is the responsibility of health authorities and trusts to tender for PAS systems, following central procurement guidance which conforms with United Kingdom, European Union and GATT' regulations.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the total cost per NHS unit of the licence to operate IRC-PAS paid to ICL, (b) the total cost to the NHS of the licence to operate IRC-PAS paid to ICL, (c) the length of contract given to ICL to provide software to the NHS, and (d) the tendering which was carried out in respect of ICL's re-written software application, OPEN-PAS.

  Mr. Sackville
  The cost per site per unit is subject to contract between the individual sites and ICL. The Department does not keep separate records of these contracts. Figures showing total moneys paid to the various PAS suppliers are not maintained centrally. The initial licence to ICL was granted for five years. This has since been extended to 25 years. There was no tendering carried out in respect of OPEN-PAS as the right to develop was encompassed within the licence to ICL.

  Research Units
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each of the research units which have been subject to peer review, mentioned in her answer of 30 June 1994,Official Report, column 674, the date of the site visit, the date when the report of the review was sent to the unit, the date when a decision was made about the future of the unit and whether the Department will continue the unit and the date on which the unit's current contract ends.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply, I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) on 12 January,Official Report, columns 171–72. All the units have current contracts which will be renewed over the coming months. The dates of the site visits and when the report were sent to the units are given in the table.

  Site visit

  Report to unit

  Dartington Social Research Unit

  April 1994

  July 1994

  Personal Social Services Research Unit

  April 1994

  September 1994

  Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit

  October 1993

  April 1994

  Clinical Operational Research Unit

  November 1993

  April 1994

  Social Medicine and Health Services Research Unit

  July 1993

  January 1994

  Thomas Coram Research Unit

  March 1994

  July 1994

  Centre for Primary Care Research

  July 1993

  November 1993

  National Institute for Social Work

  October 1993

  March 1994

  Childhood Cancer Research Group

  October 1991

  September 1992

  317

  Site visit

  Report to unit

  National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit

  June 1993

  November 1993

  Medical Care Research Unit

  October 1992

  January 1993

  Centre for Health Economics

  July 1994

  *

  Social Policy Research Unit

  January 1994

  July 1994

  * To be sent this month.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in the establishment of the pilot research centre in Manchester referred to in her answer of 15 July 1994,Official Report, column 811; how many academic and non-academic staff were in post on 1 December; how many of these had contracts of (a) three years or less, (b) four or five years and (c) more than five years in duration; and who were the members of the steering group established to oversee the work of the centre and its terms of reference.

  Mr. Malone
  Very good progress is being made in establishing the Manchester centre for research and development in primary health care. The Department's director of research and development will shortly be writing to a number of academic and service advisors inviting them to serve as members of the steering group for the centre. The terms of reference for the steering group will be agreed at the first meeting. The numbers of staff employed at the centre, and the terms and conditions of their individual contracts, are matters for the University of Manchester as their employer.

  Maternity Facilities
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) where in the North Worcestershire NHS trust area maternity facilities are currently available; where she expects them to be available by 1 January 1996; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will make it her policy to ensure that the procedure used by North Worcestershire health authority in connection with the refusal to open maternity facilities at Kidderminster general hospital is not followed elsewhere; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Sackville
  Provision of maternity services for the residents of north Worcestershire is the responsibility of North Worcestershire health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. M. R. Cooper, chairman of the authority, for details of local facilities. Proposals for future maternity services in the area will be the subject of a formal public consultation exercise.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement as to the procedures required of NHS trusts prior to closure of maternity units at community and district hospitals respectively.

  Mr. Sackville
  Health authorities; but not national health service trusts, are required to consult their local community health councils when substantial changes in local services are under consideration. However, as a matter of course, NHS trusts discuss proposed service changes with the relevant health authority and other purchasers. If appropriate, the health authority would then consult the relevant CHC.

  Patient Administration Systems
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of contracts for patient administration 318
  systems have been awarded to (a) ICL and (b) other companies.

  Mr.Sackville
  The information requested is not available centrally. It is for local managers to decide which patient administration system best meets their requirements.

  Human Tissue
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what safeguards are in place to prevent infection from lethal transmissible diseases occurring as a result of the transportation into the United Kingdom of amniotic fluids, blood samples, and human tissues;

  (2) what records are kept by her Department of the import into the country of human tissue samples through (a) Heathrow airport, (b) other airports and (c) other terminals;

  (3) what examination is undertaken of imported human tissue for HIV-AIDS and hepatitis B and EB;

  (4) what proposal she has to control the import of human tissues from south-east Asia;

  (5) what precautions are in place for workers at points of entry into the United Kingdom in respect of possible infection from the import of amniotic fluids, blood samples and human tissues.

  Mr. Sackville
  For pathology samples transported by air, compliance with the International Air Transport Association restricted articles regulations is needed, together with compliance with any additional requirements of individual carriers. For the importation, transportation and handling of certain pathogens listed in the Health and Safety (Dangerous Pathogens) Regulations 1981, all the provisions of which have today been subsumed into the new Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994, prior notification to the Health and Safety Executive and health Ministers is required. Further regulations apply to the transportation of the samples from the point of entry to the receiving laboratory, including, as appropriate, Post Office regulations and the Health and Safety Executive's Regulations on the Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Goods for Carriage by Road and Rail 1994. Laboratories will carry out tests in accordance with the sender's request, and in so doing will observe Health Service Advisory Committee guidance on safe working and the prevention of infection in clinical laboratories, and guidance prepared by the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens. In all work situations, the potential for exposure to infection from material either in transit or under examination has to be assessed under COSHH and the appropriate safe working procedures adopted.

  Information is not available centrally on the quantity of pathology samples sent from abroad, and in the light of the safeguards which apply we have no proposals to introduce further controls.

  Mental Health Policy
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to(a) transfer responsibility for the monitoring and for the development of mental health policy from her Department to the NHS Executive and (b) divide responsibility for the monitoring and development

  319
  of mental health policy between a health care and social care division within a restructed Department of Health.

  Mr. Sackville
  To help the Department of Health pursue its key objectives, it is being restructed into three main business areas—the NHS Executive, the public health group and the social care group. Each one is an integral part of the Department and will advise Ministers on the full cycle of policy development, implementation, monitoring and review within its field.

  As now, business areas will co-ordinate the advice to Ministers which they take decisions. In the case of mental health policy, the NHS Executive will have an explicit responsibility to ensure that such advice is properly co-ordinated.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to(a) "Creating Community Care", the report of the Mental Health Foundation inquiry into community care for people with severe mental illness, (b) "Finding a Place", a review of mental health services for adults, the report of the Audit Commission and (c) the memorandum to the Secretary of State for Health on the Mental Health Act 1983 submitted by the Mental Health Act Commission.

  Mr. Bowis
  Statements were published on 7 September and 26 October representing a response to(a) and (b). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health replied direct to the Mental Health Act Commission and responded in a letter sent to her by the chairman.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount of the NHS budget allocated to mental health listed as totals for each hospital, unit trust, organisation and charity funded through the NHS.
  320
  Mr. Bowis
  Information is not available in the form requested. I am not aware of any unit trusts involved in this area.

  David Falconer
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the circumstances of the death of David Falconer on 6 July 1994 in the Edith' Mortan psychiatric centre in Torbay.

  Mr. Bowis
  David Falconer died of asphyxiation on 6 July 1994 while being controlled and restrained by nurses following the administration of medication which was given because of his extremely disturbed behaviour. Mr. Falconer suffered from neuroleptic malignancy syndrome which can result in adverse reaction to some medication. The doctor who gave the medication was aware of his condition.

  Following an inquest into the circumstances surrounding his death, a jury returned a verdict of misadventure.

  The South Devon healthcare trust commissioned Sir Louis Blom-Cooper to carry out a wide-ranging review of mental health services which was published in April 1994, the recommendations of which are a matter for the trust.

  Research Units
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to establish any further research centres, as are referred to in her answer of 15 July 1994,Official Report, column 811; what criteria she will use in making a decision; and whether she will await the evaluation of the first pilot centre before making any further decisions.

  Mr. Malone
  The option for a second centre is still under consideration.
  321

  Mental Health Care
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many officials in her Department are wholly or primarily employed to develop and monitor policy on mental health care.

  Mr. Sackville
  Including professional and administrative staff, some of whom work part-time, 43 officials.

  NHS Executive Report
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the costs of(a) producing, (b) printing and (c) distributing the 1993–94 annual report of the NHS Executive; how many copies were printed; and how many were distributed to (i) the press, (ii) the NHS and (iii) others.

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Health Service Executive annual report provides public information about the performance of the NHS, and plays an important role in ensuring that the service remains accountable.

  The information requested about the cost of NHS Executive annual report 1993–94 is:

  £

  a. Production

  37,099

  b. Printing

  20,739

  c. Distribution

  3,748

  A total of 20,000 copies of the report were printed. Since publication, approximately 200 copies have been available to the press, 4,100 distributed within the NHS and approximately 2,500 distributed to others. The report will remain available to the public throughout the year via the health literature line, and will be distributed further within the NHS at health service conferences.

  Table 1: Hospital medical consultants (numbers) England as at 30 September

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Numbers

  14,020

  14,330

  14,850

  15,520

  15,840

  16,260

  16,600

  Percentage change

  —

  2.2

  3.6

  4.5

  2.0

  2.7

  2.1

  Table 2: Medical consultants whole-time equivalent England-30 September each year

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Whole-time equivalent

  12,860

  13,200

  13,670

  14,190

  14,500

  14,850

  15,210

  Percentage change

  —

  2.7

  3.5

  3.8

  2.2

  2.4

  2.4

  Prostatic Cancer
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to bring in a national screening programme for prostatic cancer.

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: We have no current plans to introduce a national screening
  322

  Death Rates
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the death rates for(a) each local health authority, (b) each regional health authority and (c) nationally in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Sackville
  The crude death rates—deaths per 1,000 population—for each district health authority, each regional health authority and for England and Wales will be placed in the Library.

  "Achieving a Balance"
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the year of the "Achieving a Balance" agreement; what was the percentage expansion of consultants agreed upon, and the percentage expansion, in each year since the agreement; how many whole-time equivalent consultants there were in the NHS in the year when "Achieving a Balance" was signed; what is the number now; and how many there should have been under the target in the report, "Achieving a Balance".

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The "Achieving a Balance" agreement was published in 1987 in the report entitled "Hospital Medical Staffing—Achieving a Balance: Plan for Action". It was agreed that consultant expansion of at least 2 per cent. per annum, excluding specified centrally funded posts, should be encouraged. Copies of the report are available in the Library.

  The data on consultant expansion—numbers and whole-time equivalent—wte—are shown in the tables. The increase in numbers of 2,580 between 1987 and 1993 includes about 550 centrally funded posts. The average annual increase between 1987 and 1993 is 2.9 per cent., or 2.3 per cent. if centrally funded posts are excluded.

  Expansion at 2 per cent. per annum would have implied by 1993, 15,7901 plus about 550 centrally funded consultants, that is about 16,340, which is some 260 fewer than the actual 1993 figure of 16,600. This comparison cannot be made in wte terms, as the wte of the 550 centrally funded posts is not known.

  1 14,020 increased by 2 per cent. per annum.

  programme for prostate cancer. There is no consensus on the most effective screening method or the best way to treat patients who have a positive test. Until we do, screening may lead to unnecessary treatments, such as chemotherapy and radiation, that are more destructive than the disease itself.
  323

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Stormont (Fire)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many personnel remained overnight within Parliament buildings, Stormont, on the night of 1 and 2 January; what is the estimated cost of the fire damage in the buildings; what emergency arrangements were in place to open the buildings and the entrance gates to Stormont estate; if the House of Commons Chamber will be restored; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  The inquiry, which will be conducted by Sir Reginal Doyle, will address the questions of the presence of personnel in Parliament buildings and emergency arrangements.

  No estimate had yet been made of the cost of the fire damage.

  No decision has yet been taken about the restoration of the former House of Commons Chamber. I will, however, be reviewing options in the light of prevailing circumstances.

  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give his best estimate of the amount of damage to the old Stormont Commons Chamber and of fire, smoke and water damage elsewhere in the building resulting from the fire at Parliament buildings, Belfast.

  Mr. Moss
  The damage to Parliament buildings was confined mainly to the former House of Commons Chamber, the internal fixtures of which were largely destroyed. Areas close to the Chamber suffered some heat and smoke damage. Water damage to all areas was minimal.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what artefacts and pictures, other than documents or gifts from other Governments and legislatures were damaged or lost as a consequence of the recent fire at Stormont.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The pair of Dispatch Boxes believed to have been brought from the House of Lords and which rested on the Clerk's Table were destroyed by the fire.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what documents and records were damaged or lost as a consequence of the recent fire at Stormont which were(a) under 50 years old, (b) under 75 years old, (c) under 100 years old, (d) under 150 years old, (e) under 175 years old, (f) under 200 years old, (g) under 250 years old and (h) over 250 years old.

  Sir John Wheeler
  As a consequence of the fire at Parliament buildings on 2 January 1995, two Bibles, oath and prayer cards and the Roll Book were destroyed. All were under 75 years old.

  No Public Record Office documents or records were lost. A quantity of unboxed census enumerators' returns on the shelves, unboxed because of their size, were affected by water. However, the thick bindings protected the returns themselves.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what advice was tendered to his Department following the fires at(a) Hampton court and (b) Windsor castle and the subsequent publication of the report of the inquiry into those fires;
  324
  (2) when the fire service report on the cause of the Stormont fire will be published;

  (3) if the Stormont buildings had a fire certificate under the Fire Precautions Act 1971 or Northern Ireland equivalent;

  (4) what was the cost of additional or alternative fire precautions to the Stormont buildings, following the fires at (a) Hampton court and (b) Windsor castle and the subsequent publication of the report of the inquiries into those fires;

  (5). what advice has been given to those who manage, on behalf of the nation, the Stormont buildings following the result of the investigations into the cause and extent of the fire at the National Trust property, Uppark house, West Sussex in 1989;

  (6) what surveys were made to the Stormont buildings, since the fires at (a) Hampton court and (b) Windsor castle; what additional or alternative fire precautions and installations were recommended which were subsequently installed or implemented; and what was the cost to the Exchequer of those improvements;

  (7) what was the assessed fire risk of the Assembly Chamber at Stormont prior to the recent fire; and if he will make a statement;

  (8) when was the last occasion that a fire inspection was made of the Stormont Parliament buildings prior to the recent fire; and if he will place a copy of the report of inspection in the Library;

  (9) at what time the Assembly Chamber in the Stormont Parliament buildings was locked prior to the discovery of the fire which subsequently destroyed the chamber; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on 13 January,Official Report, columns 235–36.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what gifts presented by Governments or legislatures were damaged or lost as a consequence of the recent fire at Stormont.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) which security firm is employed to patrol the Stormont Parliament buildings; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the security firm employed in respect of the Stormont Parliament buildings is required to patrol inside or outside; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  No security firm is employed to patrol the Stormont Parliament buildings. Security of the building is the responsibility of staff employed by the Department of Finance and Personnel, who patrol inside the building. Vehicle access is controlled by DFP security guards whilst patrols within the Stormont estate are undertaken by the RUC.

  Fire Legislation
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has appointed a person responsible for arrangements relating to fire matters as referred to in section 27(5) of the Fire Services Northern Ireland Order 1984.
  325
  Mr. Moss
  Article 27(5) of the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 does not provide for the appointment of any person.

  Hotel Grants
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the hotels that have received Northern Ireland tourist board, European Union or International Fund for Ireland capital development grants in 1994, 1993 and 1992, with the amount of grant awarded in each case, and the rate of grant expressed as a percentage of the total eligible cost of the development.

  Mr. Ancram
  The hotels which accepted offers of selective assistance from the Northern Ireland tourist board under its tourism development scheme in each year were:

  Hotel

  Selective assistance offered (£)

  Percentage of estimate eligible project cost

  1994

  Causeway Hotel

  100,000

  20

  Waterfoot Hotel

  80,000

  10

  Calgorm Manor

  355,000

  30

  Roe Park Hotel

  2,150,000

  47

  Killyhevlin Hotel

  200,000

  19

  1993

  Manor House Hotel

  430,000

  23

  Clandeboye Lodge Hotel

  450,000

  31

  Marine Court Hotel

  450,000

  16

  1992

  Glenavon House Hotel

  450,000

  25

  Brown Trout Inn

  80,000

  21

  Feneghy House Hotel

  177,000

  34

  Bushtown House Hotel

  26,000

  5

  The following hotels accepted offers of assistance under European Union tourism programmes toward the cost of specific visitor facilities such as conference centres, activity and leisure facilities. In each case, the offer of grant represented 40 per cent. of the estimated eligible costs.

  Hotel

  Assistance offered (£)

  1994

  Marine Court Hotel

  500,000

  Waterfoot Hotel

  166,000

  Roe Park Hotel, Golf and Country Club

  950,000

  1993

  Glenavon House Hotel

  300,000

  Manor House Hotel

  200,000

  1992

  Beech Hill Country House Hotel

  26,000

  Bushtown House Hotel

  61,670

  Fenaghy House Hotel

  29,590

  Grants to hotels from the International Fund for Ireland, is a matter for the independent board of the fund, under its chairman, Mr. W. T McCarter.
  326

  Cardiac Surgeons, Royal Victoria Hospital
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cardiac surgeons are employed at the Royal Victoria hospital; what proposals there are to employ additional cardiac surgeons at this hospital; and if he will make a statement about the waiting list for cardiac operations at the Royal Victoria hospital.

  Mr. Moss
  There are five cardiac surgeons employed at present at the Royal Victoria hospital Belfast. I am not aware of any proposals by the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS trust, which employs the surgeons, to increase this number. Prior to 1992, there were three cardiac surgeons at the RVH, but since the appointment of two others, in May 1992 and September 1993 respectively, there have been very significant reductions both in numbers waiting for surgery and in waiting times. Between September 1991 and September 1994, the total number waiting was reduced from almost 1,000 to 449, while between September 1993 and November 1994 the number waiting in excess of 18 months fell from 258 to 11. Further reductions in numbers and times can be expected.

  Strangford Lough Ferry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of crewing at the Strangford Lough ferry; what proposals there are to change the level of crewing; and if he will make a statement about the adequacy of crewing and safety at sea at this ferry service.

  Mr. Moss
  Each of the two ferries operating between Strangford and Portaferry has a crew of four. A review of all aspects of the ferry, including the level of crewing, is presently under way. The level of crewing and safety on the ferries meets the requirements of the Marine Safety Agency.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Sir John Wheeler
  These matters are set out in the framework document for each Northern Ireland agency, which is available in the House of Commons Library. Northern Ireland agencies are included in the Next Steps Review 1994 (Cm 2750).

  Drug Seizures
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many drug seizures there were, and what quantities of drugs were seized, in each of the last four years.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The quantities of drugs seized were as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Cannabis Kilos

  37.6

  39.0

  15.75

  44.5

  Cannabis plants

  5

  19

  —

  419

  327

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Cocaine

  —

  88 gms

  77 gms

  19 gms

  Opiates

  2,757

  250 doses

  20 gms

  363 gms

  (inc. Heroin)

  MST tabs

  Dipipanone 1 gm Morphine

  57 doses

  LSD

  573 doses

  800 doses

  9,201 doses

  8,022 doses

  MDMA (Ecstasy)

  —

  2,711

  4,408

  2,923 tabs

  Amphetamines

  95.2 gms

  625 gms 25 tabs

  5,732 gms

  1,728 doses

  Annual Slaughter Capacity (DANI estimate)

  Number of Slaughter Plants

  Year

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Cattle/Sheep

  Pigs

  1979

  650,000

  n/a

  1,500,000

  13

  7

  1984

  750,000

  n/a

  1,500,000

  18

  7

  1989

  800,000

  1,250,000

  1,800,000

  16

  7

  1994

  800,000

  950,000

  1,500,000

  10

  5

  n/a - not available.

  Right of Silence
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to publish promptly research carried out by his Department into the changes in the right of silence introduced in Northern Ireland in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir John Wheeler
  When significant research is conducted within the Northern Ireland Office on criminal justice matters, it is normally made public at an early stage. When we commission work from external researchers, we are ready to consider sympathetically any proposal by the authors to publish their work.

  In my reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) of 18 April 1994, Official Report, columns 393–94, I said that I was placing in the Library a summary of the findings of an analysis by the Northern Ireland Office of aspects of the operation and effect of the provisions of the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. The further research into the operation and effects of the 1988 order mentioned in my reply is being conducted externally and has been delayed: when we receive it, we shall consider its publication in the light of the general policy set out above.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Firearms Form 110
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when firearms form 110 relating to the temporary import of shotguns will be reprinted by Her Majesty's Stationery Office; and when the forms will be distributed to police forces.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  A new supply of these security-printed forms will be available to police forces on Tuesday, 17 January.
  328
  Information on the number of drugs seizures is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was(a) the total capacity and (b) the total number of abattoirs in Northern Ireland in 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994; and how many abattoirs in Northern Ireland now conform to the requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows. The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992 do not extend to Northern Ireland. However, all abattoirs conform to the requirements of the EC fresh meat directive.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the response from the chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council in relation to science-based archaeology.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The policy framework governing the research councils' missions was set out in the White Paper "Realising Our Potential". It is for the research councils to determine priorities between grant proposals and to decide how to assess competing proposals. In proposing changes affecting science-based archaeology, the chief executive of NERC has said that the council wishes to support excellent science in this area consistent with the council's mission. I hope that those who are concerned about his specific proposals will take the opportunity offered to discuss the way forward with him.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his letter of 14 October 1994 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what progress the Director General of Research Councils has made in his examination of the balance of effort expended by the research councils between the initial selection of projects to be funded, monitoring of projects once funded and their evaluation at the end.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Good progress is being made. The Economic and Social Research Council already evaluates the outcome of all its research awards. All major Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council projects are appraised prior to commitment and monitored throughout implementation; post-project evaluation will be carried out. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council have reviews in progress. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council decided in December to switch
  329
  the balance of effort over three years towards monitoring and evaluation.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of research and development

  The funding of total United Kingdom research and, development: 1985 to 1992

  (Percentage terms, rounded to nearest whole number)

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Government Departments

  43

  40

  39

  36

  36

  35

  35

  35

  Business Enterprise

  47

  48

  49

  52

  51

  50

  49

  50

  Higher Education

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Non Profit Charities

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Abroad

  8

  9

  9

  9

  10

  12

  12

  11

  TOTAL £ Million

  8,093

  3,768

  9,383

  10,227

  11,288

  12,019

  12,161

  12,619

  Source:

  Statistical Supplement to the Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1994 (table 1.5.3).

EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament for the Employment Service. The chief executive of the ES has full authority to manage the agency and its day-to-day work. He is accountable to the Secretary of State for managing the agency efficiently and effectively, and for its operations and its performance against agreed targets within the resources allocated, in accordance with the agency's objectives and published standards of service. Full details of the division of responsibilities are set out in the ES framework document, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Northern Region
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his strategy for economic development in the northern region.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government's strategy for economic development in the northern region is the same as for the United Kingdom as a whole—to promote sustained economic growth and rising prosperity, through a stable macro-economic environment and structural policies to improve long-term economic performance. The policies of the Department are aimed at achieving this objective, particularly by helping disadvantaged groups within the labour market.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of career development loans made in 1993–94, broken down by standard region; and what was the average value of each loan.

  Mr. Paice
  During 1993–94, 12,159 career development loans were approved. The following table 330
  expenditure was funded by (a) Government Departments, (b) business enterprises, (c) higher education and (d) non-profit making charities for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  lists a regional breakdown of these together with average loan values:

  Region

  Number of loans

  Average loan value (£)

  Greater London

  3,177

  3,113

  South East

  1,658

  2,774

  Scotland

  1,099

  2,535

  Eastern

  1,046

  2,899

  South West

  1,029

  2,782

  Yorks and Humberside

  870

  2,667

  East Midlands

  764

  2,684

  West Midlands

  750

  2,923

  North West

  618

  3,021

  Wales

  493

  2,888

  Northern

  396

  2,684

  Greater Manchester

  259

  2,978

  Great Britain

  12,159

  2,867

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress has been made on the arrangements to ensure continuity of training and business support programmes following the appointment of an administrative receiver to manage the affairs of the South Thames training and enterprise council.

  Mr. Paice
  As foreshadowed in the minute laid before the House on 21 December 1994 by the Employment Department and the Department of the Environment, letters of comfort have been issued to certain providers of training and business support programmes within the area covered by South Thames training and enterprise council. That process is continuing. The minute said that some of the indemnities were likely to be called in and that has now occurred. Accordingly, the first payments will be made shortly from class V Employment Department vote 1 and from class VII Department of the Environment vote 3. It continues to be the Government's objective, in conjunction with the receiver, to help maintain so far as possible training and business support for those on Government-funded programmes previously run by South Thames TEC.
  331

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Policing, Plymouth
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution Associated British Ports is making toward policing in Plymouth.

  Mr. Maclean
  The officers deployed to Millbay dock are there to maintain public order and ensure that the public highway is kept clear. The chief constable has told me that there is therefore no question of charging any private concern for this deployment.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what complaints his Department has received from residents of Plymouth about the level of policing in residential areas since October 1994.

  Mr. Maclean
  None. It is for the chief constable to decide on the deployment of resources in Plymouth and in other districts of the Devon and Cornwall constabulary.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the full cost of policing the export of live animals from Millbay docks in Plymouth will be met by Devon and Cornwall police;

  (2) what has been the total cost to Devon and Cornwall police of providing escorts and protection for those transporting live animals for export from Millbay docks in Plymouth in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Maclean
  Police officers have been deployed at Millbay docks to maintain public order and ensure that the public highway is kept clear.

  No estimate of the total cost of the operation has been made but, as at 13 January, the additional costs to the police were estimated at some £20,000.

  Under the current funding arrangements, the Home Office pays 51 per cent. of all the force's expenditure on policing. In addition, support provided by the Department of the Environment brings the level of central Government support for policing to some 90 per cent.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 December,Official Report, column 151, if police officers are now being used to escort loads of live animals for export to Millbay docks in Plymouth.

  Mr. Maclean
  Police officers continue to be deployed at Millbay docks whenever necessary to maintain public order and ensure that the public highway is kept clear.

  Police Authority Allowances
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the attendance allowance, (b) the car mileage allowance and (c) the subsistence allowance for current members of each local police authority.

  Mr. Maclean
  Existing police authorities are part of the local government structure. Attendance allowances for councillors are a matter for the authorities concerned and information about payments in respect of police authorities is not held centrally.
  332
  The car mileage allowance is at present:

  Capacity

  Rate (pence per mile)

  Not exceeding 999cc

  22.0

  1000 to 1199cc

  23.9

  Over 1199cc

  26.6

  The subsistence allowance is at present:

  (£)

  Overnight absence—London

  78.50

  Overnight absence—Elsewhere

  68.80

  Day subsistence—over 12 hours

  10.00

  Day subsistence—over 8 hours

  8.60

  Day subsistence—over 4 hours

  4.00

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate for the total cost in England and Wales for 1994–95 of(a) attendance allowance, (b) car mileage allowances and (c) subsistence allowance for the current local police authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  Existing police authorities are part of the local government structure. Information is not collected centrally about planned expenditure by individual police authorities on these items.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the attendance allowance, (b) the car mileage allowance and (c) the subsistence allowance for members of the new police authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is. attendance allowance as such for members of new police authorities. Councillor and independent members may claim £15 per hour while working on police authority business, up to a limit of £l20 per day and £3,000 per year. Magistrate members may claim a financial loss allowances of up to:

  £24.72–£32.96 for the self-employed—for up to four hours

  £49.95–£65.92 for the self-employed—for over four hours and up to 24 hours.

  The car mileage allowance for all members is at present:

  Capacity

  Rate (pence per mile)

  Up to 1100 cc

  22.8

  1101 to 1400 cc

  29.0

  over 1401 cc

  26.6

  These rates apply to the first 5,000 miles claimed by a member in the financial year. Thereafter a standard rate of 12.1 pence per mile will be paid.

  The subsistence allowance for all members is at present:

  (£)

  Overnight absence—London

  81.60

  Overnight absence—Elsewhere

  71.50

  Day subsistence—over 12 hours

  10.70

  Day subsistence—over 8 hours

  9.15

  Day subsistence—over 4 hours

  5.35

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate for the total cost in England and Wales in 1995–96 of(a) attendance

  333
  allowance, (b) car mileage allowance and (c) subsistence allowance for the new police authorities.

  Mr. Maclean
  The allowances paid to councillor and independent members of new police authorities depend on the amount of work they undertake on behalf of the authority. If all members undertake sufficient work to claim the maximum amount of allowances available, the total expenditure would be £1,863,000 in a financial year.

  Magistrate members of new police authorities may claim a financial loss allowance, and the total expenditure will depend on the amount of their loss.

  The expenditure on car mileage and subsistence allowance will depend on the way individual authorities conduct their business. Information is not available centrally about their plans for expenditure on these items.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisoners serving mandatory and discretionary life sentences respectively, who have been informed that their tariff is their natural life, and the date on which he made that decision in each case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  To date, 15 mandatory life sentence prisoners have been informed, in accordance with the judgement in the case of Doody et al, that previous Ministers set a whole life tariff in their case. These prisoners now have the right to make representations in the light of the disclosure given them. If they do so, their case will be considered afresh. No decision has been made in any of these cases, nor has a whole life tariff been set in any other case.

  Parole
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether non admission of guilt by a convicted criminal affects his application for parole;

  (2) what were the implications of Roger Payne's refusal to admit to being guilty of murder for his application for parole;

  (3) how many applications for parole have been made by Roger Payne; and why they were refused.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There is no statutory basis, rule or policy which automatically prevents any prisoner who denies guilt from being released from custody on licence. Mandatory life sentence prisoners who deny their guilt, can be and have been released on life licence—not parole—if the Parole Board, which advises on risk, so recommends and the Secretary of State accepts the recommendation.

  Mr. Payne's case has been reviewed by the Parole Board on seven occasions since his conviction for murder in 1968. Following the Parole Board's last review in 1990, the risk to the public in releasing Mr. Payne was still considered to be unacceptable.

  Psychiatrists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met and when he next proposes to meet representatives from the Royal College of Psychiatrists; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Home Office enjoys regular contact with the college and is represented as an 334
  observer at meetings of the college's forensic section. I plan to meet representatives of the college in the near future.

  Constitutional Issues
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what staff, and at what grades(a) from A division and (b) from any division, deal with constitutional issues; and what is their work programme for the year.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Within A division of the Home Office, some of the duties of a total of 10 staff variously at grade 5, grade 7, higher executive officer, executive officer and administrative officer concern constitutional issues, excluding staff and duties concerned with the constitutional relationship with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Their work programme is to provide advice and support on the exercise of certain prerogative powers and other royal matters, on Church matters, on overall policy concerning human rights, including the United Kingdom's obligations under international human rights instruments and other related matters. In D division of the Home Office, staff effort equivalent to five full-time staff variously at grade 5, grade 7, HEO and EO is devoted to electoral matters. Their work programme is to continue to support my right hon. and learned Friend in the exercise of his statutory functions in relation to electoral matters. In this work, these staff have as necessary the assistance of numerous colleagues in the Home Office.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on what dates since 20 June 1994 he has received reports on the management of Doncaster prison by Premier Prison Services;

  (2) how many of those prisoners requiring immediate transfer from Doncaster prison in the period 20 June to 1 November 1994, (a) had self-inflicted injuries and (b) had injuries received as a result of assault from other prisoners;

  (3) on what dates inquests were held into those prisoners who died when held in Doncaster prison; with what result; and when he expects the inquest into Lee Bowen's death to take place;

  (4) how many prisoners at Doncaster prison were, as of 1 November, on rule 43;

  (5) how many and what percentage of the prisoners at Doncaster prison on 1 November (a) had served a previous sentence in prison before their present sentence, (b) were on remand, (c) were living in south Yorkshire at the time of their arrest and (d) were living in west Yorkshire at the time of their arrest.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. John Gunnell, dated 16 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about Doncaster prison.
  Reports on Doncaster are submitted each month by the on-site Controller, who is a senior governor grade, to the area manager. He,

  335
  in turn, discusses these reports with the Operational Director at their monthly meetings.
  Of those prisoners transferred to outside hospital between 20 June and 1 November, all returned to prison the same day. Seven were transferred as a result of self-inflicted injuries and four as a result of assaults by other prisoners. Five prisoners attended hospital in October and eight in November.
  The inquest into the death of Ian Buck took place on 1 December, when the jury returned a verdict of suicide. The inquest into the death of Shaun Webster is expected to be heard this month. It is not yet known when the inquest into the death of Lee Bowen, who died in outside hospital, will be heard.
  On 1 November there were three prisoners segregated under rule 43 for reasons of general order and discipline. None was segregated under rule 43 for protection from other inmates.
  On November 728 prisoners, or 98 per cent. of the population, had served a previous sentence before their present one. 367, or 50 per cent. of prisoners, were on remand. 346, or 46 per cent. of prisoners, were living in South Yorkshire at the time of their arrest; and 164, or 22 per cent. of prisoners were living in West Yorkshire at the time of their arrest.

  Prison Ombudsman
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisons the prisons ombudsman has visited since his appointment.

  (2) what is the present address of the office of the prisons ombudsman; and what has been the total cost spent on furnishings and fittings at his office since his appointment;

  (3) how many meetings the prisons ombudsman has had with (a) prison governors, (b) the board of prison visitors and (c) prison officers or members of the executive committee of the Prison Officers Association;

  (4) what are the terms of reference of the appointment of the prisons ombudsman; and to whom he is directly repsonsible;

  (5) how many complaints have been received from prison inmates by the prisons ombudsman since his appointment;

  (6) what is his assessment of the role of the prisons ombudsman and members of boards of visitors at prisons in England and Wales; and if he will encourage a continuing relationship in their general discussion on matters relating to the Prison Service in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The prison ombudsman was appointed to consider grievances submitted by individual prisoners who have failed to obtain satisfaction from the Prison Service's internal complaints system and, where necessary, to make recommendations to the Director General of the Prison Service or to the Home Secretary. A full job description is available in the Library. The post is independent of the Prison Service and the prison ombudsman is directly responsible to the Home Secretary.

  By 11 January 1995, the prisons ombudsman had received 398 complaints since his office became operational on 24 October 1994. Boards of visitors have the role given to them by the Prison Rules 1964 as amended. Broadly, the task of boards is to look into the condition of prison premises, the administration of establishments and the treatment of prisoners. Boards report to the Secretary of State annually and must inform him immediately of any abuse which comes to their knowledge. They must visit establishments frequently, and have access to every part of a prison, to its records and to all prisoners. The prisons ombudsman can request
  336
  reports from boards if he wishes, and may refer to them complaints suitable for local resolution with their help. Boards of visitors are left free to judge when their intervention in the grievance procedure is most effective.

  The address of the prison ombudsman is St Vincent House, 30 Orange Street, London WC2 7HH. The cost of furnishings and fittings has been £17,417.

  Since his appointment, the prisons ombudsman has visited 37 prisons. At each, he has met the governor and other governor grades, prison officers and representatives of the boards of visitors. He has also attended and addressed meetings of governors and their area managers and the boards of visitors' national conference. He was represented at the conference of the Association of Members of Boards of Visitors. He is planning to attend a board of visitors' training course. He has also met the chairman and general secretary of the Prison Officers Association.

  The appointment of the ombudsman is not intended to replace the vital role of boards of visitors in any way. The functions of boards are set out in section 6(2) of the Prisons Act 1952, Prison Rules 1964 as amended and Youth Offender Institutions Rules 1988 as amended. Boards play a key role in the local monitoring of prisons in England and Wales and there are no plans to abolish or undermine their role. However, the prisons ombudsman may need to be in contact with boards as part of his investigation of specific complaints submitted to him by prisoners.

  I have set up a review of the role of boards of visitors in order to look at the framework in which they operate and the relationship between them and the prisons ombudsman and HM inspectorate of prisons. I will most certainly want to encourage discussion of those matters in the context of my forthcoming review. The aim of my review is to enhance the vital work carried out by members of boards of visitors.

  Police Equipment
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police authority what new personal equipment is being considered for the protection of police officers and the apprehension of suspects.

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 20 December 1994]: Details of equipment which is under consideration by individual forces are not available centrally. We understand however, that police forces in England and Wales have obtained, or have announced decisions to obtain, certain new items of protective equipment as follows. Forces which have adopted the side-handled baton for general duties are Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cleveland, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Norfolk, North Wales, Nottinghamshire, South Wales, Sussex, Thames Valley, West Mercia and West Yorkshire.

  The following forces have adopted a three-piece telescopic friction-lock baton for general duties: Avon and Somerset, Bedfordshire, Devon and Cornwall, Durham, Dyfed-Powys, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Hampshire, Kent and Surrey. Dorset, the Metropolitan police and Staffordshire have adopted rigid straight batons for general duties. All forces have introduced the rigid hand-cuff, except Northamptonshire and Sussex.
  337
  At a national level, possible use of aerosol incapacitants for police self-defence is under consideration by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office.

  Prison Suicides
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attempted suicide cases took place in Her Majesty's prisons in the north west over the last two years; and how many attempts were successful.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 12 January 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Robert Parry, dated 16 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of attempted and actual suicide cases in prisons in the north west.
  During the two years to 31 December 1994, in prison in the north west there were 210 recorded cases where prisoners had harmed themselves. Some of these may have been attempts at suicide but self harm does not always indicate a suicide attempt. Sadly 12 cases of self harm resulted in the deaths of the prisoners.
  Suicide prevention is taken very seriously by the Service. A new training package "Caring for the Suicidal in Custody" was introduced for all staff in 1994. This provides support to those staff involved in identifying and caring for prisoners who are at risk of suicide. In many establishments the Samaritans and a group of volunteer specially-trained prisoners work closely alongside staff in the care of prisoners at risk. We shall continue to do all we can to reduce deaths by suicide in custody.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A and category B risk prisoners have been reclassified as category C risk for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 16 January 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of category A and B prisoners who have been re-classified as category C for each year since 1979.
  It is not possible for a category A prisoner to be directly regraded to category C. Re-categorisations from B to C are the responsibility for local establishments and no central records are kept. I regret that the information requested is not available.

EDUCATION

  Staff Statistics
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will list the number of temporary teachers paid on a daily rate who were employed by each college in England for longer than 26 weeks during each year since 1991; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) if she will list, by college, the number of redundancies, both voluntary and compulsory, that have taken place in England in each academic year since 1990–91; and if she will make a statement.
  338
  Mr. Boswell
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list, by grade, the numbers of full-time academic staff funded by the further education budget for each further education college in England on 1 October in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The information is in a table which will be placed in the Library. Figures for 1990–91 cannot be produced without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Computer Networks
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how much her Department spent in each of the last three years for which figures are available to assist universities in connecting to the joint academic network and the Internet.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department does not fund higher education networking directly. Responsibility for overseeing the joint academic network—JANET—among higher eduction institutions in Britain lies with the joint information systems committee of the Higher Education Funding Councils for England and for Wales and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council. In 1993–94, the committee spent some £5.75 million on operating JANET and £8 million on Super-JANET: both allow access to the Internet. Comparable spending by its predecessor, the information systems committee of the Universities Funding Council, amounted in 1991–92 to some £4.3 million on JANET; and in 1992–93 to some £5.5 million on JANET and £5.4 million on Super-JANET.

  "Drug Prevention in Schools"
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many regional conferences on her Department's draft circular, "Drug Prevention in Schools", have taken place; and what submissions have arisen from them.

  Mr. Forth
  The DFE is sponsoring a series of regional conferences to raise awareness of drugs issues and to stimulate debate at local level. I addressed the first of these in York on the 12 January, and further conferences are planned in Birmingham and Bristol. The initial response has been very positive, and will inform our programme of other initiatives on drug prevention and schools, including the preparation of final guidance to schools.

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the average unit of resource funding per further education student in England for each year since 1991; what was the average unit of resource funding for each trainee in a training centre for the same period; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  The average funding per full-time equivalent student in the further education sector in 1992–93 was £2,506, and £2,582 in 1993–94. The funding of trainees in training centres is a matter for the Secretary of State for Employment.
  339

  Trainee Teacher Bursary Scheme
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received regarding the non-availability of bursaries for trainee teachers in designated subjects under the trainee teacher bursary scheme; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All students who meet the requirements of the scheme are awarded bursaries. From time to time, representations have been made arguing for or against changes in those requirements, primarily from institutions concerned about course eligibility.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total value of bursaries awarded under the trainee teacher bursary scheme in 1993–94.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  In the financial year 1993–94, the total value of bursaries paid out was £8,722,000.

  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many bursaries have been awarded to initial teacher trainees under the trainee teacher bursary scheme in the current academic year;

  (2) how many applications were made to trainee teacher bursaries by students for the academic year 1994–95.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Formal applications from higher education institutions on behalf of a total of over 7,300 students who started their courses in autumn 1994 have recently been received in the Department. We expect that all, or virtually all, of the applications will meet the conditions of the scheme, and will therefore attract payment at the scheduled times. About 1,300 second-year students will also be eligible.

  Mature Students Allowance
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many students received the mature students' allowance in each of the last five years for which figures are available at universities(a) throughout the United Kingdom and (b) in Scotland; and what percentage of all mature students in each category these figures represent;

  (2) what was the total cost of operating the mature students' allowance in each of the last five years for which information is available (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in Scotland.

  Mr. Boswell
  The numbers and gross value of older students' allowances made by local education authorities in England and Wales as part of mandatory awards made to students domiciled in their areas in the academic years 1988–89 to 1992–93—the latest year for which figures are available—are shown in the table. The total number of older students in higher education domiciled in England and Wales is not readily available.

  Mandatory awards are made in respect of attendance on designated courses throughout the United Kingdom. The older students' allowance forms part of the mandatory award for eligible students but, because the award is means-tested, it is not possible to identify the value of the net allowance within the payable award.

  The administrative costs of operating the older students' allowance are not collected centrally.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are responsible for student support in those countries.
  340

  Number1 and value of older students' allowances England and Wales: 1988–89 to 1992–93

  Academic year

  Number

  Gross value £ million

  1988–89

  12,700

  8.3

  1989–90

  14,250

  9.9

  1990–91

  17,000

  12.2

  1991–92

  23,000

  17.6

  1992–93

  32,500

  26.2

  1 The table shows the number of students in receipt of mandatory awards who qualify for the older students' allowance and the gross value of the allowances made.

  Student Maintenance
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what recent provisions her Department has made to alleviate student hardship;

  (2) if she will make a statement on the cut in student maintenance in the November budget; and what assessment she has made of possible adverse effects on the student population.

  Mr. Boswell
  The statement made by my right hon. Friend on 29 November last year said that, for those eligible for mandatory awards and student loans, the total support available through the main rates of grant and loan would increase by 2.5 per cent. for the 1995–96 academic year. The total support available through grant and loan has risen slightly in real terms since 1990 when loans were first introduced. The access funds can provide additional assistance to full-time students in particular need. The increase in student numbers over recent years does not suggest that students are being deterred from entering higher education on financial grounds.

  Student Loans Co.
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will make a statement on the Student Loans Co.;

  (2) what recent representations she has made to the Student Loans Co. for the improvement of waiting times for student appointments and communication within the service; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend annually sets performance targets for the Student Loans Co., including the payment of loans to students. The company has apologised for its recent failure to maintain its usual high standards. It is conducting a thorough review into recent delays in the payment of loans following the introduction of a simplified repeat application procedure, and the steps necessary to prevent a recurrence. As part of that review, the company will consult widely and the results will be reported to my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) how many students in the United Kingdom have applied for loans during the last 12 months; and what was the figure in 1992;

  (2) how many people are currently employed by the Student Loans Co.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is her estimate of the number of students in(a) Wales and (b) England who are awaiting money due from the Student Loans Co. for the start of the current academic year.
  341
  Mr. Boswell
  These are matters for the Students Loans Co. I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has had concerning late payments to students by the Student Loans Co.; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has received about 40 representations on delays in the processing of loans. The Department has also received a number of telephone calls from both students and higher education institutions.

  Residential Care Pupils
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many pupils in residential care are placed

  Disabled Students Allowances1: 1990–91 to 1992–93

  England and Wales

  Awards

  Expenditure £ thousands

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  North

  30

  80

  110

  51

  115

  164

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  50

  180

  350

  70

  231

  326

  North West

  150

  210

  380

  166

  271

  527

  East Midlands

  40

  150

  240

  29

  236

  459

  West Midlands

  70

  110

  190

  109

  194

  316

  East Anglia

  20

  50

  90

  19

  61

  134

  South East

  200

  450

  690

  277

  597

  1,136

  South West

  40

  130

  230

  82

  140

  398

  Total England2

  600

  1,340

  2,290

  803

  1,846

  3,460

  Wales

  40

  90

  200

  66

  114

  286

  Total England and Wales2

  640

  1,430

  2,490

  869

  1,959

  3,745

  Source:

  F503G

  Notes:

  1 The table shows the number of allowances, not the number of students. Students can received more than one type of disabled students' allowance.

  2 Constituent parts may not add through due to roundings.

SCOTLAND

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ordinary actions were raised in(a) Glasgow, (b) Edinburgh, (c) Aberdeen, (d) Paisley, (e) Dundee, (f) Airdrie and (g) Stornoway sheriff courts in November 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures for ordinary actions are set out in the following table:

  November 1994

  Ordinary actions

  (a) Glasgow

  743

  (b) Edinburgh

  469

  (c) Aberdeen

  282

  (d) Paisley

  212

  (e) Dundee

  163

  (f) Airdrie

  141

  (g) Stornoway

  11

  Student Funding
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average amount of funding for
  342
  in schools outside their local authority area (a) in Kirkless, (b) in all Yorkshire council areas and (c) nationally.

  Mr. Forth
  The information is not available centrally.

  Disabled Students' Awards
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 6 December 1994,Official Report, column 160 on disabled students' awards, if she will break down the figures by region or local authority.

  Mr. Boswell
  The number and gross value of disabled students' allowances made by local education authorities in England and Wales as part of mandatory awards in the academic years 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 are shown by region in the table.

  each student in higher education in Scotland in each year since 1987–88

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Complete information is not readily available in the form requested.

  The average amount per student of recurrent grant funding plus estimated publicly-funded tuition fees at the higher education institutions funded, since April 1993, by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council is as follows:

  Academic year

  Amount per student £

  1993–94

  5,100

  1994–95

  5,200

  Council of Europe
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in response to recommendation 1245 (1994) of the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe relating to detention pending trial; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Recommendation 1245 (1994) of the parliamentary Assembly of the
  343
  Council of Europe has yet to be approved by the Committee of Ministers. The existing requirements in Scots law in relation to the detention of persons pending trial are designed to balance the interests of the accused and the presumption of innocence with the interests of justice and public safety.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the pupil-teacher ratio for(a) primary and (b) secondary education authority schools; and what plans he has for improving such ratios.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The 1993–94 pupil-teacher ratios for primary and secondary education authority schools are 19.5 and 12.8 respectively. Staffing levels in schools, which clearly govern such ratios, are a matter for local authorities to determine.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the pupil-teacher ratio in independent and grant-aided schools for(a) under 11 years and (b) over 12 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information by age ranges in the form requested is not available. The overall pupil-teacher ratio in the independent and grant-aided—including grant-aided special—school sectors is 10.6:1 and 8.5:1 respectively.

  NHS Beds
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital NHS beds in each year since 1978, and for each area of Scotland, were available in total and by specialty for(a) acute, (b) intensive care, (c) long-term care (geriatric), (d) maternity (e) paediatric, (f) psychiatric and (g) casualty.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: I am arranging for the information on hospital NHS beds for the years since 1986 together with total numbers of hospital NHS beds for the years between 1978 and 1985 to be sent to the right hon. Member and placed in the Library of the House. Bed numbers for individual specialties are not readily available for the period between 1978 and 1985.

  Mr. Monser-al-Kassar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration led to the release from prison of Mr. Monser-al-Kassar.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  On 25 December 1977 Monser-al-Kassar completed a prison sentence which had been imposed on him. Thereafter he was detained as an illegal entrant and was removed as such to the Lebanon on 16 February 1978.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his letter of 31 August 1994 to Councillor Robert Gould of Strathclyde regional council, what are his latest estimates of the savings over 15 years of the revised structure of local government in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The estimated savings over 15 years due to local government re-organisation in Scotland remain those set out in my letter of 31 August to Mr. Gould, a copy of which I am depositing in the House Library.
  344

  Bellwin Scheme
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if capital expenditure by local authorities, including the capital repair of housing stock, is recoverable under the Bellwin scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Bellwin scheme applies only to expenditure of a current nature.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the cost of furniture storage by(a) local authorities, (b) individual tenants and (c) individual owner-occupiers will be rechargeable at 85 per cent. of gross costs under the Bellwin scheme.

  Mr. Stewart
  The cost to local authorities of storing furniture is in principle eligible for grant under the Bellwin scheme, provided that the other criteria of the scheme are met.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the elements of flood prevention measures which are reclaimable under the Bellwin scheme.

  Mr. Stewart
  The cost of emergency repairs to flood prevention work can be eligible for grant under the Bellwin scheme. The construction of new works, or the carrying out of longer-term works of reinstatement which would be of a capital rather than a current nature, are not eligible for such grant.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how affected regional and district authorities can maximise their claims in relation to the Bellwin scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The regional and district councils affected by the recent floods can maximise the assistance they obtain under the Bellwin scheme by ensuring that they include in their claims all items of expenditure eligible under the scheme. The Scottish Office finance circular number 6/1990, a copy of which is in the Library, gives guidance on what could be eligible under the scheme, and what is excluded. Officials of the Scottish Office have had discussions with some of the relevant councils to explain the arrangements and will give advice as necessary.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the trigger figure for the Bellwin scheme for each(a) district, (b) regional and (c) proposed unitary authority in Scotland.

  Mr. Stewart
  The present thresholds for all existing local authorities in Scotland are in the table. Thresholds for the new unitary authorities are not yet available.

  Authority

  1994–95 threshold £

  Regions:

  Borders

  164,304

  Central

  423,730

  Dumfries and Galloway

  234,432

  Fife

  541,408

  Grampian

  783,305

  Highland

  312,175

  Lothian

  1,183,230

  Strathclyde

  3,591,706

  Tayside

  601,048

  345

  Authority

  1994–95 threshold £

  Districts:

  Aberdeen

  49,357

  Angus

  21,821

  Annandale and Eskdale

  8,847

  Argyll and Bute

  15,170

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  2,640

  Banff and Buchan

  19,538

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  9,224

  Berwickshire

  4,537

  Caithness

  6,049

  Clackmannan

  11,268

  Clydebank

  10,764

  Clydesdale

  13,374

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  14,216

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  10,371

  Cunninghame

  32,182

  Dumbarton

  17,976

  Dundee

  38,859

  Dunfermline

  29,942

  East Kilbride

  19,490

  East Lothian

  20,023

  Eastwood

  13,685

  Edinburgh

  104,963

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  7,980

  Falkirk

  33,635

  Glasgow

  164,869

  Gordon

  16,932

  Hamilton

  24,654

  Inverclyde

  20,977

  Inverness

  14,342

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  19,221

  Kincardine and Deeside

  11,688

  Kirkcaldy

  34,978

  Kyle and Carrick

  27,047

  Lochaber

  4,404

  Midlothian

  18,387

  Monklands

  23,981

  Moray

  19,530

  Motherwell

  33,369

  Nairn

  2,433

  Nithsdale

  13,391

  North East Fife

  15,979

  Perth and Kinross

  29,132

  Renfrew

  46,490

  Ross and Cromarty

  10,928

  Roxburgh

  8,446

  Skye and Lochalsh

  2,678

  Stewartry

  6,658

  Stirling

  18,523

  Strathkelvin

  19,641

  Sutherland

  3,173

  Tweeddale

  3,587

  West Lothian

  33,431

  Wigtown

  7,134

  Islands:

  Orkney

  35,274

  Shetland

  39,053

  Western Isles

  52,413

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the dates on which the Bellwin scheme has been invoked in Scotland since 1980; if he will give the locations and reasons in each case; and if he will make a statement.
  346
  Mr. Stewart
  The Bellwin scheme was introduced in 1983. Since then, it has been triggered six times as follows:

  28 April 1989

  All Scotland.

  8 February 1990

  All Scotland.

  8 January 1991

  West of Scotland of which: Strathclyde Region, Highland Region, Dumfries and Galloway Region, Districts within those Regions, Western Isles Islands Council.

  10 January 1992

  Shetland Isles Islands Council, Orkney, Isles Islands Council, Western Isles Islands Council, Highland Region, Central Region. Districts within those Regions.

  18 January 1993

  Tayside Region. Districts within that Region.

  19 December 1994

  Strathclyde Region. Districts within that Region.

  In 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992 it was activated following a combination of flood and storm damage. In 1993 it was activated principally for the exceptional flooding in Tayside region, but this had been preceded by severe winds and blizzards.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the main components of expenditure which are reclaimable under the Bellwin scheme and those which are not; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Scottish Office finance circular No. 6/1990 sets out the rules governing the operation of the Bellwin scheme in Scotland.

  Eligible expenditure under the scheme must be incurred by a local authority in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or severe inconvenience to affected communities.

  The main categories of expenditure that could in principle be eligible under the Bellwin scheme are:
  the cost of additional temporary employees or of contractors called in to work directly on the emergency or to replace permanent employees diverted from their usual work;
  special overtime paid to permanent employees in the emergency or, later, to catch up on work from which they have diverted;
  the cost of hiring additional plant and machinery;
  emergency works required to safeguard dangerous structures, including temporary repairs to highways, pavements, footpaths; the cost of evacuating people from dangerous structures and temporarily housing them (including associated social services support);
  the costs of supplying food, other stores and key services to affected communities;
  the costs of maintaining key communications, in particular clearing of roads.

  Expenditure excluded from the scheme includes:
  the normal wages and salaries of the authority's regular employees or the standing costs of plant and equipment;
  the cost of dealing with any damage or loss that is insurable under normal insurance policies;
  longer-term works of repair and restoration, and repair and refurbishment of damaged but not dangerous structures;
  payment to householders and others in respect of damage to non-insurable items such as garden fences and trees and shrubs, unless action must be taken immediately because they present a danger to the community.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Bellwin scheme was(a) initiated and (b) last reviewed or revised; and if he will make a statement.
  347
  Mr. Stewart
  The Bellwin scheme has been in force since 1983 and specific statutory powers were provided in section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The scheme was last revised in March 1990 following the decision to increase the grant rate from 75 per cent. to 85 per cent.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Bellwin scheme as it applies to the victims of the Strathclyde floods in December 1994.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Bellwin scheme, through the assistance it gives to local authorities in dealing with the financial effects of emergencies, allows local authorities to provide relief and carry out immediate works to safeguard life or property or prevent suffering or inconvenience to affected communities in the knowledge that 85 per cent. of all eligible expenditure above each authority's threshold will be reimbursed by grant under the scheme.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total capacity and (b) the total number of abattoirs in Scotland in 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994; and how many abattoirs in Scotland now conform to the requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  Sir Hector Monro
  My Department does not hold data on the capacity of slaughterhouses. The number of abattoirs are as follows:

  Year

  Number of abattoirs1

  1979

  91

  1984

  75

  1989

  68

  1994

  49

  1 This figure includes slaughterhouses on the Scottish islands which operate for a short period each year and have a very low throughput.

  Currently, 49 abattoirs are licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992; of these, 17 are operating under a temporary derogation for structural upgrading.

  Flooding
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what specific assistance will be available to local authorities to undertake(a) temporary and (b) permanent flood prevention schemes in Strathclyde during the current financial year and in future years; if he will make additional capital and revenue funding available for flood prevention schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Strathclyde regional council is the flood prevention authority for its area. For immediate expenditure on emergency works and temporary repairs to existing flood defence works following severe flooding the Bellwin scheme will apply. The Scottish Office will by this means meet 85 per cent. of current expenditure incurred over the council's threshold.

  In the longer term, the council and its successor authorities will wish to consider what use it should make of its powers under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961. Government grant of 50 per cent. is available towards the eligible costs of approved schemes. I can
  348
  assure the hon. Member that any proposals for flood prevention schemes will be given prompt consideration and will be taken into account when setting the capital allocations at that time.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the definition of insurable as described in the Bellwin scheme; how this will apply to the property which was insurable, but not insured, in the recent floods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The cost of dealing with any damage or loss that is insurable under normal insurance policies is not eligible for grant under the Bellwin scheme. This applies irrespective of whether or not the damage or loss in question was in fact insured.

  It is for local authorities themselves to make their own insurance arrangements. Grant under the Bellwin scheme is not intended to recompense authorities for loss or damage against which they could have insured but chose in fact not to do so. Local authorities are therefore expected to demonstrate when submitting claims in respect of loss or damage to their own property that the property was not insurable in the normally accepted sense, and to indicate in their claims whether or not any property covered by the claim was insured, and if not, to give reasons why insurance had not been taken.

  These requirements are contained in Scottish Office Finance Circular No. 6/1990, which sets out the rules governing the Bellwin scheme and are those which will be applied to any claims from local authorities arising from the Strathclyde flooding.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what security arrangements were in place during his visit to the Paisley flood sites in the period between Christmas and new year; how often he has made official visits under these arrangements since he assumed his Cabinet post; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  It would be inappropriate on security grounds to give this information.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what assessment he has made of the causes of abnormal flooding in Renfrew district during recent months; what future measures he will take to identify the causes of such flooding; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will assist the financing of comprehensive hydrological study to examine the underlying reasons for the floods in Strathclyde during December 1994; if he will instruct appropriate departments of the Scottish Office to establish a task force to act as lead agency in such a study; if he will instruct or assist the development of related detailed hydrological studies of smaller geographical areas where flooding occurred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The floods were a consequence of exceptional rainfall leading to unprecedented flows in rivers over much of Strathclyde. It is important to record and analyse the details of the floods and their effects. My right hon. Friend is pleased to announce that he has agreed to pay £10,000 towards the costs of a comprehensive hydrological study being promoted by the Clyde River purification board. His officials will participate in the development and management of the study. Similarly there is likely to be a need for a separate study of urban watercourses and culverts and their role in flooding. Strathclyde regional council is the responsible authority and it is for it to take the lead. But here again the Scottish
  349
  Office is ready to provide support to Strathclyde regional council, both through a contribution to costs and participation in a steering group, should the council decide to promote such a study.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what ways the Clyde port authority has changed its policies and responsibilities for preventing floods since it was privatised; if he will publish a table showing(a) the location and (b) frequency of dredging operations for each of the three years which (i) preceded and (ii) followed privatisation; what assessment he has made of the responsibility of Clyde port authority in the recent floods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  Clydeport Ltd.—previously Clyde Port Authority—is not responsible for flood prevention. The company has a permissive power to dredge the Clyde river channel to the extent necessary for the maintenance and improvement of the port.

  Information about Clydeport Ltd.'s dredging operations is not readily available in the format requested. The information set out in the table has been supplied by Clydeport Ltd. but locations and frequencies vary according to operational requirements.

  Quantities dredged per annum from common river channel and Clydeport Operations Limited's operational docks and berths between Broomielaw and Newshot Light/Dalmuir

  Year

  Quantity (m3)

  1989

  228,872

  1990

  155,954

  1991

  222,199

  1992

  56,664

  1993

  62,825

  1994

  135,943

  1995 (planned)

  96,951

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his advice to residents who were victims of the Strathclyde floods who have to return to their homes before flood prevention measures have been put in place; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The Government fully recognise that residents remain concerned and will expect that immediate action can be taken to protect their property against the possibility of a recurrence. However the extent and priority of any flood prevention measures are matters for the regional council. Accordingly concerned residents should take every opportunity to let the council know how they feel and press for priority to be accorded to addressing their particular situations.

  In considering its response the council will be aware of the very extreme nature of the recent events and will have to make a careful assessment of risk to determine the degree of protection which any schemes it decides to implement might afford. Pending the development of any permanent flood prevention measures, councils may be able to advise on precautions residents could take to minimise damage to their property in the event of further flooding.

  Natural Disasters (Legislation)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the Acts of Parliament which apply to the prevention, operational action and relief of floods and other natural disasters in Scotland; if he will list the 350
  main provisions of each Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stewart
  The relevant Acts of Parliament with their main provisions are as follows:Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 which empowers regional and islands councils to carry out work to prevent or mitigate flooding of land in their area, not being agricultural land, so far as they think fit—section 1. Any work other than maintenance and management operations must be authorised by the Secretary of State—section 4.
  Coast Protection Act 1949 which empowers coast protection authorities (islands councils and councils of regions adjoining the sea) to carry out such coast protection work as may appear to them to be necessary or expedient for the protection of any land in their area—section 4. Certain coast protection work must be authorised by the Secretary of State—section 6.
  Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973—section 84—which allows local authorities to incur expenditure in taking action to avert, alleviate or eradicate in their area or among its inhabitants the effects or potential effects of an emergency or disaster involving destruction of or danger to life or property. Local authorities are also empowered to make grants or loans in respect of such action taken by others.
  Civil Protection in Peacetime Act 1986 which allows local authorities to use civil defence resources in taking action to avert, alleviate or eradicate in their area or among its inhabitants the effects or potential effects of an emergency or disaster involving destruction of or danger to life or property notwithstanding that the event is unconnected with any form of hostile attack by a foreign power—section 2.
  Local Government and Housing Act 1989—section 5—which empowers the Secretary of State to establish a scheme for the giving of financial assistance to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them on, or in connection with, the taking of immediate action (whether by the carrying out of works or otherwise) to safeguard life or property, or to prevent suffering or severe inconvenience, in their area or among their inhabitants. The expenditure must have been incurred as a result of an emergency or disaster involving destruction of or danger to life on property.
  Land Drainage (Scotland) Act 1958 which enables the owner of agricultural land, subject to authorisation by an improvement order made by the Secretary of State, to carry out such drainage work as will improve drainage or will prevent or mitigate flooding or erosion—section 1.
  The Agriculture Act 1970—section 29—empowers Ministers to make schemes for the provision of nationally-funded capital grants. Statutory Instrument 1989 No. 128 (as varied) gives effect to the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme—nationally. Under the scheme, grants are available for the improvement or alteration of the banks or channels of watercourses or other agricultural flood prevention works to provide or improve the drainage of agricultural land, or to prevent flooding or erosion of agricultural land.
  The Agricultural Act 1970—sections 92–94 as amended by the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) 1982—section 21—empowers river purification boards and islands councils to provide and operate flood warning systems for their areas.

  Incomes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will detail for each of the years since 1979–80 the household income distribution in Scotland, grouped into deciles for each year and expressed in both cash terms and at April 1994 prices, expressing them both before and after housing costs.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information in the form requested is not available. However, the Scottish "Abstract of Statistics" provides a breakdown of average weekly household income and expenditure in Scotland by different income bands. A copy is available in the Library.
  351

  Housing
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households are on the housing waiting lists of(a) local authorities, (b) new towns and (c) Scottish Homes.

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

  Police Overtime
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers(a) in Scotland and (b) in Grampian have submitted claims for (i) casual overtime, (ii) four or more separate periods of half hour casual overtime per week and (iii) three separate periods of half hour casual overtime per week, in the last full six month period for which records are available: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homes in Scotland have been repossessed as a result of mortgage arrears for each of the years since 1982–83.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We do not hold this information centrally. However, figures supplied by the Council of Mortgage Lenders suggest that, in 1993, 2,330 properties were taken into possession in Scotland. This represents 0.29 per cent. of the total number of properties with mortgages outstanding, which is around half the proportion for the United Kingdom as a whole.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients are waiting for hospital treatment in January 1995; and what were the figures for each of the last five years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]Information on numbers of patients waiting for in-patient and day case treatment for 30 September 1994, the latest date for which information is centrally available, and for each of the previous four years, is shown in the table. Information on numbers of patients waiting for out-patient treatment is not centrally available.

  NHSiS—waiting lists1; by type of patient; as at 30 September

  In-patients

  Day cases

  1990

  59,483

  17,892

  1991

  61,550

  20,243

  1992

  61,646

  22,228

  1993

  55,518

  26,728

  199422

  51,663

  28,048

  1 True waiting list. Excludes repeat and deferred waiting lists.

  2 Provisional.

  NHS Contracts
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of NHS contracts placed with non-NHS providers(a) in total, (b) by each health board,
  352
  (c)by each general practitioner fundholding practice and (d)by each trust.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: The total value of NHS contracts placed with non-NHS providers in 1993–94 was £16.255 million provisional figure only. This total is analysed by each health board as follows:

  Health Board

  £000

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,066

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1,504

  Borders

  1,355

  Dumfries and Galloway

  50

  Fife

  405

  Forth Valley

  368

  Grampian

  233

  Greater Glasgow

  7,730

  Highland

  142

  Lanarkshire

  2,625

  Lothian

  301

  Orkney

  2

  Shetland

  —

  Tayside

  474

  Western Isles

  —

  Total

  16,255

  The value of NHS contracts placed with non-NHS providers by each general practitioner fundholding practice and by each trust is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Health boards also have contracts with local authorities, hospices and voluntary agencies where these organisations are registered charities undertaking specific contracted activities but information on these is no longer collected centrally.

  NHS Services (Privatisation)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what NHS services have been privatised and which have been market tested since April 1991.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: Since April 1991, the Building Division of the Common Services Agency of the NHS in Scotland has been privatised through a sale as a going concern following a tendering exercise.

  Over the same period the following services have been market tested to a differing extent by health boards, the Common Services Agency and NHS trusts:

  cleaning

  catering

  portering

  grounds and estates maintenance

  linen and laundry

  electrical and mechanical engineering

  plumbing

  vehicle maintenance

  painting

  financial

  transport

  switchboard

  joinerwork

  wheelchair technical support

  clinical waste

  window cleaning

  air ambulance

  sterilising

  353
  The majority of contracts for these services have been won by in-house teams and the rest by private contractors.

  Health Education Authority
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to change the funding structure or remit of the Health Education Authority.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 January 1995]: Responsibility for the Health Education Authority lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The comparable Scottish organisation is the Health Education Board for Scotland. Matters such as funding and functions will fall to be considered in the quinquennial review of the board, which will be set in train in 1995.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Veal Crates
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many veal crates have been(a) manufactured in and (b) exported from the United Kingdom in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not available from official statistics.

  Saudi Arabia (Trade Mission)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost to his Department of its support of the trade mission of November 1994 to Saudi Arabia; and from which subheads of which votes these funds were taken.

  Mr. Needham
  There was no expenditure incurred by the Department of Trade and Industry for the British Aerospace Trade mission which took place in November 1994. The support offered for this trade mission was purely advisory.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the division of responsibilities and relationship between his departmental Ministers and agencies.

  Mr. Heseltine
  DTI Ministers determine the policy and resources framework within which each of our agencies operates, but do not normally become involved in the management of the agencies. The detail of the framework for each agency is set out in a framework document, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Copyright Directive
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his current timetable for implementation of the copyright term of the protection directive.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The directive requires member states to comply with its provisions by 1 July this year, and my intention is to lay the necessary implementing legislation before Parliament in sufficient time for it to come into force on that date.
  354

  Post Office
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the names and number of main post offices or Crown offices which have been converted by Post Office Counters Ltd. since 1988 into agency offices run under franchise agreements.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  I understand from the Post Office that since 1988, Post Office Counters Ltd. has converted 114 Crown post offices to agency offices operated under franchise agreements. A copy of the list of these offices is being placed in the Library of the House.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the quality of service provided by insolvency practitioners in relation to the preparation of initial misconduct reports in the light of the National Audit Office's report on company directors' disqualification; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Following the recommendations contained in the reports of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, the Insolvency Service's disqualification unit has been monitoring the effectiveness of its programme to improve the quality and timeliness of initial misconduct reports submitted by insolvency practitioners. During the half-year ended 30 June 1994, 58 per cent. of reports received were considered to be of an acceptable quality across a range of criteria, including timeliness; during the six months ended 31 December 1994 this increased to 80 per cent.

  Further improvements are expected when the unit commences a programme of guidance visits to practitioners who have a poor record of reporting; and after the introduction of revised report forms under the Government's de-regulation initiative.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give details of the costs and savings which would result from contracting out the mechanical processing work of the Insolvency Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Stoy Hayward Consulting concluded that the case for contracting out and value for money grounds needed to be tested; and that a bidding process would provide such a test.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are expected to be the redundancy costs which would result from contracting out the mechanical processing work of the Insolvency Service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No decision to contract out any functions of official receivers has been taken. It is therefore too early to say what, if any, redundancies would occur if such a decision were taken and what the related costs would be.

  In the event that such a decision were taken, however, every possible step would be taken to avoid redundancies wherever possible.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will now publish the Stoy Hayward report.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Stoy Hayward's report on options for involving the private sector in the work of the official receivers was published on 10 October 1994 by placing copies in the Libraries of the House and DTI library. The published version of the report does not
  355
  include the appendices produced by the consultants as these contain financial information which is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legal advice he has received on the impact that privatisation of the Insolvency Service could have on the disqualification of directors and the prosecution of directors and bankrupts and on the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No decision to contract out work of the official receivers has yet been taken; any decision would be subject to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and the procedures applicable to contracting out which are set out in it.

  In the circumstances, it is far too early to consider the issue of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, the implications of which may not become clear until the nature of proposals in any bidding process could be assessed.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what power the Department of Trade and Industry's Insolvency Service has over the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales or registered professional bodies if it is found that they have ignored their own bye laws on a practitioner's duty to the public.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Insolvency Service, through frequent contact with officials of the recognised professional bodies and formal visits, seeks to ensure that each body deals with complaints against its members fairly, promptly and in accordance with its own rules, and that there is consistency between the bodies. Consideration would be given to withdrawal of recognition if a body was found to be acting in disregard of its rules.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ensure that the facilities of the Insolvency Service continue to be provided within the public sector; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The policy of Her Majesty's Government is that where work can appropriately be undertaken in the private sector it should be, subject to that representing value for money.

  In the event that a decision is taken to contract out certain of the functions of official receivers to the private sector, official receivers, as statutory office holders, would continue to be legally responsible for the discharge of those functions. Furthermore, the work undertaken by Stoy Hayward concluded that the contracting out of administrative functions would enable official receivers to concentrate on their investigative role.

  Paper Products (EC Preference Scheme)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the details of the outcome of negotiations with the European Community on revision of the generalised system of preferences scheme and its impact upon paper products.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Negotiations on the European Community's new generalised system of preferences were concluded on 19 December 1994. Paper products are classified in chapters 47 to 49 of the common customs tariff. All imports of such products classified in chapter 356
  47 enter the Community free of duty. Paper products in chapter 48 of the tariff, imported from developing countries under the GSP scheme, enter the Community free of duty. Of those products in chapter 49 of the tariff, which are subject to duty, most are on the list of products categorised as being "sensitive" for Community industry. Imports of these products from GSP countries will therefore be charged 70 per cent. of the normal duty. Because imports of paper products from Brazil have become highly competitive, they will no longer be eligible for GSP benefits from 1 January 1996.

  Electricity Companies
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to introduce legislation to prevent foreign ownership of regional electricity companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no such plans.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make a decision about the application by Nuclear Electric plc to build Sizewell C power station in Suffolk; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Both relevant planning authorities, the Suffolk county council and the Suffolk Coastal district council, have objected to the application. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is therefore statutorily obliged to call for a public inquiry to be held. Details of the public inquiry will be announced as soon as practicable.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the outcome of the nuclear review.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 19 October 1994,Official Report, column 239.

  Radar Jammers
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to prevent the sale in the United Kingdom of non-transmitter radar jammers.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Responsibility for the regulation of civil radio use in the United Kingdom has been delegated to the Radiocommunications Agency, under its chief executive Mr. Jim Norton. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Colin Pickthall, dated 16 January 1995:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Question about the sale of radar jammers.
  I presume you are concerned about equipment which it is claimed can either simply detect (ie receive) the operation of a police radar speedmeter or in some cases neutralise it. Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 Orders can be made prohibiting the import, sale, manufacture or possession of radio apparatus which has the ability to cause interference to other radio use. The majority of radar detectors are simply radio receivers and are therefore inherently incapable of transmitting or causing interference to other radio use. Consequently it is not possible to make an Order under the Act prohibiting their sale, etc.
  An Order could only be made in respect of those radar detectors which it is claimed neutralise police radars, by reflecting their signal,

  357
  if it could be proved that they were so capable. To date we have no such evidence.
  It is however an offence under the provisions of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (the 1949 Act) to use any apparatus for the purpose of unauthorised reception or interfering with wireless telegraphy. Under this Act there is no bar as to who may instigate proceedings for offences under the Act. The Courts have also previously held that to offer for sale radio equipment which cannot be lawfully used is to incite members of the public to contravene the 1949 Act contrary to common law. Where radio equipment has been designed to be used for, or is used in the pursuit of other illegal activity, it is normal for the police or other relevant enforcement body to take the lead in any investigation. The Agency willingly assists in the investigation, by providing legal or technical advice, if asked to do so.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Textiles
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent changes there have been in the criteria or regulations for the granting of(a) regional selective assistance and (b) other development aid for expansion by textile firms in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  The award of RSA and other development aid in support of expansion projects being undertaken by firms in the textiles and clothing sector is governed by EC state aid rules. Uncertainties arose last year about the need to give prior notification to the Commission of proposed aid to such projects. The temporary procedures introduced while member states reviewed the situation with the Commission, have now been removed and RSA and other forms of Government assistance continues to be available under established criteria.

  Mortgage Interest Insurance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information he has on the average insurance premium for a mortgagor wishing to take out insurance to cover mortgage interest payments in the event of unemployment and the total annual cost of such premiums for all those with mortgages.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) on 9 December 1994,Official Report, columns 390–91.

  >Self-regulatory Professional Bodies
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to institute an independent watchdog to oversee professional bodies which have self-regulatory powers.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have no plans to establish a body to oversee, professional bodies which have self-regulatory powers.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received that the recognised professional bodies, to whom he has granted self-regulatory powers, are not acting within their own guidelines on the question of integrity within their complaints procedure.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have, on occasion, received representations that a complaint made against a member of a recognised professional body has not been dealt with 358
  fairly and/or promptly. Such representations are taken up by my officials.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to take action against members of registered professional bodies who fail to work within their own fundamental principles.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Where a recognised professional body is satisfied that a member has not observed the rules and regulations of the body which governs his professional conduct, it is a matter for that body to decide what disciplinary action should be taken.

  Insolvency Practitioners
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to ensure that the fees of insolvency practitioners and the professionals they employ are levied at a fixed rate.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In most types of insolvency, the creditors fix the fees of the insolvency practitioner, subject to review by the court. In an administrative receivership, the fee payable is a matter for agreement between the debenture holder appointing him, and the insolvency practitioner, although it may be reviewed by the court on the application of a liquidator. It would not be practicable to specify rates of payment for services provided to an insolvency practitioner by other professionals.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to require that an insolvency practitioner appointed as a receiver should be a person different from the accountant or insolvency practitioner which prepared the report on the company's affairs.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The arguments for and against preventing accountants who act as advisers to banks from acting as administrative receivers of client companies have been considered and I am not convinced that the practice should be proscribed.

  Company Liquidations
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to extend the receiver's duty of care to include the unsecured creditors and/or a guarantor of a company in receivership.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have no plans to do so.

  British Coal Assets
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what considerations underlay his decision not to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the proposed acquisition by R.J.B. Mining of certain assets of British Coal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's decision not to refer the proposed acquisition of certain assets of British Coal, namely the Harworth methane power generating plant and the minerals and aggregates, other than coal, extracted from opencast sites of Central North, South and North East Regional Coal companies, was in accordance with the Director General of Fair Trading's advice, which is confidential. My right hon. Friend took into account all relevant factors and concluded that the case raised no concerns justifying a reference.
  359

  Offshore Oil Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to ensure that vessels and equipment for the new offshore Atlantic oil fields are built in Britain.

  Mr. Eggar
  A number of the oil and gas developments in the Atlantic are likely to use floating production facilities and my Department established a working group last year to assess the demand and United Kingdom companies' ability to compete for these facilities. The group was also asked to identify steps to strengthen United Kingdom competitiveness and its recommendations are being pursued with the industry. As a result of this work, the competitive position of United Kingdom companies has already improved.

  Cable Damage
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated cost of repairing damage to other undertakers' cables by NYNEX in the Bolton metro area covered by North West Gas Board and North West Electricity.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Cable operators' streetworks are subject to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, which makes an undertaker liable to pay compensation for damage caused to another undertaker's apparatus. The estimated cost of repair for damage is therefore a matter for NYNEX.

  HPC Virus
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to review the law of intellectual property in the United Kingdom following the decision of the High Court of Justice that Chiron Corporation of California has intellectual ownership of the virus HPC; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  There is no reason to review existing patent law following the High Court decision in the Chiron case. The law is designed to encourage research

  Total exports outside EC: 1974, 1991–1993

  Units: Metric tonnes

  Products

  1974

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Cereals

  9,288,000

  21,801,506

  27,095,031

  23,616,767

  Rice

  291,000

  501,722

  495,181

  244,510

  Sugar

  270,000

  4,528,622

  4,663,957

  5,414,515

  Olive oil

  12,300

  175,751

  190,265

  182,412

  Oilseeds

  255,400

  126,729

  272,133

  128,396

  Fruit and Veg Fresh

  n/a

  3,199,957

  3,191,777

  4,244.761

  Fruit and Veg Processed

  n/a

  359,525

  342,701

  350,209

  Wine

  360,800

  1,057,813

  1,069,320

  1,418,278

  Tobacco

  n/a

  139,355

  119,527

  147,056

  Cheese

  188,500

  483,582

  466,229

  524,034

  Butter

  118,500

  301,636

  223,616

  184,563

  Skimmed Milk

  339,000

  241,834

  384,471

  276,338

  Beef and Veal

  178,000

  1,059,232

  1,051,712

  1,029,904

  Sheep Meat

  2,900

  38,862

  7,712

  6,676

  Poultry

  141,000

  469,333

  511,497

  652,320

  Pigmeat

  271,000

  366,226

  244,729

  361,624

  Eggs

  31,300

  104,873

  106,401

  110,089

  Source:

  1974 figures: The Agricultural Sitation in the Community 1976 Report.

  1991–93 fifures: COMEXT

  1974 figures are expressed to nearest 100 tonnes
  360
  and development in all fields of technology, including biotechnology, where inventions satisfying the criteria of patentability—novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability—are eligible for protection.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Support
  Mr. Austin Michell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the annual cost to the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years of EEC expenditure on agricultural support.

  Mr. Jack
  The Exchequer cost of agricultural support under EC schemes within the UK is set out in table 9.1 of the editions of the "Agriculture in UK" from 1988 to 1993, and for years prior to 1988 in table 9.1 of the Government White Paper, "The Annual Review of Agriculture". These publications have been deposited in the Library of the House of Commons. The 1994 edition of "Agriculture in the UK" will be published in March. The UK also contributes to the cost of EC agricultural support in other member states through our net contributions to the EC budget.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of each CAP product was dumped on world markets in(a) 1974 and (b) each of the past three years; and what was the loss per tonne incurred in each case.

  Mr. Jack
  Certain agricultural exports benefit from refunds which bridge the gap between EU internal and world price levels. The total volumes of CAP products exported from the EU in 1974 and in the last three years are given in the first table.

  Since only some of these exports are subsidised by refunds, it is not possible to give a rate of expenditure per tonne for each commodity. Total expenditure on export refunds by commodity is shown in the second table.
  361

  MUA1

  MECU

  MECU

  MECU

  Export refunds on:

  1974

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Cereals

  76

  3,602

  3,140

  2,789

  Rice

  0.5

  78

  92

  59

  Sugar

  8

  1,251

  1,306

  1,531

  Olive Oil

  0.8

  112

  48

  69

  Oilseeds

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fruit and Veg—Fresh

  18

  77

  92

  156

  Fruit and Veg—Processed

  2—

  18

  25

  31

  Wine

  0.1

  56

  77

  100

  Tobacco

  0

  65

  57

  36

  Milk Products

  344

  2,249

  2,056

  2,287

  Beef

  55

  1,282

  1,333

  1,712

  Sheepmeat

  N/A

  0

  0

  0

  Pigmeat

  56

  199

  130

  193

  Eggs and Poultry

  17

  169

  193

  291

  Total

  575.4

  9,158

  8,549

  9,254

  Source:

  1974: 1991–93 FEOGA Financial Reports.

  Notes:

  1 mua = millions of units of account.

  2 For 1974 expenditure for fruit and veg refers to fresh and processed as a whole.

  Exchange Rates:

  1974: 1 u.a = £0.5098

  1991: 1 ecu = £0.69973

  1992: 1 ecu = £0.70765

  1993: 1 ecu = £0.78627

  Fishing
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter, reference 81869, of 7 November 1994, to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, what discussions he is having with the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation Scientific Council on the moratorium for the fishing for capelin(a) off east Greenland and (b) on the Grand banks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jack
  There is a moratorium on the fishery for capelin on the Grand banks for 1995. The Scientific Council of the North West Atlantic Fisheries Organisation will make its recommendations for the 1996 total allowable catch to the annual meeting of NAFO in September 1995, at which the United Kingdom will be represented within the EU delegation.

  The NAFO Scientific Council does not give advice on the capelin stock at East Greenland, Iceland and Jan Mayen. This is provided by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and management decisions are taken jointly by the Greenlandic, Icelandic and Norwegian authorities. The ICES advice in May 1994 was for a TAC for 1994–1995 of 1,430,000 tonnes.

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date in 1994 he released the first suckler cow premium advance subsidy cheques to English farmers.

  Mr. Jack
  The first advance payments of the 1994 suckler cow premium were sent to farmers in England on 1 November 1994. This is the earliest date permitted by the EU regulations.
  362

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the members of his think tank on CAP reform were first identified by the Public Appointments Unit.

  Mr. Jack
  None of the members of the CAP policy group were identified by the public appointments unit. Members were recruited from among contacts known to the Department, on the basis of their individual ideas and reputation for imaginative thinking, as well as their practical experience.

  Infant Formulae
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends making the United Kingdom regulations to implement EC directives 91/321 and 95/52 on the composition, labelling and marketing of infant and follow-on formulae.

  Mrs. Browning
  The infant formula and follow-on formula regulations 1995 have been laid before Parliament today and will come into force on 1 March 1995 to implement the relevant EC legislation.

  Following consultation, the Government have concluded that the current controls on advertising, which have been operated voluntarily by the industry, should be maintained where possible. We have therefore sought to incorporate the existing arrangements into the new regulations.

  Agricultural Wages Board
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the employers' response to the consultation regarding the decision to retain the agricultural wages board.

  Mr. Jack
  The consultation period on the future operation of the agricultural wages board ran from July to November 1993. Over that period, almost 4,000 responses were received with only 10 advocating abolition of the board. Most employers and organisations representing employers' interests recommended retention; however, those responses recommending abolition came from employer interests. An analysis of responses was placed in the Library of the House on 9 June 1994. We also took into account comments received after the close of the formal consultation period.

  Some further representations suggesting abolition of the board came from employers and organisations representing employers in the horticulture, poultry and mushroom sectors, with most noting concerns for their sectors of the particular impact of the 1994 AWB minimum wage settlement. However, the views of the great majority of employers and the main representative organisations remained unchanged.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the decision to retain the agricultural wages board on wage rates and wage rate differentials in the agricultural sector.

  Mr. Jack
  The agricultural wages board is an independent organisation and reaches its own decisions on minimum wage rates and differentials. It is not possible to predict the future impact of the board's determinations on levels of remuneration in the agricultural sector.
  363

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on calves from Ireland being exported to the continent through Plymouth docks; and whether the British regulations as regards journey plans and feeding, watering and resting intervals apply to them.

  Mrs. Browning
  Movements of such animals from the Republic or Northern Ireland are covered by the provisions of the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1992 once the animals come within British jurisdiction and hauliers are required to comply with those provisions.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many animals were classed as too unwell to travel from Plymouth docks to France on the night of 19 December 1994;

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the welfare of livestock being transported abroad can be adequately accounted for when said livestock is in lorries on boats and the drivers of the lorries are not on the boats; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the lorries exporting livestock from Plymouth docks on the night of 19 December 1994; how many lorries were turned away; and for what reasons.

  Mrs. Browning
  None of the animals inspected at the dock while in their lorries were considered too unwell to travel. However two lorries loaded with sheep were turned away because the veterinary inspection for health certification purposes had taken place more than 48 hours prior to their loading—the maximum period permitted under EC health rules. The ship sailed with 12 lorries on board and their drivers. Officials are now satisfied with the arrangements made by the shipping company to provide standby drivers on the French side for any lorry not accompanied by its driver. The vessel sails with a veterinary surgeon who assumes responsibility for the welfare of the animals until such time as they are driven away from the port of disembarkation.

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the recent obstruction of vehicles carrying live animals for slaughter abroad.

  Mrs. Browning
  We deplore the activities of those who would disrupt by violent means the lawful activities of those engaged in this trade.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was(a) the total capacity and (b) the total number of abattoirs in England in 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994; and how many abattoirs in England now conform to the requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of licensed red meat abattoirs in England were:

  1979: 977

  1984: 961

  1989: 689

  1994: 424

  In 1994 all 424 abattoirs were licensed under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992; 274 were operating under temporary derogations while
  364
  upgrading their premises to comply in full with the structural requirements.

  The Department does not hold figures on the total capacity of abattoirs.

  Veal
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what public funding has been made available to promote the marketing of humanely reared veal in each of the years since the use of veal crates was banned in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Browning
  The marketing development scheme is available for a broad range of marketing projects. This could include the marketing of humanely-produced veal, but no application has to date been made for this purpose.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are the members currently appointed to the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

  Mrs. Browning
  The current membership of the Farm Animal Welfare Council is as follows:

  Professor Sir Colin R. W. Spedding CBE—Chairman

  Mr. C. B. Atkinson

  Dr. M. R. Baxter

  Mr. M. G. Berry

  Rev. A. L. Birbeck MBE

  Dr. W. J. M. Black JP

  Professor D. M. Broom

  Mr. J. A. R. Dewhirst

  Mr. T. C. Harris

  Mrs. F. F. Hodgson

  Mr. C. T. P. Hollands OBE

  Mrs. J. A. MacArthur Clark

  Mr. R. Macpherson

  Miss C. A. Milburn

  Dr. M. Pattison

  Mr. F. E. Shields MBE

  Mr. P. F. Staines MBE

  Mr. J. G. Thomas

  Mrs. J. M. Tumbull JP

  Mr. A. Watkins

  Mrs. T. M. Wickham

  Dr. A. C. Winter

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on actions taken by his Department in response to recommendation 92–7 of the air accidents investigation branch report No. 2/92.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department, in conjunction with the Civil Aviation authority, has actioned the recommendation as follows:

  (i) Civil operators continue to be notified of intense military low flying through the notice to airmen system.

  (ii) Aeronautical information circular 63/1992 was published to provide civil users with information about the United Kingdom military low flying system, and advice on how to reduce the risk of confliction with military low-flying aircraft. a revised version, AIC 89/1993, was issued in June 1993.

  Additionally, in response to recommendation 92–8 of the same Report, my Department has provided details, for inclusion on Civil Aviation Authority charts, of the

  365
  unidirectional flows which apply to military aircraft in areas of greatest density of activity or where activity is restricted to a narrow corridor between avoidance areas.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are imposed on the activation of on-board electronic counter-measures equipment by aircrew performing simulated low-level attacks on threat emitters located outside range areas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Soames
  There are strict procedures covering the activation of on-board electronic countermeasures equipment and no airborne jamming is permitted without prior authorisation having been granted or without two-way communications with the controlling authority.

  Skyguard
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if aircrew carrying out sorties in the United Kingdom low flying system are informed of the locations of Skyguard radars deployed as electronic threat emitters in the low flying system.

  Mr. Soames
  When Skyguard is deployed outside RAF Spadeadam as an electronic warfare threat emitter, aircrews participating in the exercise may be informed of the location depending on the nature of the exercise.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of deployments of Skyguard radars in the electronic warfare threat simulator role beyond the Spadeadam range boundaries since January 1992.

  Mr. Soames
  The dates and locations of deployments of the Skyguard radar in the electronic warfare threat role outside RAF Spadeadam since January 1992 are as follows:

  Date

  Location

  17–22 May 1992

  South Wales

  25–29 January 1993

  Sanquhar, Dumfries

  11–16 July 1993

  South Wales

  26 November-3 December 1993

  Tiverton, Devon

  6–10 December 1993

  Hunterston Power Station, Strathclyde

  11–15 April 1994

  RAF Odiham area, Hampshire

  11–15 July 1994

  Rhayader, Powys

  24 September-1 October 1994

  Liskeard, Cornwall

  6–10 November 1994

  Oban, Strathclyde

  Tornado F3 Squadrons
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF Tornado F3 squadrons will be assigned to the NATO immediate reaction forces (air) from January 1995; and what proposals he has to increase this number.

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our practice to disclose such details of assigned forces. The annual statement on the defence estimates does, however, describe the assets planned to be assigned against NATO reaction forces generally.

  Holloman Air Force Base
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held with(a) the United States authorities and (b) the German authorities
  366
  concerning the development of facilities at Holloman air force base, New Mexico, for Royal Air force training.

  Mr. Soames
  No such discussions have been held.

  NATO Reaction Forces (Air)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to designate specific air bases in the United Kingdom as locations for deployment and joint training by units of the NATO reaction forces (air).

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  RAF Spadeadam
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the payments made by foreign air forces for use of the Spadeadam electronic warfare range facilities are credited to RAF Spadeadam's own financial accounts.

  Mr. Soames
  Payments made to the RAF by foreign air forces for the use of the range at RAF Spadeadam are credited to RAF Spadeadam's budget.

  Slovakia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the aims of the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence to Slovakia in August 1994; and what agreements were reached with the Slovak authorities as a result of that visit.

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence visited Solvakia in August 1994 to represent the United Kingdom at the commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the Slovak national uprising. During discussions with the Slovak Defence Minister it was agreed that units of the armed forces of the Slovak Republic and of the United Kingdom should in future co-operate through a series of joint military exercises and that our respective military authorities would meet jointly to develop proposals. It was further agreed that this would be complemented by a programme of closer and more substantial military contracts.

  RAF Training (Morocco)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the dates, locations, and numbers and types of aircraft involved in the next planned Royal Air Force training deployment to Morocco.

  Mr. Soames
  On current plans, six Royal Air Force Tornado GRIB aircraft will detach to Sidi Slimane air base in Morocco from 24 to 31 March to participate in a bilateral exercise with the Moroccan air force.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.UK" or any specific departmental server.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Ms Campbell) on 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 913.
  367

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether United Kingdom forces in battle during(a) the Falklands and (b) the Gulf conflicts deployed any of their stocks of German manufactured anti-personnel mines.

  Mr. Soames
  The UK has not held stocks of German manufactured anti-personnel mines since 1983. The last such mines still held at the time of the Falklands conflict were obsolete and were not deployed with British forces.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which manufacturers are currently supplying the United Kingdom armed forces with anti-personnel land mines, including those with self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms.

  Mr. Freeman
  None.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of anti-personnel land mines, including those with self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms, are currently in use or stocked by the United Kingdom armed forces.

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom armed forces have in stock and available for use the following anti-personnel land mines:

  (a) Mine, anti-personnel C3 (Elsie)

  (b) Mine, anti-personnel M18 A1 (Claymore)

  (c) Mine, anti-personnel L10 (Ranger)

  None of the above types have self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what definitions are used by his Department for(a) self-destruct and (b) self-neutralising anti-personnel land mines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Ministry of Defence is using the definitions included in the draft of protocol II of the UN weaponry convention, namely:

  (a) Self-destruction mechanism means an incorporated automatically functioning mechanism which secures the destruction of the munition.

  (b) Self-neutralising mechanism means an incorporated automatically functioning mechanism which renders a munition inoperable.

  Service Personnel
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the statistics for divorces amongst service personnel for the period 1990 to 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  The number of recorded divorces for Army and Royal Air Force personnel is as follows:

  Army

  RAF

  1990

  1,409

  867

  1991

  1,352

  862

  1992

  1,347

  824

  1993

  1,157

  779

  Figures for calendar year 1994 are not yet available.

  The information requested for Royal Navy personnel is not held in a form which is readily available and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify, by rank and by service, the entitlement to free trips home each year by personnel 368
  serving overseas; and if he will set out the cost of this provision for the financial year 1993–94 and 1994–95

  Mr. Soames
  Generally, only serving personnel who are married but not accompanied by their wives, or single personnel under 25, with an expectation of at least 12 months service overseas, have the option of a return trip to the United Kingdom at public expense. Subsequently, there is an entitlement for a further return trip at public expense for each additional year overseas. This entitlement is not based on rank or service. Among the exceptions to the standard scheme are the Ascension Islands, Diego Garcia and the Falkland Islands, where service personnel in other domestic circumstances may also be entitled to such travel. Details of the costs of this provision are not held separately and could not be provided.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 897, if he will set out those officials who left the Defence Services Organisation to join defence or defence-related companies.

  Mr. Freeman
  Approval was given for the following applications from two officers in the Defence Export Services Organisation. It is not known if they were taken up.

  BAe

  1 x Commander RN

  Computer Devices

  1 x Commander RN

  EDS/Scicon

  1 x Commander RN

  Ferranti International

  1 x Commander RN

  GEC-Marconi Naval Systems

  1 x Commander RN

  Marconi (Underwater) Systems

  1 x Commander RN

  MSI Defence Systems

  1 x Commander RN

  NI Tech

  1 x Commander RN

  Vosper Thornycroft

  1 x Commander RN

  Yarrow Shipbuilders

  1 x Commander RN

  Opearation Granby
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if animals are used in scientific experiments relating to illness arising out of Operation Granby; and if he will make a statement.

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

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 16 January 1995:

  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if animals are used in scientific experiments relating to illness arising out of Operation GRANBY and if he will make a statement has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.

  3. No work is being carried out at CBDE to investigate illness which may have arisen out of Operation GRANBY.

  4. However, following the Gulf conflict, increased emphasis has been placed on biological defence which primarily consists of detection and medical countermeasures. The programme of work on medical countermeasures includes the continuing study of both

  369
  vaccines and antibiotics against a range of potential biological warfare agents. This work has necessitated the use of more animals.

  Boarding School Allowance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children of serving officers in each service have school fees subsidised at public expense; which schools are involved; how many children of service personnel attend each; and what was the cost of this provision for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department provides support to service parents for the education of their children by means of boarding school allowance; this is paid to assist in providing a stable education for their children in the face of the domestic turbulence frequently encountered in service life. The numbers of children in receipt of boarding school allowance in the academic year 1993–94, broken down by service, was: Royal Navy 2,492; Army 6,034; Royal Air Force 4,041. The cost of this provision for 1993–94 was £113.61 million. The total estimated expenditure for financial year 1994–95 is £104 million. Total expenditure reflects both the rate of the allowance and the total number of children in receipt of the allowance per term. I am arranging for a copy of the most recent, June 1994, list of schools and the number of children attending those schools who are in receipt of boarding school allowance to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children have benefited from the boarding school allowance in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Soames
  The total number of children for whom boarding school allowance was claimed in the academic years in question was:

  1990–1991: 17,910

  1991–1992: 16,208

  1992–1993: 15,120

  1993–1994: 12,567

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make statement about his future plans for the service children's boarding school allowance scheme.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no plans to amend the service children's boarding school allowance scheme. Service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service are, however, at present the subject of an independent review which I announced on 30 March 1994,Official Report, column 752.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the boarding school allowance scheme in each of the last five years; and what is the projected cost for 1995–96.

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost to my Department of boarding school allowance for the years in questions was:

  1990–1991: £105,61 million

  1991–1992: £115.35 million

  1992–1993: £116.72 million

  1993–1994: £113.61 million

  The total estimated expenditure for financial year 1994–95 is £104 million. Total expenditure reflects both the rate of the allowance and the total number of children in receipt of the allowance per term and it is not therefore possible to give an accurate assessment of the likely costs for 1995–96, although they are estimated to be similar to the amounts for 1994–95.
  370
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the private and independent schools which take children paid for from the service boarding allowance and have had full Ofsted reports; and if he will list those schools where all of the service parents have received copies of these reports in the last two years.

  Mr. Soames
  The total list of Ofsted reports on schools at which children benefitting from boarding school allowance are being educated is as follows:

  School

  Sherborne preparatory school, Dorset

  Ofsted reports already forwarded to parents

  Finborough school, Suffolk

  Lime House school, Cumbria

  Roedean school. East Sussex

  St. Mary's school, East Sussex

  Caldicott school, Bucks

  Ofsted reports currently being Forwarded to parents

  Perrott Hill school, Crewkerne

  Seaford college, near Petworth

  Shrewsbury school, Shropshire

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department uses to determine whether a private or independent school may receive funding through the boarding school allowance scheme.

  Mr. Soames
  A list of some 800 schools in respect of which boarding school allowance may be paid is kept by my Department. Schools on the list are those which provide a normal standard of United Kingdom education and whose boarding facilities are under their immediate control. The school must also be registered with the Department for Education and must attain the acceptable standard of education as required by that Department. Further to this, the Service Children's Education Authority conducts its own school visits to satisfy itself as to the quality of accommodation and pastoral activities available.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all parents of children benefiting from the service boarding allowance have received copies of Ofsted reports made on those schools that have had a full inspection in the last two years.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has been provided with copies of reports dating back to February 1993. Since April 1994, the Office for Standards in Education has included the Service Children's Education Authority on the distribution lists of their inspection reports for private and independent schools. It is my Department's policy for the SCEA to forward these reports to service personnel whose children are identified as attending those schools. Due to an administrative error, a number of recent Ofsted reports had not been passed to the SCEA for onward transmission to parents, but this situation is now being rectified.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and locations of the private and independent schools receiving moneys from the service children's boarding school allowance; and if he will give the number of service children at each of the schools listed and show how much each school is receiving.

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave today to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Information on how much each school
  371
  receives in boarding school allowance is not maintained centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  RAF Houses (Sales)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the sale price of 42 former RAF houses at Shotley gate, Ipswich.

  Mr. Soames
  Forty-two properties at Shotley gate were sold by competitive tender in December 1994. The price achieved is commercial-in-confidence.

  Dress Allowance
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, by service, the number of spouses of serving officers who are entitled to dress allowances at public expense; and if he will identify the cost of this provision for the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Soames
  No spouses of serving officers are entitled to dress allowance at public expense.

  LSD Experiments
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December,Official Report, columns 312–13, in what years the Moneybags experiments were carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down.

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

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 January 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December, Official Report, Columns 312–3, asking in what years the Moneybags experiments were carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Potion Down, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent.
  3. Moneybags was carried out in 1964 and was one in a series of studies carried out in the 1960s to assess the effects of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who had been given LSD could be compared with those control volunteers who had not been given LSD.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of LSD experiments called Recount carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years the Recount experiments were conducted; how many service volunteers were tested under the Recount experiments; what were the lowest and highest doses administered to service volunteers during the Recount experiments; what those volunteers were required to do under the Recount experiments and what types of animals were used; what was the conclusion of the Recount experiments; with which countries the results of those experiments were 372
  shared; and under which defence agreement the results were shared with those countries.

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

  Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 January 1995:
  1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about work carried out with LSD at Porton Down known as Recount has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
  2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent.
  3. Recount which took place in 1966 was one in a series of studies carried out to assess the effects of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who had been given LSD could be compared with those control volunteers who had not been given LSD. The aim of Recount was to assess the incapacitant effects of small amounts of LSD on a unit of soldiers. Eighty men volunteered and were examined by a clinician, underwent a battery of psychometric tests and were interviewed by a psychiatrist to determine their suitability for exposure to LSD. In the event it was not found possible to include 27 men in the experiment, because their occupations (e.g., driver, cooks) were unsuitable and a further 34 were eliminated for either clinical or psychiatric reasons or a combination of both, and three were not available on the trial days. Some 28 Service volunteers participated of which 16 received LSD with the lowest and highest doses being 63 and 97 µg respectively and the other 12 were controls. This was given orally in water. No animals were involved.
  4. Recount was designed to reproduce a normal military task which in this case was the deployment of an air defence regiment in the field and such an activity involved considerable use of integrative and planning skills.
  5. Recount showed that the soldiers suffered a minor decrease in performance and the overall effects of this small dose of LSD were minimal. All the affected soldiers were examined and judged to have returned to normal within 24 hours.
  6. It was concluded that even when a military unit is mildly affected by LSD the compensation resulting from good discipline and mutual support, between drugged and undrugged soldiers, can leave the unit relatively unaffected, in trial conditions at least, for a short task.
  7. The results from Recount formed part of the technology database held by the Establishment in the area of evaluation of the potential hazard to Service personnel from possible chemical warfare agents. This information was drawn upon during the 1960s and 1970s in the agreements with our NATO allies to exchange information and so promote collaboration and cooperation in areas such as research and development in chemical and biological defence. The agreements with the United States at that time included:

  a. The Technical Cooperation Programme involving UK, US, Canada and Australia which had subsumed the earlier trilateral UK/US/Canada meetings.

  b. American, British, Canadian and Australian Armies (ABCA) agreement Quadripartite Working Group (QWG) on NBC defence.

  c. The NATO Panel VII on chemical and biological defence.

  Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning post-traumatic stress disorder; what research has been conducted into it by his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  373
  Mr. Soames
  My Department's response to post-traumatic stress disorder has three elements: prevention, recognition and treatment. Prevention and recognition of PTSD are combined command and medical responsibilities involving general education, pre-deployment psychiatric briefing, in-theatre education and counselling and post-deployment debriefing. The treatment of PTSD is undertaken by service psychiatric staff using internationally established and clinically recognised techniques.

  Research within my Department into the disorder continues and a wide variety of PTSD-related articles written by members of the armed forces medical services have been published in professional journals. The progress of the large volume of outside research is also carefully monitored.

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many retained sites in Cyprus were controlled by the United Kingdom under the London and Zurich agreements of 1960; how many of these retained sites have since been handed over to the control of the Cyprus Government; and at how many, and which, locations retained sites have been handed over to the Cyprus Government since the division of the island in 1974.

  Mr. Soames
  The treaty of establishment 1960 provided for 40 British retained sites in the Republic of Cyprus. They are listed in four schedules which form a part of that treaty, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Since then 25 complete sites and parts of six sites have been returned. Of these, eight complete sites and parts of one site have been handed back since 1974. These were as follows:

  a. at the port of Limassol;

  b. north-west of Zyyi (parts of);

  c. at Cape Greco;

  d. the water supply for the Cape Greco retained site;

  e. at Polemidhia;

  f. the water supply for the Polemidhia retained site;

  g. north of Zyyi;

  h. the water supply for the retained site north of Zyyi;

  i. near Paphos, about ¼ mile from the top of Cape Paphos.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many retained sites, and at which locations, remain in(a) southern Cyprus governed by the Cyprus Government and (b) northern Cyprus governed by the government of the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus.

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 15 British-retained sites remain in Cyprus, of which 11 are in the south of the island and four in the north. The sites are:

  a. (South)

  at Troodos (two sites);

  at Mount Olympus;

  at Nicosia airfield.;

  water supply for retained site at Nicosia airfield on the coast, about five miles south of Larnaca;

  on the outskirts of Limassol;

  water supply for the retained site on the outskirts of Limassol;

  at Kissousa, including the water source and pipeline

  to the Akrotiri sovereign base area;

  at Limassol, in Paphos road.

  (b) (North)

  at the port in Famagusta;

  in Famagusta (three sites).

  374

  Airmisses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, locations and aircraft types and nationalities involved in each incident during 1993 in which a breach of low-flying avoidance area or CANP-notified area led to the filing of an airmiss; what was the involvement of the Royal Air Force provost and security service in investigating each of the reported breaches; and what disciplinary action was taken against the aircrew involved.

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows. The RAF police were not involved since comprehensive investigation of airmiss reports is carried out by the joint airmiss working group. No formal disciplinary action was taken against any of the aircrew involved.

  Date

  Location

  Aircraft Types

  Military Operator

  15 April

  Milfield

  PA-25 Pawnee Jaguar

  United Kingdom

  20 July

  Eshott Glider Site

  Microlight Tornado

  Foreign

  4 August

  Winthorpe

  Slingsby T61A Bulldog and Chipmunk

  United Kingdom

  23 August

  Edgehill Glider Site

  K13 glider Tornado GR1

  United Kingdom

  26 August

  Pickering

  Cessna 150 F-15

  Foreign

  26 August

  Pickering

  Cessna 150 F-15

  Foreign

  3 September

  Bovington

  K13 glider Lynx x 2

  United Kingdom

  14 October

  Aboyne

  PA-25 Pawnee Hawk

  United Kingdom

  Note:

  It is not my Department's policy to identify the nationalities of foreign military aircrews involved in airmisses in the United Kingdom.

  Exercise Hardcore
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the rules of engagement for Royal Air Force Harrier aircraft performing simulated attacks on Dutch surface-to-air missiles in Exercise Hardcore in early 1994.

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Harriers conducting simulated attacks against Dutch surface-to-air missiles as part of Exercise Hardcore were using the standard operating procedures and constraints laid out in the "UK Military Low Flying Handbook". No specific rules of engagement were formulated for the purposes of this exercise.

  World War II (Anniversary)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1192, what plans he has to charge war widows for joining in the programme of events planned to commemorate the end of World War II; and if he will make a statement.
  375
  Mr. Soames
  It is not envisaged that charges will be made to any members of the public for admission to any of the Government-sponsored events.

  Crown Housing Trust
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the salary and length of contract of the chief executive of the Crown housing trust; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive designate of the Crown housing trust was recruited on a three year fixed term appointment, with an annual salary of £80,000 plus possible bonuses of up to a further £20,000 linked to performance.

  Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last 15 years his Department has paid compensation to service personnel or former members of the armed forces who have suffered from post traumatic stress disorder.

  Mr. Soames
  Members of the armed forces may be subjected to traumatic experiences and may suffer stress 376
  as a result. We have a duty to ensure that they receive proper medical treatment, and the question of compensation arises only if there has been a negligent failure on the part of my Department. No-one has been compensated simply for having developed PTSD.

  There has been one case in which a former soldier has been compensated for a failure to diagnose and treat PTSD. In some other claims for personal injury, PTSD may have been claimed as one of the consequences of an injury which was caused by negligence; if so, compensation may have been paid under the conventional heading of "pain and suffering". No figures are available for these cases and data is not held in a form which would enable such information to be extracted.

  Sexual Orientation
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department maintains records of the sexual orientation of members of the armed forces; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  My Department maintains no such records. Such information would be recorded in individual cases only where this had given grounds for administrative or disciplinary action.

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

Message from the Queen
The Earl of Airlie: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The message reads as follows:
"I have received your Address and, relying on the wisdom of my Parliament, I desire that my prerogative in so far as it relates to the succession of peerages, should not stand in the way of consideration by Parliament, during the present Session, of any measure that may be introduced providing for an amendment of the law relating to the succession of legitimated persons to the dignities and titles of honour".

Royal Assent
2.37 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
European Communities (Finance) Act;
British Waterways Act.

Education for the Unemployed: 21-hour Rule
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to change the 21-hour rule for education for the unemployed.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the 21-hour rule is a special concession which enables income support claimants who are unemployed to spend their time usefully in part-time study while continuing their search for work. The Jobseekers Allowance White Paper, which was published on 24th October 1994, makes clear that the Government intend to continue broadly with the same approach and will be introducing appropriate arrangements within the jobseekers allowance.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister did not have something a bit more encouraging to say. Would he agree that in the light of the need to have many more highly trained and skilled people in the workforce it would be sensible to make the 21-hour rule very much more flexible so that full-time as well as
400
part-time courses would be available to those students? Students ought to be eligible to benefit irrespective of the designation of a course. Is he aware that in some cases the decision whether a course should be full time or part time may be taken by a DSS official and that of course can lead to very bizarre and inconsistent decisions being taken across the country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Baroness found my reply unsatisfactory. My reply, of course, restates the distinction between full-time students who are not eligible for benefit but are eligible for maintenance benefit, etc., inside the education system and people on income support who are unemployed and seeking work for whom obviously full-time studenthood would be inconsistent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that unlike the noble Baroness many of us found his Answer wholly satisfactory?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought my Answer was wholly satisfactory also, so I am grateful to my noble friend. I reiterate the point that once the jobseekers allowance comes into place we would expect the situation to be broadly similar to that of today. Those people who are unemployed and seeking work but wish to undertake part-time study will continue to be eligible for support.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as we are constantly being told about the improvement in the economy, is there not a parallel need, as indeed my noble friend has implied, for an increase in these educational opportunities? Further, will the Minister say something about the very special case concerning the long-term unemployed? Many people now have been unemployed for two years and these opportunities would be the first rung on the ladder for people in that position. There is a great need for that. Surely the Government can be a bit more flexible than they have shown themselves to be, particularly in the answers that we have been given so far?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think the rule is flexible. I invite your Lordships to divide 21 hours a week by five days in the week. Your Lordships will see that this allows for up to four hours of study a day—indeed it is more than just study; it is supervised study—for someone to undertake and remain on unemployment benefit while seeking work. As regards the general question the noble Lord has asked me, there has been a huge increase in the opportunities in higher and further education over the lifetime of the Conservative Government since 1979 with unbelievably high percentages of people in further and higher education compared to what was conceived by the party opposite. So far as concerns unemployment, of course we have some way to go but we have made an excellent start in recent months with unemployment falling by half a million.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I accept that, as the Minister said, there has been a considerable and very desirable increase in educational opportunities during the lifetime of this Government. However, will the noble

401
Lord explain why it is not possible for someone who is seeking work also to be in full-time education? One does not have to be in full-time education from 9 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock at night. It is perfectly possible to apply for any job which may come up. Does the Minister agree that it is highly desirable that people should get the maximum amount of education and training while they are out of work? Why can that not be done?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I explained, 21 hours a week translates into four hours a day. That is a considerable amount of time for education. I must say to the noble Baroness that there is a distinction in my mind, if not in hers, between somebody who is a full-time student—and most full-time students I know are not seeking employment—and somebody who will be eligible for the jobseekers allowance in the future or is currently on income support and who is actively seeking work. I should have thought that those two conditions—being a full-time student and actively seeking work—cannot apply concurrently.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while I concede to the full the importance of full-time students having full-time education at suitable ages and under suitable conditions, is it not obvious that they come under the maintenance provisions and not under the provisions relating to unemployment and seeking work? Is that not perfectly logical?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right to underline the points that I have made that those people who are full-time students are eligible for the maintenance grants and the fees paid to the institutions, and those people who are unemployed, actively seeking work and available for work can study for up to 21 hours a week while maintaining their benefit position.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister answer the point which my noble friend Lady David made regarding discrepancies in different parts of the country?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I would need to see details of the cases suggested here. However, there is no doubt that one of the aspects which we have to address—and which we are addressing—in the shift from the old rules to the rules relating to the jobseekers allowance is that, increasingly, further education colleges are designing courses on a more flexible basis. Of course, we want to take account of that because they are moving away from the nicely clear-cut situation of full-time courses and part-time courses. I do not disagree with the noble Lord that there are some problems. Those are the problems which we hope to address when considering these matters.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, in the government White Paper on the jobseekers allowance issued last October the Government recognised that by acquiring skills unemployed people are helped back into employment. An increasing number of the long-term unemployed lack skills. In many
402
instances the only way they will acquire skills is by returning to study. Will the Minister give a reassurance that the 21-hour rule will be applied flexibly and will be examined in the review of higher education which is currently taking place?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said, as we move to the jobseekers' agreement we are looking at how we should interpret and design the 21-hour-a-week rule in the new situations in relation to both the jobseekers' agreement and further education. However, I can confirm to the noble Baroness—as she confirmed to the House—that in the White Paper dealing with the jobseekers allowance we say clearly that:
"Unemployed people sometimes undertake courses of study. That can increase their employability and give them a better chance of getting a job".
I do not believe that there is anything between us in that regard.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, despite what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, suggested, the Minister accepted that the line between part-time and full-time education is not as clear as it used to be. Will he therefore accept that the rules are being interpreted very differently across the country? NIACE has evidence that someone studying for five hours a week was denied benefit because she paid fees and was therefore thought not to be actively seeking work. Another person studying for 19 hours a week was denied benefit because the DSS official decided that that course must be full time, without any evidence to that effect. Can we therefore have from the Minister guidance sympathetic to the position of such people in terms of what has been discussed this afternoon?
Secondly, will the Minister readdress the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dormand and make the rules even more flexible by scrapping the rule for the long-term unemployed? Is it reasonable in a society where those who are already educated to A-level standard receive higher education and those who are poor, unemployed or, in seasonal and part-time work are pulled out of study the moment yet another seasonal job occurs and then are thrown back on benefit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I would take up the remaining part of Question Time if I attempted to answer all the points raised by the noble Baroness. In general terms we do want to see unemployed people undertaking part-time study. However, we do not want that to be at the risk of their not continuing to seek employment, because that is the primary entry point to the jobseekers allowance and to income support.
As to difficulties in defining courses, we have accepted the current situation resulting from changes to definitions in further education establishments. So far as concerns individual adjudication officers, I must tell the noble Baroness that Ministers do not have powers to intervene. People who are dissatisfied with an adjudication officer's decision have the right of appeal to an independent social security appeals tribunal.

Income Support: Mortgage Assistance
2.47 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they anticipate will be the consequences of their decision to reduce income support help with mortgages.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the consequence of our decision will be the development of comprehensive, high-quality, private mortgage protection insurance. That will provide better protection for all home owners, including those who fall into difficulties with their mortgage payments and cannot be helped by the present system because they have savings, a modest pension or working spouses.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the private sector mortgage debt rose from 35 per cent. of GNP in 1983 to 61.7 per cent. of GNP in 1993? If even I per cent. of that figure were bad debt it would be a debt of £3.5 billion. Even if private insurance were available for the people concerned, does the Minister believe that now is the right time to put that extra burden on British insurance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have absolutely no doubt, and we have every indication, that British insurance will be found to be more than adequate in bringing to the situation perfectly satisfactory policies designed for people who want mortgages in the future.
So far as concerns the figure referred to in the main part of the noble Earl's question, perhaps I may turn the question around and ask him and those who oppose the policy—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if noble Lords become so irritated by the rhetorical question, I shall rephrase it. I am quite amazed that we are asked whether we should put the pressure on the insurance industry, when the corollary is that we are happy to put the pressure on other taxpayers.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in this country each week 1,000 families are still losing their homes because of lapses in paying their mortgage? The measures to which the Minister referred in answering the first Question are welcome. However, is he also aware that none of those people who lose their homes today will receive one iota of help from those measures? Bearing in mind that it was the equity imbalance which resulted from the Government's financial policy which put those people in that position, do they not deserve better treatment than the Government accord them at this point in time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord helps to make my point. Many people are not assisted by the current provisions but many, although not all, would be helped if insurance provision was widely based and widely accepted as it will be for all new mortgage takers.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, many of us believe that this is a strange measure. Is the noble Lord
404
aware that people living in modest houses pay mortgages in lieu of rent simply to obtain a roof over their heads? Why do the Government take benefit away from people paying mortgages but do not propose to take benefit away from people who pay rent? There seems a lack of equity in that position. I hope that the Government will reconsider their policy.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is fairly self-evident that all of us take out a mortgage or pay a rent in order to obtain a roof over our heads. The position is quite simply this. To suggest to those people who take out a mortgage, and, more importantly, to those people who give a mortgage, that some form of insurance should be taken out against unemployment, we believe is a correct and responsible way for both the lender and the borrower to behave. Lest noble Lords go away with the thought that we are entirely withdrawing from that market, I underline the fact that we are asking the insurance companies and new borrowers to cover the first nine months. Anyone unemployed for longer than that period will be helped by the social security system.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a number of people who have been prudent enough to take out insurance against unemployment have found that the insurance companies have been let off the hook because of the small print? Before the Government bring any legislation before the House, will the Minister assure us that they will negotiate with the insurance companies to ensure that those companies do not get out of paying on the policies because, for instance, someone has not been employed for more than two years?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can assure the noble Countess that we are looking at that problem—it has been brought to our attention—in our discussions with the insurance industry. The industry is bound by the ABI's code of practice. Once the policy has been taken out, the insurance ombudsman can arbitrate on disputes on behalf of policy holders. Despite the protections already in place, we are aware of the criticism referred to and are discussing the matter with the ABI and with the Council of Mortgage Lenders.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has invoked burdens on the taxpayer. Is he aware that at present 50 per cent. of those who receive income support help with mortgages are back at work within a year? Does he accept that if their homes are repossessed, that is unlikely to occur, and therefore the noble Lord risks putting on the taxpayer a much heavier burden than he carries already?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl misses the point. If due to our policy, and with the quite lengthy time lag that we have allowed for, those insurance policies are available in the market, a borrower taking out an insurance policy who becomes unemployed will look to that insurance policy for nine months, and thereafter to the taxpayer. Therefore repossession does not come into the issue.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, what arrangements will the Government make, what help will

405
they give, to those who often cannot obtain insurance? I refer to those with a history of intermittent unemployment, the self-employed, those on short-term contracts and those in part-time work. Do they not stand the risk of losing not only their job but their homes too?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness confuses existing borrowers—for whom the policy is two months and four months; it is not the nine months to which I referred—and new borrowers. Perhaps I may simply quote from the Abbey National Building Society:
"If we have agreed a mortgage there is no reason why the borrower should not then qualify for mortgage repayment protection".

Land-mines
2.56 p.m.
The Lord Bishop The Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the current moratorium on the export of land-mines includes components of land-mines; and under what conditions they would agree to a complete ban on the export of land-mines, including those which self-neutralise and self-destruct.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the moratorium on the export of non-self-neutralising or self-destructing anti-personnel land-mines announced on 27th July does not include component parts. However, any applications to export specially designed land-mine components for military use are subject to strict controls and would be considered on a case by case basis in the light of established criteria.
A complete ban on the export of land-mines at this stage would in our view be unlikely to secure the necessary broad international support or be properly implemented.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. However, does he agree that the very limited need for those weapons by our forces in any foreseeable conflict is outweighed by the terrible suffering being caused to civilians, especially children, by such mines lying around—there are some 100 million of them—long after the conflict is past? Does he also agree that the export of self-neutralising or self-destructing mines, with a failure rate estimated at something like 10 per cent., would only add to those terrible problems and also discourage other nations from agreeing to a total ban on their production, stockpiling sale or use?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in his supplementary question the right reverend Prelate has indicated the core problem which is the 100 million or so land-mines in the world. I am sure that we all wish to see a reduction of those and eventually a world free of mines. The problem we face is that those weapons are easy to make and to use. We have to focus our policies on our prime purpose; to protect civilians from the consequences of indiscriminate use of land-mines which do not self-neutralise. In order to do that, we believe it is right,
406
first, to bring about a regime where increasingly the mines which may be used in the world are those which self-neutralise—I refer to the so-called smart mines—rather than the "dumb" mines which have such dreadful consequences.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in reply to my question during the debate on the Address about the Government's intentions to ratify two additional protocols to the Geneva Convention, I received a courteous reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, stating that it was purely a matter of time? Can the Minister tell us anything about the timing of the Government's ratification of those protocols?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am pleased to be able to advise your Lordships that we hope to be able to ratify them by the end of next month.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I have been trying to follow the logic of the Minister's reply, but I have to admit that I failed to do so. Why would it not lead towards a complete agreement if the Government now announced that they propose to make a complete agreement so that there would be no exportation at all either of the whole land-mine or of a component of it?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we believe that under appropriate circumstances, in accordance with the principles of Article 51 of the UN charter, land-mines can be legitimate weapons of self-defence. As I said earlier, what the Government are concerned about is the consequence of the indiscriminate use of so-called "dumb" land-mines. We believe that in the wicked world in which we live, because land-mines are so easy to manufacture and deploy, and bearing in mind, for example, that this year we anticipate that it is likely that somewhere between 10 million and 20 million land-mines will be laid around the world, we must focus our efforts to ensure that the land-mines used are the so-called smart land-mines which are self-neutralising.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in pursuance of the Government's laudable aim of greater transparency in weapons transfers, will the Minister ensure that the United Nations arms register includes a full list of the transactions for the sale and acquisition of those weapons? Could he publish in some suitable form a list of the states which, as he said in answer to the right reverend Prelate, are opposed to a complete ban on the manufacture, sale and use of those weapons?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, regarding the second part of the noble Lord's question, I shall write to him with the details that we know. It was one of the aspects of the code of conduct which the British Government promoted that mutual information should be exchanged in that field.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are genuine anxieties about the reliability and effectiveness of self-destructing and self-neutralising mechanisms in anti-personnel mines? Does he also agree that research in the Pentagon has called into

407
question the military utility of such mines? In those circumstances, does he understand that the anxiety of the Red Cross and others is that a limited ban plays into the hands of those who want to evade the policing of such arrangements; and that a total ban on production stockpiling and export is what is necessary.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we share the underlying aspirations of the Benches opposite and the Red Cross to which the noble Lord alluded. But as I explained earlier, we do not accept that the line of action which the noble Lord proposes will help those wretched people who are currently being maimed, injured and killed by the indiscriminate use of land-mines around the world.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords—
Several Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, as always, I am in the hands of your Lordships' House but I am aware that there is one more Question and just over five minutes in which to cover it.

Nursing Auxiliaries: Sth-Bucks NHS Trust
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the current ratio of fully qualified nurses to nursing auxiliaries in the South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust area; how this compares with the ratio in the hospitals concerned in each of the previous five years; how much training the nursing auxiliaries currently receive before being allowed to work on patients in the wards; and what rate of pay they receive for how many hours per day.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the ratio of qualified to unqualified nursing and midwifery staff in South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust as at August 1994 is 2.4 to 1. Figures for the ratios of qualified nurses to auxiliaries in the trust for each of the past five years are not available, as the trust has been in existence for only just over one year.
The trust provides a five-day training course for nursing auxiliaries which is run by the College of Nursing and Midwifery. New starters either begin with formal training or are closely supervised and trained on the job until the formal course starts. Nursing auxiliaries work 37.5 hours per week and the current salary ranges from £6,690 to £9,875 per annum.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that the number of nursing auxiliaries employed by the South Buckinghamshire trust has been increasing? It is now, as a proportion of the nursing workforce, 23 per cent. compared with 18 per cent. in 1987, five years ago. Is it not also a fact that those auxiliaries receive no preliminary training at all before going into employment? According to the chief executive, they receive five days' training in service, as soon as possible. Is it not also a fact that in its annual report
408
the trust boasts of its increased performance activity, the increased number of patients it is handling, without any reference to or prospect of the increase in qualified staff that ought to be employed to carry that workload?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the number of nurses in that trust has increased, there are 150 more nurses than seven years ago. Auxiliary nurses also have a very important part to play in any ward in any hospital. They receive training—perhaps not immediately when they start, but they get on-the-job training. Then, as I explained, they attend a training course run by the College of Nursing and Midwifery.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether this Question is comparing like with like and whether the new nurse training system under Project 2000 makes a difference to the situation?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, my noble friend is correct to bring that to the attention of your Lordships' House. The new Project 2000 courses are far more sophisticated, they equip nurses better to do the job. The nurses are there on a bursary and are full-time students. I believe that never before have we had more nurses, better qualified and better paid.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the points raised by my noble friend about the local situation in South Buckinghamshire are causing anxiety to nursing organisations across the whole country? They are particularly alarmed about the arrangements for local pay. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will abide by the national review body on pay, which I believe will report shortly? Will the Government ensure that all nurses with all qualifications at all levels are given a fair pay award this year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I find it interesting that Peers on the opposite Benches should bring forward these issues. It was the Labour Party that cut nurses' pay and never this Government. This Government have always honoured the pay review body awards and we await its results. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be pleased.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, may I therefore be assured that the nursing pay review board proposal will be abided by this year?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we will wait to see the results.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Can we also have an assurance that the Government will in future fund any pay increase to which they agree? They failed to do so with the last pay increase, thus increasing the pressure to reduce the quality of service by reducing the number of qualified staff and not filling vacancies. Is it not time we had another Halsbury Report such as the Labour Government introduced?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I find this intriguing. Reading the noble Baroness's memoirs, I recollect that there was a Cabinet meeting during which John Silkin sent her a note. It read:
"All things bright and beautiful,

409
All projects great and small,
All things wise and wonderful
The Chancellor cuts them all.
He cuts the old age pension
Although he cuts by stealth,
And when he looks for savings,
He cuts the National Health."
Lord Graham of Edmonton: There is no answer to that!

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 26 [Comment by prosecutor on accused's failure to give evidence]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 18, line 35, at end insert:
("() At the end of section 142 of the 1975 Act insert: "Where the accused does not give evidence such action shall be of no evidential value and the presiding Judge shall instruct the Jury accordingly.".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the direction which a judge should give in criminal trials where the accused does not give evidence. The situation in relation to the significance of an accused person not going into the witness box to give evidence in a criminal trial, the right of a prosecutor to comment on that absence from the witness box, and indeed the right of a judge in a criminal trial to comment on such an action taken by the accused, is now in a complete and utter mess. There is little point in making tinkering adjustments to the law of Scotland until a review is held on how matters stand so that positive views can be expressed about what the situation should be.
I have said more than once that the right to silence is the right of every accused person in the United Kingdom. People talk of the failure to give evidence. As I understand it, there is no such thing in law. There is the exercise of one's legal right in law not to give evidence. It is so often referred to in the newspapers that it has almost become, as it were, a newspaper cult. A headline in one newspaper at the weekend read: "Accused refuses to give evidence", or "Accused opts to remain silent". So what, if the accused chooses to remain silent?
This amendment tries to encourage the Government to do just one thing; namely, to institute a review of these important matters. At the moment we are floundering about with judges giving one direction here, one direction there; the Court of Criminal Appeal saying, "Maybe the judge shouldn't have said that, but after all that does not constitute a miscarriage of justice".
In the Government's own consultation paper, The Right to Silence, Judicial Examination and Evidence of Previous Convictions, which was circulated by letter from the Scottish Office on 15th September 1994, there is a rather alarming observation. Incidentally, the copy that I have bears no signature whatever. It could have come from the far side of the moon, except that there was a covering letter indicating that it came from somewhere a bit closer than that and probably from the Scottish Office. Paragraph 34—which I read in these terms—having summarised the law about what judges can and cannot say, states:
"While the case law thus suggests that in Scotland there is at present no barrier to the court drawing proper inferences from the silence of the accused at trial, it is open to differing interpretations, and the courts may be inhibited, by the apparent restriction on the judge's power to comment to special circumstances, from drawing inferences in all appropriate cases. The reported appeal cases do not reveal in how many cases comment might have been appropriate but was not made because of the strictures in Scott. A statutory provision clarifying the position would remove any uncertainty and encourage the courts to take account of the accused's silence where it appeared appropriate, while in no way compromising the accused's right to remain silent".
That is perhaps a very strange summary of the law. I appreciate that it is only one paragraph out of a fairly lengthy consultation paper. But what is it really saying? To use a horrible phrase, the "hidden agenda" behind it effectively is: if the accused does not go into the witness box, let the judge comment upon it as he sees fit. Then, once the case gets to the Appeal Court, the Appeal Court says: "You should not have said that, but never mind, there is no miscarriage of justice".
The Faculty of Advocates, of which I am a member, states at page 9 of its reply:
"It is therefore a subtle, but in the Faculty's view, important distinction which is to be drawn. Any inference which is permitted to be drawn under the present law is an inference from the other facts which have been established by the Crown; not an inference drawn from the silence of the accused, as is stated at paragraph 34",
to which I refer.
We have seen that the committee of the Faculty of Advocates took a slightly different view from the one that was expressed in the Government's White Paper. This amendment, in simple terms, seeks at this present juncture in the development—or indeed the non-development—of the law relating to the right to silence the right to comment on the absence of the accused from the witness box and the right of the judges and prosecutors to comment, the latter being inserted by statute in this present Act, to give a breathing space whereby Parliament can say to the judges: "Until we get this sorted out, here is what the law is to be from now on. You must tell the jury that where the accused does not give evidence, that fact is of no positive"—perhaps evidential—"value and you must ignore it when you seek corroboration of the Crown case".
In putting that forward as an absolute, which at the moment I do, I appreciate that for every rule there must be an exception. There may be exceptions, for example, in fingerprint cases, which have been mentioned before, and perhaps in respect of the DNA process, if that is to be accepted and its validity tested in the Scottish courts as being 100 per cent. proof as it was introduced. There

411
may be exceptional cases, but the general rule should be that a judge should instruct the jury in terms of Amendment No. 78, and I therefore so move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: It is the most dangerous water for a layman, particularly a Scottish peasant, to enter when legal matters are being discussed; and well I appreciate that fact. But I am bound to say that when I read my noble and learned friends' remarks I was slightly confused—but then I often think that legal language tends to be a little confusing. My noble and learned friend stated:
"to restate the law on silence at trial in Scotland is not necessary but we propose … to remove the statutory prohibition on the prosecutor from commenting on an accused's silence at the trial".—[Official Report,29/11/94; col. 550.]
To a layman, this sounds slightly like a non sequitur. I asked myself this: If you are going to change the law on silence in a way that has aroused, as I am very well aware, considerable controversy, why do you not want to restate the law? I should have thought it was quite essential that you should do so.
However, on a first reading of the press headlines in Scotland—which said, broadly speaking, "Right of silence being done away with"—I am bound to say that I took that to mean that an accused person would be forced to go into the witness box and that it was his right of silence that was being removed. If it had happened as I understood it, that would have totally reversed the situation as it stood up to 100 years ago, certainly in England and Wales, whereby the accused was not allowed to give evidence on oath. But of course it does not mean that at all. The right to silence has been the right of an accused to be spared any comment by his prosecutor if he, the accused, decides not to give evidence himself.
It is now proposed that prosecuting counsel should be allowed the same right as the judge, who has always been allowed to point out to the jury the fact that the accused has not gone into the witness box.
This proposal drove me to a book which I strongly recommend to the Committee for really good bedtime reading; namely, the account of the trial—the last murder trial with any charisma attached to it—of Dr. Bodkin Adams. According to the account of that trial, defence counsel made a sudden announcement that he did not propose to call the accused. The Attorney-General half rose as if propelled upward by an amalgam of astonishment and dismay that not a word of his carefully prepared cross-examination and his closing speech would be heard. Then came—this, to me, is the important part—Lord Devlin's directions to the jury. He said that the jury must draw no conclusion from the accused not going into the witness box. He said:
"He has not failed to give evidence. He has exercised his right to be silent and demand that the Crown proves its case".
At Second Reading my noble and learned friend again took a different line. He said (Hansard col. 550) that it was a legal nonsense to allow comment to be made by either the judge or the prosecutor as a general rule on the absence of the accused from the witness box, though there must be exceptional cases where that may be justified. As I understand the matter, he said virtually, "If the judge can comment, why should not the
412
prosecutor do so?" I believe that that view was upheld by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, with the only reservation that judges always use restraint.
I ask my noble and learned friend to tell the Committee the basic objective of this amendment to the present law. Is it to produce better justice or to make a conviction more likely? After all, prosecuting counsel is there to do his best to win his case. As I understand it, a prosecution is generally not undertaken unless there is a fair chance of it being successful. Therefore, is it the purpose of this amendment that another string is being given to the Crown or does the noble Lord claim that it will make for better justice?
Lord McCluskey: I wonder whether I may comment on this point as I have already done so on Second Reading. First, I am satisfied that, contrary to what the Committee heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, there is absolutely no need to restate the law on this matter in Scotland. It is abundantly plain that the jury is not entitled to regard the failure of the accused to go into the witness box as being of any evidential value whatsoever. We do not need to be told that and, in a sense, the law being abundantly plain, it would be almost an impertinence on the part of Parliament to tell us what the law is.
In the press and other quarters there has been considerable misunderstanding about what is happening in this Bill. I sit as a trial judge for approximately 12 to 14 weeks of the year. I have been appearing in the criminal courts for something in the order of 40 years, some 12 years as a prosecutor and other years for the defence. What commonly happens is that, if the accused does not choose to exercise his right to give evidence and chooses to exercise his right not to give evidence, his defence counsel will comment upon that matter when he addresses the jury. He will commonly say, "Ladies and gentlemen, you have heard the evidence for the Crown. The burden of proof is on the Crown. There is no burden upon my client and that is why, on my advice, he has not gone into the witness box". So comment is in fact made by the defence.
Secondly, as the Committee recognised, comment can be made by the judge. From time to time judges do comment but they must do so with restraint, which is only right and proper. I do not doubt that, having regard to the fact that this clause simply removes a part of the 1975 Act, the courts will interpret the duty of the prosecutor as a duty to comment with at least as much restraint as the judges are wont to exercise at the present time. I do not have the slightest shadow of doubt about that.
In what circumstances should the prosecutor have the right and responsibility to comment upon the accused not entering the witness box? I referred to that point at Second Reading. I want simply to make the point that almost from the first or second witness in the trial the jury is waiting to hear the accused's account of the matter. That is what the jurors want to hear. They have heard the case against him which has built up and up and they want to hear his explanation and how he will get out of accusation. Then the accused does not go into the witness box. It is deeply patronising to suppose that unless the prosecutor refers to the matter the jury will

413
not have noticed. Of course the jury will have noticed. In my respectful view, the prosecutor has a perfect right to point out that matter if it is obvious.
Let us take the classic type of case where witnesses have given evidence that the accused was at place A and the accused has lodged a formal written alibi which is read to the jury at the beginning of the case saying, "I was not at place A at the time specified. I was at place B". Then the evidence of the witnesses who say that they saw him at place A is challenged by his counsel. One would have thought that the natural consequence of that would be that he would go into the witness box and say, "I was in fact at place B and therefore they are wrong". If his counsel, in reliance upon his client's private statement to him, has challenged the evidence of witnesses, it seems to me to be perfectly right and proper that the prosecutor will say, "Ladies and gentlemen, in looking at the evidence of X and Y you will recall that that evidence was challenged by counsel on behalf of the accused person. But you have no evidence to set against that, and in particular the person who could have said, 'I was there', and could have told you what he was doing has chosen not to give evidence. So when you come to assess their evidence you will be entitled to take that fact into account". As a judge, I would say that. I do not see why a prosecutor should be inhibited from saying what a judge would certainly say in those circumstances.
I want to emphasise the point that I made earlier. In more cases than not when an accused person does not give evidence it is common for defence counsel to refer to that fact in his closing speech. Indeed, it is that reference which commonly prompts me, as the judge, to make a further comment on the matter, knowing that by that stage the prosecutor has no right of reply or possibility of commenting on the comment made by defence counsel. Those are the reasons why I believe that the proposals in the Bill are sound and those contained in the amendment are unsound.
There is one very special point of principle to which I want to draw attention. The amendment concludes with the words:
"and the presiding Judge shall instruct the Jury accordingly".
That is an obnoxious provision. Parliament should not be instructing judges of the High Court on what they must say to juries. To include in an Act of Parliament a provision that the presiding judge "shall instruct the Jury" in certain terms appears to me to be wholly obnoxious and contrary to our traditions. For those reasons I oppose the amendment and will support the clause.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: As a member of the English Bar, perhaps I might make a contribution on this matter. As a member of the English Bar I fought extremely hard to try and stop Mr. Howard's first act of vandalism; that is, abolishing the right of silence in the English and Welsh courts, as has happened.
I listened to the noble Lord the "Scottish peasant" with the greatest possible admiration. What he said makes the crucial point. Equally, I ask the Minister,
414
before the Committee makes up its mind about the amendment, to answer the question in a slightly different form. In the clause what does,
"comment on failure of accused to give evidence",
mean? What is the "comment" that is envisaged? I was astonished to hear the observations fall from the lips of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who, if I may say so, was one of my great heroes in this Chamber in the old days. He says, with his knowledge of Scottish law, that there is no need to tell the jury that silence on behalf of the defendant has no evidential value whatever so far as concerns the Crown. If that is so, what is the point of the prosecutor making any comment?
The prosecutor comments upon the defendant's exercise of his right in law to be silent for a purpose. What is that purpose? That is what I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee. The only possible purpose that I can see is to say to the jury, "My duty as a prosecutor is to lay the evidence before you, to prove to your satisfaction that this defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If any of you still has a doubt, then you may take into account the fact that he has exercised his right and not gone into the witness box. By taking that into account you will add to the prosecution evidence which at the moment leaves you in some doubt. The fact that he has not gone into the witness box means that you can add to the scales of justice so that they sink on the side of conviction".
Is that the comment which prosecuting counsel will now be allowed to make in Scotland when a defendant exercises his right not to go into the witness box? If it is, then what the noble and learned Lord said about it having no evidential value is simply not so. To make a comment of that kind is to ask the jury to give the silence some evidential value; that is, to add it to the prosecution case. It is that which surely is the mischief. That is why both Royal Commissions in England pointed out that that was the mischief. To allow comment to be made by prosecuting counsel is simply to state that silence can amount to evidence; that the defendant can produce evidence against himself. The whole basis of criminal law, both in Scotland and in England, is that no defendant should ever be put in that position.
I want to ask the Minister one other question. I know that he will not avoid it as a number of his colleagues have done in the past. What happens if the silence of the accused is due not to guilt, but to some perfectly reasonable other reason? I say to the Minister—equalling the experience of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, of 40 years' practice in the criminal courts—that in a large number of cases accused people do not wish to go into the witness box. They say to their advocate, "I do not want to go into the witness box", for all kinds of reasons which have nothing to do with their guilt.
In many cases a defendant may not wish to give evidence simply through fear. He may say, "I cannot face it. I have complete faith that the jury will see that the evidence of the Crown is insufficient and acquit me. But I shall not offer myself for cross-examination. I have heard people being cross-examined and I am too frightened to go into the witness box". That is one

415
reason a person may not give evidence. Another reason is that he does not want to bring discredit on other people which, if he tells the truth, he will have to do. I refer to discredit of spouses, children and friends. Alibis, as the noble and learned Lord mentioned, may involve bringing discredit on somebody else because that is where the defendant was and he should not have been there. That may bring discredit on the person's character or family and that may he a reason for a defendant not giving evidence.
Another reason—I know that some Members of this Committee will throw up their hands in horror at the thought—is that, unfortunately, on occasions, the police bring charges of an offence against someone who has committed the offence before. Sometimes they back it up with a false admission; sometimes they back it up by planting false evidence on the premises, such as drugs. If that person goes into the witness box and puts forward a defence that the police have done that, then, as Members of the Committee will again know, his previous convictions can be proved against him. The police know that. That person may not be a very admirable person but he did not commit the offence. Yet he is put in the impossible dilemma of either going into the witness box where the prejudice of his previous convictions will be put to him, or remaining where he is and saying, "I am innocent until the case is proved against me; get on and prove it".
Those are some of the reasons why a person may not wish to go into the witness box. Is it right that prosecuting counsel should speculate as to the reason why someone did not give evidence and then suggest to the jury that it is evidence of guilt? It may be absolutely untrue. It is in that way that miscarriages of justice come about. I should like to obtain an answer to those questions from the Minister before deciding whether or not to accept the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: This clause has set alarm bells ringing, and elsewhere there have been many knee-jerk reactions to it. That in itself is no bad thing, as it clearly establishes that an aspect of Scottish legal right is under threat.
At present a judge may comment upon the fact that the accused elected not to give evidence. I understand that it is only 100 years since it was made lawful for the accused to give evidence at all. Evolution can be a slow process. I wonder whether we are going too fast in that direction.
What is proposed in the clause may not be as awful as is suggested. There may be occasions when a prosecutor with a weak case may be deemed to go over the top and create a wrong impression in a jury's mind. I therefore foresee difficulties for the Bench in the summing-up if that happens. I conclude therefore by opposing the inclusion of this provision.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The debate on the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has also touched on the substance of the clause itself. The effect of the amendment would be to prohibit a jury taking any account of an accused person's failure to give evidence at his trial, regardless of the circumstances of the case. In replying on this
416
matter, I should like to stress, as indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has made clear, that under the law of Scotland as it stands at present, and as it has stood since at least 1918, it is open to the judge to make certain comments. There is case-law on that matter. The first point I would stress is that we are not in any way changing the law on the directions a judge may give to the jury.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, read out from the consultation paper a passage dealing with this matter. In that passage the issue was canvassed whether it would he desirable to put this area of the law into a statutory formulation. We received a very clear reply on consultation that that was neither necessary nor was it desirable. As it stands at present, and as it has been developed by the courts, the law looks to the common sense of the matter, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has drawn attention, which is that juries do notice whether accused persons give evidence. At present the position is that the court may, in special circumstances and acting at all times with restraint, make a comment on the absence of evidence from the accused. The comment is given in a case where the Crown has brought forward evidence which, as it was put in a recent case, is crying out for an explanation and where in the face of that evidence there is no evidence from the accused giving an explanation when he is the one person who could give an innocent explanation. In that situation, as the law stands at present—this is as far as it goes—the judge is entitled to say to the jury that they may find it easier to draw a guilty inference from the facts or from the evidence which the jury is considering; in other words, from the facts or from the evidence put forward and proved, let us suppose in this hypothesis, by the prosecution. That is the law as it stands at present, and there is no intention on our part to change that law. All the clause seeks to do is to allow the prosecutor to make a comment, or, more precisely, to withdraw the statutory bar on the prosecutor making a comment.
I would say, just as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, that the prosecutor will comment only with restraint because of course he must have regard to the fact that as the law has been laid down it is only with restraint that this can be said to a jury, and it is only in special circumstances that it can be said. If he goes further than that, if he says something which goes beyond that, it will be the judge's duty to correct what the prosecutor has said and to give the proper direction to the jury. If he should fail to do so, or, in certain circumstances, if the appeal court thought that what was said by the prosecutor was so outrageous, then presumably the matter could be the basis for a ground of appeal. Where the law itself only allows comments with restraint, and only for inferences to be drawn in narrow circumstances, it would be a foolish prosecutor indeed who went further than that.
Why are we doing this? Where it is open to the judge in an appropriate case to give this direction to the jury, it seems proper, with respect to those who argue the reverse, that that matter should be focused in the prosecution speech so that the prosecutor can invite the jury to consider that in the circumstances they may find

417
it easier to draw the inference of guilt. When that is said, it means that the issue is fairly in play and then it is open to the defence counsel, who, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, almost invariably in these circumstances mentions the fact that his client has not given evidence, to say to the jury that they have heard what the prosecutor has said and that it is either right or that it is not the kind of case where they would be wise to draw that inference. The matter is then fairly in play and the judge in those circumstances can give the appropriate direction. Where the judge can give that direction, and where the defence is in no position to comment at that stage when the judge gives the direction, it seems better that the matter should be fairly in front of the jury at a proper stage when the prosecution is speaking and therefore the matter can be dealt with in the normal way, as any other issue is dealt with, between the parties in the prosecution. For that reason we think it is appropriate to deal with the issue in this way. I would add that in this issue we can claim the support of the Thomson Committee, which reported on criminal procedure in Scotland and which recommended the repeal of this statutory bar.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said that there may be many reasons why an accused person does not give evidence. I accept that. But at present under our law in Scotland, whatever the reasons may be why someone has not given evidence, the fact of the matter is that the judge may, in an appropriate case and with restraint, invite the jury to draw the inference which I have indicated. Therefore, we are not changing that matter in any sense.
In my submission, the change which we are advocating here is a proper one. It does not go so far as some of the other changes which have been introduced elsewhere. It is entirely in accordance with the spirit of the law in Scotland. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: Before the Minister finishes his address, perhaps I may ask him to focus his mind for a moment on the distinction between a judge, who is subject to the control of the Court of Appeal in his summing up and so on, and the advocate appearing for the prosecution. At the moment, according to what the Minister has said, the advocate has to decide whether the case is one which is crying out for an explanation. That is the first thing he has to decide. Secondly, he has to tell the jury that they may find it easier to draw an inference of guilt. Thirdly, he has to act with restraint. Will the Minister explain how any lawyer can possibly know what he is doing? Those three requisites are totally without definition. The Minister has not answered this question: is it correct that the prosecutor can say to the jury, "You may add evidence; you may resolve your doubt by the fact that there has been silence"?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Despite what the noble Lord says, I do not believe that there will be difficulty in identifying the kinds of cases where it would be appropriate to invite the jury to draw the kind of inference which I have suggested. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has had to deal with such cases
418
as a trial judge and I do not understand that he has had particular difficulty in identifying those cases where, in accordance with the spirit of the law as it has been laid down, such a direction should be given.
It is appropriate where a judge may invite a jury to draw such an inference, that in presenting his case to the jury the prosecutor may put the matter in the way that I have suggested. He is not adding to the evidence at all but simply saying what seems to me to be a matter of common sense; namely, that when considering whether it is legitimate to draw the kind of inference which the prosecution is inviting should be drawn from the facts which have been proved, the jury may find it easier to draw that inference if it has not been presented with a competing explanation in evidence from the accused. If that has to be considered it is obvious that the jury may find it more difficult to draw the appropriate inference. That is all that this direction says, but in its absence it may be easier to draw the inference of guilt.
Lord McCluskey: I would regret very much if I were to lose the esteem which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, mentioned. As a precaution against being accused of inconsistency I wrote a book on the matter and I have it here. It was published some years ago. I read from chapter 7, paragraph 14:
"The prosecutor's conduct may afford a good ground of appeal".
I cannot believe that the Criminal Appeal Court in Scotland, which would strike down a judge's charge on the ground that his comment was excessive, would fail to do so if the prosecutor was guilty of the same excessive comment. It simply cannot be.
I believe that English lawyers are dealing with an entirely different situation from the one which faces the Scots. There are two important matters. First, since 1980, developing a system which has obtained in Scotland for centuries, the accused person is now brought before the sheriff usually within 72 hours of his arrest. He is examined on judicial examination. He has a right to remain silent which he may or may not do.
Secondly, nowadays almost all accused persons are interviewed in tape recorded conditions by the police. Again, the accused's right to remain silent is explained to him. If an accused person chooses on either or both these occasions to state things which go towards exculpating him, it has become the law in Scotland over the past 10 years—if it were not so before—that that statement by him can be founded as evidence of his innocence without his going into the witness box. That may strike English lawyers as slightly anomalous, but that is the situation. Accordingly, without going into the witness box, a person can have his evidence—for example, as regards an alibi or in relation to any other circumstance crying out for explanation—put before the jury in that form.
In those circumstances, the judge is obliged to say to the jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, in considering the evidence in this case, part of it consists of what the accused told the police and another part consists of what he told the prosecutor or the sheriff at the judicial examination". But neither the prosecutor, the police nor the sheriff at the judicial examination, have the right to

419
cross-examine the man. Therefore it seems entirely proper and logical that in addressing the jury, the prosecutor can say, "Ladies and gentlemen, you must of course take into account the evidence of what was said to the police and what was said at the judicial examination, but do bear in mind that the accused was sitting there unable to be cross-examined. He has chosen not to go into the witness box and be cross-examined on these matters". It is extremely important that the prosecutor should have that right in the circumstances which have developed.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, suggested that inevitably there must be an addition to the evidence if a comment of that kind is made. It must have evidential value. I dispute that. The position is that a comment does not add to the evidence at all. For example, in assessing whether there is corroborative evidence in Scottish law one would not add anything from the silence of the accused or the comment thereon.
But if the credibility of a witness has been attacked by the accused's counsel, as in the example which I gave before, it would be a sensible comment to say, "Why has the accused not chosen to go into the witness box and back up this attack with his own evidence?"
There is another example of the person who has given a statement in court and a previous contradictory statement. It is a perfectly legitimate comment to say, in assessing the reliability and credibility of a witness, "Look at the fact that on a previous occasion he said something different". That does not add to the evidence, but it is a legitimate comment of a kind which no doubt the noble Lord is familiar with in the English courts.
The final point is this: it is not just the judge who can comment on the accused not entering the witness box. It is not just his defence counsel, but all the other defence counsel. If any defence counsel lodges a defence of incrimination, that is to say, "My client says that he did not do it but the other fellow did", in his address to the jury defence counsel is perfectly entitled to say, "He did not give evidence". Therefore, everybody in court can comment on the accused's silence other than the prosecutor. That does not seem to me to be right.
Perhaps I may refer to another case within my experience. It commonly happens that when a man and woman are charged jointly with the murder of a child in their sole care or where there are two survivors of a battle in which the third has died, that one of the two accused persons goes into the witness box and explains his part in the affair and the other remains silent. It is nonsense to suggest that that is not a matter worthy of comment as regards the jury. I see that as no part of the invasion of the right of silence as I understand it and which is explained very fully in the speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mustill, to which I referred on the first day of the Committee stage on Thursday, 12th January. The noble and learned Lord will no doubt find it in the appropriate column of the Official Report.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: Perhaps I may have the indulgence of the House for one moment. Understandably, such was the state of nerves under which I was speaking that I inadvertently misquoted my noble and learned friend. I turned over two pages of the
420
Official Report by mistake and attributed to him the words of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The words which I wish to refer to appear at col. 550 on 29th November, and they are these:
"We consider it wholly appropriate that the prosecution, when addressing the jury should be able to comment on a matter on which the court may comment and which the jury may take into account in reaching its verdict".
If I had not put that right the Official Report would make total nonsense.
Lord Wigoder: No doubt perfectly correctly, the Minister said that prosecuting counsel in Scotland would only exercise this power in an appropriate case and that he would exercise restraint in doing so. I know nothing whatever about the practice in Scottish courts. I cannot rival the experience of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson in the English courts. He claims to have had 40 years' experience at the criminal Bar and I had only 37.
I wonder whether what has been said about prosecuting counsel is not to paint a somewhat idealistic picture. The reality at the English Bar is that there are solicitors who instruct prosecuting counsel. The reality is that many solicitors prefer aggressive prosecuting counsel who will take the decencies to their uttermost limits. It may be that people are totally different and have totally different standards in Scotland, I know not, but I suspect that if the same temptations apply in Scotland some prosecuting counsel will be more enthusiastic about deciding what is an appropriate case and what degree of restraint should be exercised than will other prosecuting counsel. It may well be that they will benefit professionally in due course from their enthusiasm.
Therefore, I venture to suggest that there is a danger that we shall be starting out on a somewhat slippery slope and that gradually restraint will be exercised with less and less vigour and the appropriate cases will turn out to be more and more frequent. Of course, I understand the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that the Court of Appeal may well decide to intervene if prosecuting counsel appears to the court to have exceeded the appropriate limits. The problem will arise for the Court of Appeal where counsel has exceeded the appropriate limits and where the judge has then put his foot down—as one would expect—and told the jury that it was quite wrong for prosecuting counsel to do what he did. It is doubtful whether the Court of Appeal would be quite so willing to intervene in such a case, yet the comments of prosecuting counsel may have affected the jury without anybody being able to tell. I therefore view with some doubt the wisdom of the proposal that in the Scottish courts that power should be given to prosecuting counsel.
I should like to add a point that I raised three times during our proceedings on the recent criminal justice legislation. My noble friend Lord Hutchinson has raised this point again today. I refer to the simple case that we have all encountered many times at the criminal Bar of a man who cannot go into the witness box and whose reason for not doing so cannot be told to the judge or the jury. He may not be able to go into the witness box because his alibi defence—his true defence—is "I was

421
in bed with my best friend's wife" or "I know who committed this offence. It was my brother". We have all had such cases. During a trial nobody knows—nobody can know—why a defendant is not giving evidence. In such circumstances I venture to suggest that judges would be very wise—as I am sure they are in Scotland—to make sure that they comment on that only in exceptional cases. If the power to comment is given to prosecuting counsel, at times such comment is bound to be passed in cases where the making of such a comment is totally unfair to the defendant.
4 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Turning to some of the points that have just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, perhaps I may say that the position in Scotland is different in that in Scotland we would be dealing in the sheriff court or the district court with the procurator fiscal, who is a permanent member of the public prosecution system in Scotland, or in the higher courts with an advocate depute. All those people are subject to the instruction of the Lord Advocate.
Although I am not suggesting that the approach of prosecuting counsel is absolutely identical in all cases or that all procurators fiscal prosecute in exactly the same way—they are all individuals: they are all subject to instruction—I think it not unlikely that, if such a provision were to be passed, the Lord Advocate would instruct advocates depute and procurators fiscal as to the approach that they should adopt towards the operation of the provision. I have no doubt that such an approach would be along the lines that were indicated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because to do otherwise would be to invite the jury to approach the case on a basis that would be wrong in law.
If the approach was so over the top two possibilities would arise. If it were very bad, the judge would seek to correct it and such circumstances might give rise, as the noble and learned Lord said, to the possibility of the appeal court saying that because of the approach of the prosecutor the whole situation was so flawed that the conviction should be quashed. Therefore, the prosecutor would act in such a way at his peril. I should have thought that in a very extreme case it might be possible—I do not like to suggest this—for the judge to desert the case on the basis that he was satisfied that a fair trial could not then take place. Such a sanction would always be available.
Although one cannot rule out the possibility of inappropriate comment, I must advise the Committee that I think that that would be relatively rare and could be dealt with appropriately within the existing machinery of our legal system.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: This has been a long but interesting and informative debate. In general, however, it has completely ignored Amendment No. 78 and has gone off at a tangent, dealing with issues which might have been raised more relevantly in a clause-stand-part debate. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, and since these matters have been raised, perhaps it will be more appropriate for me to say now what I had been
422
going to say at that stage and to answer the points that have been raised. Perhaps that will save the Committee some time.
The Father of the Scottish Bar, Mr. Lionel Daiches, QC, who is now 86, often uses his favourite phrase when evidence has been presented to a jury which the jury is then told to ignore. He says, "It is like throwing a skunk into the jury room and telling them to ignore the smell". So much for over-the-top comments by prosecutors and, even worse, for a judge's attempt to rectify that, because the latter in its turn will only draw attention to the fact that the accused has not exercised his right to go into the witness box should he so wish.
I always understood that a complaint at the instance of the procurator fiscal in Scotland or a petitioner indictment at the instance of the procurator fiscal or the Lord Advocate set out the following: here is a charge which the state is preferring against you and we are going to prove it. I did not understand—I have never understood—that the serving of a complaint or a petition on an individual puts him on his mettle to provide what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to as a "competing account". We are not dealing in competing accounts; we are dealing with proof of the indictment which the Crown has set out to prove against the accused—nothing more; nothing less.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and, indeed, to the Lord Advocate, I find it astonishing that defence counsel may take it upon himself to say to a jury, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you may have wondered why Mr. Bloggs did not go into the witness box. I tell you that he has a constitutional and legal right not to go into the witness box because the onus is always on the Crown to prove the facts of the complaint or indictment". From what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the Lord Advocate said, it appears that the judge may then intervene and set up an evidential tit-for-tat between the accused and the prosecutor. That is very dangerous territory. If defence counsel mentions the fact and the noble and learned Lord then says, "Well, defence counsel mentioned it so I am going to talk about the accused's absence from the witness box", we are entering very dangerous territory.
Some reasons have been given for why people do not go into the witness box. I well recall a case I had in the High Court in Glasgow when the man was a shivering, gibbering wreck. He could hardly tell me his name. Doctors said that it would be the same the following day and the day after so long as he was facing the indictment. He was physically and intellectually incapable of giving evidence, far less was he able to stand up to cross-examination. But counsel cannot tell the jury that. Counsel cannot say to a jury, "I have just left my client in the cells downstairs. He is a nervous and gibbering wreck, and for that reason he has not given evidence". Counsel are not allowed to give evidence before a jury. They are there to deal with the evidence which has been presented.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that the law in Scotland has stood since 1918. I suggest with respect that it has stood still, and developments since then have merely demonstrated the mess into

423
which we are getting. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, referred to the fact that the same standard should be applied to the judge as to the prosecutor, and that in appropriate cases they may refer to the absence of the accused from the witness box with restraint. Who will lay down to the prosecutor what constitutes restraint? Is the Crown Office going to send out a circular saying, "You must exercise restraint. Restraint means this—"? It is an impossible exercise, because every case depends upon its own merits and its own atmosphere. Sometimes there is animosity between the prosecutor and the defence counsel or between the prosecutor and the accused. That is why things take off at a tangent. What the judge said in 1918 was:
"the judge may, and in my opinion should, in exceptional cases comment upon the fact and bring it distinctly under the notice of the jury, who are, of course, always entitled to consider the fact that an accused - who, it may be, is the only man in possession of the full knowledge of the facts—refrains from going into the witness-box for the purpose of clearing his feet and establishing his own innocence".
That has been followed through in other cases. It was said in a case in 1993:
"if there is something which is crying out for an explanation, and he [the accused] gives no explanation, then it may be easier for you to draw an inference of guilt from the facts which have set out the idea that he might in fact be guilty of this".
I do not know what juries make of that type of direction. The jury exists only on the presumption that it does what it is told. In a more recent case, as yet unreported, the same procedure was followed through. The judge said:
"There has been no innocent explanation advanced by the accused, but that is not adding anything to the Crown case".
That is the point of the amendment: there is no evidential value. The word "evidential" was included in the amendment deliberately. I did not say that it was not of any value to the Crown case—of course it may be—but it is of no evidential value. In the case of Deacons the judge said:
"It merely means that when you are considering a particular piece of evidence which looks at first blush as though it might be incriminating of the accused, and you are considering whether or not to draw the inference that it is an incriminating piece of evidence, if you think that it is something which calls for an explanation and there has been no explanation by the accused then, as I say, you might find it easier to draw the inference that it is an incriminating piece of evidence, but that is entirely a matter for you".
The last phrase, "that is entirely a matter for you" is the escape hatch which judges use when giving directions to the court. Time and time again there will be judges' charges which include that phrase perhaps 10 or 15 times in a long case. The Appeal Court will say, "of course the judge told the jury that it was a matter for them", the judge having given a direction in those terms. I wonder what it all amounts to. That is why I ask the Government not to introduce this clause and to think again.
I raise the next point because it is an important one. I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that I am certain that it will be taken up. If a prosecutor goes over the top during an important trial, there will come a point where if the judge does not think injustice may be done to the accused, the defence will perceive injustice being done and will ask for leave to lead evidence to explain why the accused did not go into the
424
witness box. That, if it happens, and if it is accepted by the court, will lead to delays in trials, further expense, and injustice. It may lead to a retrial.
At present the prosecutor is allowed to say to the jury, "Well of course the Crown evidence is uncontradicted". That means that the accused has not said anything different. It is then for the jury to decide, on the evidence presented, whether it is satisfied that the Crown have proved the case, which is where the thing all begins and why I put down the amendment in the terms that I did.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, thinks that the amendment is obnoxious to judges, I am not sure that I apologise, because the judges are the first people to criticise Parliament for not telling them what to do. It might be helpful if occasionally judges were instructed what they should and should not do in appropriate cases. There are other clauses in the Bill where the judge is instructed to give in writing his reasons for taking a certain course.
What I am worried about, having heard the debate—it concerns me greatly—is that the provision has opened the door. If this is the attitude being adopted by prosecutors and judges, we are entering an evidential free-for-all which will be contrary to the interests of justice in Scotland. It will be a sad day for the law in Scotland when this clause passes into the law, as it undoubtably will, bearing in mind the Government's position. Having heard all that has been said today, I shall sit back in a calmer moment, think about things, and decide what to do on Report. There is great feeling about this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 79:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of 'Not Proven' verdict
. After each of the sections 153 and 355 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section as, as respectively, section 153A and section 355A—
"Removal of 'Not Proven' verdict.
. In any trial the verdict to be returned in respect of any accused person shall be either one of 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' and the verdict of 'Not Proven' shall, from the date of the passing of this Act, cease to have effect.".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 80, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to them both. I do not speak to the amendments on the basis that they are linked generally, although there may be situations where they are linked. Amendment No. 79 asks the Committee to approve the abolition of the "not proven" verdict in the law of Scotland. That is an issue which has exercised many people in Scotland over recent years. It is very much in the public domain. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I have no interest in any particular case

425
which may have been the focus of the press recently. I know that a certain case may have focused the public's mind on the existence of that verdict.
The verdict of "not proven" has been in the law of Scotland for a long time, but we live in a different era now. The law has developed. The Court of Appeal is established to monitor and guide judges as to how the courts should run. The time has come to lay this verdict to rest. We should look to the issue of having just two verdicts; namely, guilty and not guilty. In the Government's paper Improving the Delivery of Justice in Scotland: Juries and Verdicts at Chapter 8 there is an unfortunate omission, because at paragraph 8.1 the case of McNicol v. Her Majesty's Advocate is referred to. It is reported in the 1964 Scots Law Times at 151. In quoting what was said in the case about the "not proven" verdict, the person who compiled the document left out two-thirds. I do not understand how that happened. Perhaps I may quote from Lord Justice General Clyde. In a way I am quoting against my argument but I shall deal with that in one moment. He said:
"The verdict of 'not proven' is well established in the law of Scotland. It has for some centuries proved a useful part of our criminal law and in practice it has worked well. In our view it ought to be left completely open and free to a jury to return a verdict of not proven if they so decide after hearing the evidence and speeches at the trial. But with the explicit and pointed criticism which was made by the presiding judge, in the present case, of this well established Scottish rule, it is quite obvious that the jury was strongly discouraged, from bringing in a verdict of not proven. They were, in effect, left with only two possible choices, when in fact they should have had three. For they were told that the honest and proper thing was either to find the appellant guilty or not guilty.
It is, of course, quite true that under the English system there are only the two verdicts and periodically the cry is raised from across the border that we in Scotland should tamely accept the rule established in the law and practice of England. But for upwards of 200 years a not proven verdict has been available as a third choice in the law of Scotland and no convincing argument has been advanced to justify its elimination from our law.
It is unnecessary to consider all the reasons in its favour, but perhaps I might just mention two. Its inclusion in the list of possible verdicts is much more humane and much more advantageous to an accused than if it were not so included".
The important quotation is:
"It gives a jury, who have some lingering doubts as to the guilt of an accused and who are certainly on the evidence not prepared to say that he is innocent, the chance to find the charge against him not proven. If that third choice were eliminated and if the jury had only two alternatives left, it is almost inevitable that in the situation that I have just envisaged they would hold that their doubts of guilt were not enough to amount to reasonable doubt and he would be convicted. In the experience of all of us there are many cases where a verdict of not proven has been reached and where had that verdict not been available the jury would have found the accused guilty, and there are many men and women today in Scotland who have been acquitted on a not proven verdict and who, had it not been available to them, would have been in prison".
Where does that leave the law? It is perhaps a definition of what "not proven" means; that is, if the jury has a lingering doubt in its mind. If the jury has a lingering doubt, the honest and straightforward answer is to acquit the accused because the Crown has not satisfied it beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty.
The not proven verdict came into the law of Scotland in ancient times—about 200 years ago—in a different structured legal system when juries found the facts proven or not proven and the judges applied the law. Nowadays, juries are instructed in the law which they must apply to the facts that they have found proven. Juries now act as a unit of 15 who look at the facts, find certain facts proved and return a verdict on that. As was said in the previous debate, it is for the Crown to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the not proven verdict makes no sense.
If the juries are masters of the facts, as they are told they are, they must not be allowed to be the fudgers of the verdict. That is what happens in some circumstances. I am sure that Members opposite will know that those of us who practise deal with cases where that sticks out a mile, to use a colloquialism. Perhaps in a domestic case where a person should have been found guilty beyond any shadow of doubt a sympathetic jury used not proven as a get-out. We should have no such get-outs in the law and we must therefore get rid of this antiquated verdict.
The nonsense element of the verdict is underlined in paragraph 8.3 of Chapter 8 of the Government's publication. Although we have a definition of "not proven", the Appeal Court instructed judges on its meaning. It instructed judges not to attempt to explain the difference to juries, commenting,
"it is in our view highly dangerous to endeavour to explain what the not proven verdict is in relation to the not guilty verdict".
The verdict was defined, in the broad sense of the word, in 1964 and it amounts to a verdict of acquittal. However, the judges are told, "Don't put your toe in that water; it's too hot. Just leave it and tell juries that the verdicts of not guilty and not proven have the same effect; namely, they are both verdicts of acquittal". As I understand it, that is what is done. It does not do justice to the legal system and, accordingly, I ask the Committee to accept my amendment.
I now turn to Amendment No. 80—
Lord McCluskey: Would the noble Lord care to deal with the amendments separately because, although there may be an element of linking, they are separate issues?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am happy to do that. I beg to move Amendment No. 79.
Lord McCluskey: I address myself to Amendment No. 79. I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's proposition that there is a lack of logic in having three verdicts. Unfortunately, he has chosen the wrong verdict to get rid of. The sensible verdict to get rid of is that of not guilty.
The reason is that in a criminal trial, leaving aside matters of detail, there is only one question. It is not the question, "Is he guilty or is he innocent?". It is not the question, "Is he guilty or is he not guilty?". The only question is, "Has the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt? Has the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused man?". Logically, the answer is yes or no.

427
If the answer is yes, the Crown has proved the case and it is logical to say that the man is guilty, whether the jury says that or whether the judge says, "I convict you". If, however, the jury says that the case has not been proved, the logical answer is, "No, not proved". It so happens that "not proven" sounds old fashioned because we do not often use the word "proven". "Not proved" is a sensible answer to the question, "Has the Crown proved the case beyond reasonable doubt?". Logically, if the jury states that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the judge should turn to the accused and say, "In the light of the jury's verdict, I convict you". Alternatively, if the jury states that the case has not been proved the judge should turn to the accused and say, "In the light of the jury's verdict, I acquit you". In a criminal trial in Scotland, one question is never raised unless defence counsel is out of his mind. It is, "Is the accused not guilty? Is the accused innocent?". There is no burden upon him to prove his innocence and the defence is daft to try it.
It is sometimes said that there is a presumption of innocence and that, therefore, if the Crown's case fails the person should be presumed to be innocent. That is a misunderstanding of the nature of the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a device which operates within the context of the trial. The jurors retire to the jury room with the statement by the trial judge ringing in their ears that a person is presumed to be innocent unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. They apply that presumption; they look at the burden of proof; they look at the evidence; and they reach a decision—guilty or not guilty. At that stage the presumption of innocence ceases to have any effect at all. It does not survive the verdict. That is the nature of it. The presumption of innocence does not apply outside the criminal trial itself. It is spent once the question has been answered.
If we were starting from scratch, I believe that there is a lot to be said for abolishing one of the verdicts, but for the reasons that I have given I should abolish the not guilty verdict although I should prefer that the jury would simply return an answer yes or no to the question put to it and for the judge to apply the verdict.
But in my experience, the not proven verdict has come to be used in certain particular circumstances and I should regret its disappearance for that type of case. A classic example of that is where a woman alleges that she has been raped. The jury accepts her evidence as credible and reliable but, for whatever reason, the Crown is unable to produce corroboration for that evidence or the corroborative evidence is destroyed in some fashion with the result that the jury, applying the well-known rule in Scotland about corroboration of all material facts, is unable to return a verdict of guilty; and yet it believes the complainant. The jury can then say "not proven". The jurors are saying that they do not disbelieve the woman but that the case has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt in view of the lack of corroborative evidence. That is a very important safeguard which I have seen applied many times.
428
Unfortunately in rape cases it happens, even in the cases which reach court—and many do not even reach that far—that the corroborative evidence is wholly unconvincing, albeit that the woman herself is readily to be believed and relied upon.
The second circumstance in which, in my experience, juries tend to use the not proven verdict is where there is evidence which they regard as acceptable but when they look for corroboration, they find that it lies in the evidence given by policemen. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, mentioned earlier that it is often alleged and sometimes established that policemen have given false evidence, in particular in relation to what is called "verballing"; that is, the statements allegedly given in the form of a confession by an accused person.
Where the evidence consists of some reliable evidence and the corroboration consists of unreliable evidence, in that type of circumstance again it is perfectly legitimate for the jury to bring in a not proven verdict. The jurors are not shedding any doubt on the reliability of the evidence led, other than the unacceptable evidence of the police officers. In particular, I recall a case in which precisely that happened. A woman alleged that she was attacked and robbed by two persons of her acquaintance. Her evidence was perfectly clear and reliable but there was no corroboration at all until, at a late stage in the course of a journey in the police car, the accused was alleged to have said, "I knew that no one would pick me out because they did not get a good look at me as I was doing it", or words to that effect. The jury decided that it could not rely upon that evidence and it acquitted, using the not proven verdict.
As I say, if I were starting from scratch I should no doubt come to the view that we should settle for two verdicts, but it seems to me that we should suffer a loss were we to change a very long-standing practice and abandon the not proven verdict. Accordingly, I do not support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I oppose this amendment which seeks to abolish the not proven verdict. I wish to retain this historic verdict in the way proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
There has been much recent criticism of the not proven verdict in that it is suggested that it is used as a soft option by juries or that the jurors are under the mistaken belief that the accused can be tried again if better evidence is subsequently forthcoming.
I have two solutions to that: first, a campaign of public education about the verdict and its use; and secondly, a research project, with appropriate dispensations, into the thinking of jurors who had brought in not proven verdicts.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I too would agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and others that if one was starting to design a legal system now, it seems doubtful that one would incorporate three verdicts into it. It is a matter of observation that other systems do not have a third

429
verdict and seem to survive without it. Therefore, as I say, if one were to start afresh, it seems unlikely that one would necessarily incorporate it.
But we are not doing so. The Scottish legal system has had three verdicts for over 200 years. The question is whether there is a sufficient case being put forward for abolishing one of those verdicts and in particular, the not proven verdict.
As Members of the Committee will know, this matter came particularly into public discussion in Scotland as a result of a particular case. Because the matter was given prominence, when the Government were preparing the consultation papers in connection with all those various matters they thought it proper to consult on the question of the retention of the not proven verdict.
As a result of that consultation, which we were at pains to make as neutral as possible, we received a large number of responses. It must be said that two out of three of the substantive responses supported retention of the three verdicts. Those who were in favour included most of the High Court judges, most of the sheriffs and justices of the peace, all individual lawyers and groups of lawyers who replied, all civil liberties groups and all groups representing victims. Those against its retention included the Scottish Law Commission, two police associations, a certain number of individual sheriffs and the campaign to abolish the not proven verdict which, of course, has made that its particular aim.
That campaign attracted considerable support in the Lanarkshire area which is where the particular case arose. However, we were careful to observe that on consultation we could not detect any widespread dissatisfaction with the verdict throughout other parts of Scotland. Therefore, the consultation revealed that, by and large, people were in favour of retaining that verdict and that there was no widespread dissatisfaction with it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has given examples of the kinds of cases where, in his experience, it is used. It is certainly the case that the verdict is used to a considerable extent in cases in Scotland and that has always been so. Therefore, it seems to correspond with a need felt by juries, because they choose that option when it is open to them, and it may be that in certain cases—perhaps a rape case such as that referred to by the noble and learned Lord—they find that it better expresses the conclusion which they have reached on the case than would a not guilty verdict.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the question of education on the subject. We hope that, at any rate to some extent, the consultation paper and the discussion which followed on it in the newspapers and elsewhere have gone some way to helping people to understand the significance of the verdict. I think that from time to time there is misunderstanding here. Of course I know—the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, also knows it—that judges, when putting the matter before a jury, explain (nowadays in particular) that both not guilty and not proven are verdicts of acquittal.
It is true to say that there have always been opponents as well as supporters of these verdicts. As I said, we have considered this matter carefully on the basis of consultation and have come to the view that the verdict
430
seems to operate satisfactorily and in the circumstances it would be wrong to remove it from our legal system. For that reason I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his observations and for the contributions made by other Members of the Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has raised an interesting proposition which may be worthy of fuller examination. There is no party issue involved in this at all, although I appreciate that perhaps a Member on this side of the Chamber in another place was involved in the Lanarkshire case that has been referred to. However, what we are discussing is not a party issue. We have always tried to get over the feeling in the public mind on this issue. I believe that that has arisen because of the existence of the three verdicts. When a person receives a verdict of not proven people say, "He did it but they could not prove it". If we had only two verdicts—I have not had time to consider the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—and it was clear to the public what the object of the exercise was (namely, the Crown either proves it or it does not prove it beyond reasonable doubt on acceptable evidence), this middle road in the public mind might very well be dug up, if I can put it that way.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, mentioned research and an amnesty. I believe he was referring to the contempt of court Act which prevents anyone from asking a juror why he or she reached a decision, how he felt about it and other questions. That might be an interesting piece of research. I would feel confident that if the Government tried to find out how juries think, because it is a closed book to everyone else, that might also be an interesting exercise.
It is interesting that the Scottish Law Commission is in favour of abolition of this verdict. I do not think antiquity is justification for retention. To use the old analogy, we used to stick small boys up chimneys to clean them, usually with their heads, but that did not mean to say that chimney sweeps should not have introduced the use of brushes rather than small boys. On the same basis the fact that the verdict of not proven has existed for 200 years does not necessarily make it a good thing in the legal life of Scotland. However, I shall consider with care what has been said in relation to the amendment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 80:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Majority verdict of 'Guilty'
. After section 154 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Majority verdict of 'Guilty'.
. 154A. In returning a verdict in respect of any accused person, or persons, no verdict of 'Guilty' can be recorded unless at least ten of the jurors vote for that verdict.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was grouped with Amendment No. 79 but I shall now deal with it separately. The proposition is that in Scottish criminal courts as long as the jury remains at 15 members the majority for a verdict of guilty should be increased from eight to 10. Like the not proven verdict, the question of changing the margin in returning a verdict of guilty in the Scottish courts has been a matter of debate over many years. In recent years I have come into contact with people from abroad who work in this area. I have no doubt that the two noble and learned Lords sitting opposite have met many more people who work in other systems than I have. If one discusses the Scottish legal system with them, they ask what happens in a criminal court. One tells them that a person can be sent to gaol for life on a vote of eight to seven out of a jury of 15. At that point they hold up their hands in horror and ask how that can be done in a civilised community.
I make this proposition to the Committee. If the Crown has failed to satisfy seven people out of 15 that an accused person is guilty, does that not in itself cry out that there is reasonable doubt in the Crown proof of the case? We are all anxious that guilty people should he convicted, but we are all equally anxious that the innocent should be protected. I am sure that there are many people languishing in Scottish prisons who have been sent there on a single casting vote, so to speak, of a juror. With respect, jurors may have voted the way they did for a variety of reasons. They may have voted late on a Friday afternoon when it was time to go home. The jurors may have said, "Right, lads, let's have another vote on it", and the juror concerned may have held up his or her hand and said, "All right, I'll go for guilty". If the majority was changed to 10, it would make that possibility at least less likely in the jury room. It gives odds of two to one—for the Crown to prove its case—if I can put it that way.
In England of course there is a different system. A jury can either return a verdict unanimously or after a certain period of time a verdict of 10 to two out of a jury of 12. That is five to one against the Crown in terms of numbers in the jury returning a verdict of guilty. I am not proposing any radical change in the law. What I am proposing may mean just a slight change of emphasis. In a nation such as the United Kingdom it seems a bit daft—to put it no higher than that—that someone in Dumfries can go to prison for life on a single casting vote of a juror, whereas in England he or she would have to have 10 people finding him guilty before any conviction of guilt could be returned. I could discuss this for a long time but the Committee will be glad to know that I shall not do so. The point is a simple one. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: This matter was of course related, as the grouping and the noble Lord acknowledged, to the earlier matter. The three matters were dealt with together by the Thomson Committee which reported in October 1975—the three matters being the size of the jury, the size of the majority and the three verdicts. In Chapter 51 the committee concluded that the existing three verdicts should be retained—that was the matter we dealt with just a moment ago—that the number of jurors should be reduced to 12 and that the simple
432
majority should remain. We have decided not to reduce the number of jurors to 12 in the legislation that has been through Parliament since that time and there is no proposal to do so here. In the circumstances one wonders what is the reason for moving from the simple majority.
The conclusions which were expressed in paragraph 51.12 of the Thomson Report were to the effect that there was no evidence that the public regarded the present system as working unsatisfactorily. In these circumstances I see no reason to depart from the present position. The noble Lord contrasted the difference between Dumfries on the one hand and somewhere south of the Border on the other. The criminal justice systems are so entirely different that it is not proper to make that kind of comparison. In the circumstances I urge the Committee not to accept this amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As I indicated, in preparing this legislation we consulted on a number of issues dealing with juries. One of the matters concerned whether the simple majority verdict should be retained. We were, of course, aware that retention had been recommended by the Thomson Committee in the circumstances alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and that has happened. It is true to say that we also consulted particularly having regard to the question of the possible abolition of the not proven verdict. Nonetheless, the result of the consultation was that two thirds of those who replied supported the retention of the simple majority verdict. We took that into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested that by introducing a provision for a qualified majority of this kind one would give greater protection to innocent persons. However, we already have built into our system the possible extra protection of the not proven verdict.
With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, he slightly simplified the position in England. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, one has to look at the position as a whole. In England the position is rather different. In particular, before any verdict can be returned 10 people have to vote for it. Under the noble Lord's amendment there could be a situation in which as many as nine people were in favour of a verdict of guilty and six against, but nonetheless a verdict of acquittal would have to be brought in. That seems to me to be likely to cause real difficulties. Because of that kind of difficulty, in England in order for a not guilty verdict to be returned one has to have 10 in favour. That immediately gives rise to the possibility—which we know occurs in practice—of hung juries and the need for retrials with all the difficulties which those entail.
Therefore, any reform would have to go much further than that proposed by the noble Lord. We see great disadvantages in the possibility of hung juries and retrials. Therefore, those point against a change. Before we felt that a change was desirable or called for we would have to be satisfied that there was a real problem to be tackled. As I said, our consultation indicated that

433
people were satisfied with the system which we now have, including the not proven verdict. Therefore, I cannot accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. The fact that the public do not regard a majority verdict as being disadvantageous is perhaps also a simplification. It raises the question of who were the members of the public who replied to the consultation paper. Practitioners and bodies dealing with victims, and so on, reply to consultations. In general the public who are involved are people who have unfortunately become involved in the court process during their lives. Those are the people who know what they are talking about because they have been involved in the practical exercise of this matter, particularly those who' are languishing in prison.
The noble and learned Lord said that one could have nine jurors in favour of a guilty verdict and six against. I say, so what? I do not suggest for a moment that we should follow the English system, but the amendment proposes that for a verdict of guilty the Crown must persuade 10 people out of 15. I suggest that that is not an unreasonable burden to place upon the Crown, which after all brings the charges against members of the public in the first place. However, having heard the reply of the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 81:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Effect of offence on victims
. After each of sections 217 and 430 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section as, respectively, section 217A and section 430A—
"Effect of offence on victims
. Before determining what sentence to pass on, or what other disposal or order to make in relation to, an offender the court shall have before it a report concerning the effect of the offence on the victim or victims.".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to the amendment last Thursday when it was subsequently decided not to debate it at that time. Members of the Committee will have noted the similarity between the amendment and Amendment No. 86 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
I remind the Committee that the purpose of the amendment is that a statement about the effect of the offence on the victim should be made available to the court before proceeding to pass sentence. That would have two useful outcomes. First, it would enhance the balance of care for the victim. Secondly, it would be a useful starting point for the social work process for any offender placed under an order by the court. I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: The new clause proposed by the noble Earl is grouped with the amendment which I propose. Amendment No. 84 mentions a victim impact statement as defined in Section 217B(2) of the 1975 Act, and Amendment No. 86 creates that Section 217B. The
434
amendment is made to the existing Clause 27 of the Bill, which in turn introduces a new section into the 1975 Act which provides that
"In determining what sentence to pass on, or what other disposal or order to make in relation to, an offender who has pleaded guilty to an offence",
a court may take into account certain matters. I propose to add that one of the matters to be taken into account is a victim impact statement as defined in the proposed new section.
My purpose in putting down the amendments is to draw attention to the role of the victim in serious criminal proceedings in Scotland. I acknowledge at once that the wording of the amendments is not ideal, but my intention is not to seek to amend the Bill, and certainly not today. It is to enable us to consider the position of the victim in serious cases where there is an identifiable victim, because in some cases there is not.
I want to emphasise certain points at the outset. I shall address myself to the most serious cases only—those which are dealt with on solemn procedure in Scotland; namely, the jury cases. That is not clear from the amendments as drafted by me, and I apologise for that. That was my intention.
I recognise that it would be extremely expensive and administratively overwhelming to require victim impact statements in every single case, certainly at the beginning. Accordingly, I do not propose that at this stage. I also confine my proposals, as the amendments make clear, to assault cases, including assault cases resulting in death, whether that is described as murder or culpable homicide, to robbery cases and to sexual offences which are listed in Section 141A(2) of the existing Act.
The next point I want to emphasise is that my proposals relate to that stage in the criminal proceedings when it has been established, first, that a crime has been committed; secondly, that an identifiable and identified accused person has been found guilty of committing the crime; and, thirdly, that a person or persons has or have been shown to be victims of the crime of which another person has then been found guilty. I do not think it is right to use the term "victim" in an enactment dealing with criminal procedure before the stage has been reached at which a conviction has been recorded.
Even in that context it is not easy to define the victim, even in a case where the crime has resulted in the death of a person. Therefore, I recognise that my proposed subsection (4) is not the perfect answer to the difficulty, but I believe that a workable definition could be found by Ministers together with parliamentary draftsmen.
What is a victim impact statement in this context? Amendment No. 86 seeks to make the position clear. There are many possibilities. First, the victim may make an oral statement in court. That is the system which obtains in more than 40 states of the United States; it is widespread. I am wholly opposed to that idea; I am not in favour of it. I cannot emphasise that too strongly. The reason is that the situation would be far too emotional for everyone involved. It might be far too traumatic for the victim. It would also be an entirely uncontrolled situation. If one allows the victim to stand up in court, the victim should not be allowed to introduce material

435
which should not be before the court. Judicial criminal proceedings should not be conducted in a highly emotional atmosphere. They are intended to produce a just result and a balanced disposal. One could not stop the victim from making new, unsubstantiated allegations, introducing hearsay, perhaps in an extreme case introducing abuse, and making theatrical gestures of one kind or another in highly emotional language.
Perhaps I may illustrate the point. In 1994 in a recent case in the United States the murder victim's widow was allowed to make an address to the judge, as she was entitled to do under the Victims' Bill of Rights. In the course of that address she turned to the accused person, by this time convicted, and in front of many television cameras said, "You are here. My husband is also here", and produced his ashes and dumped them down in front of the person convicted of the murder. That seems to be a monstrous way to allow court proceedings to be conducted. However, it seems inevitably built into the situation where one allows the victim to appear.
I see no place in our procedure for such behaviour. I reject entirely the notion of an oral statement. That is why the clause that I have drafted, imperfect though it is, fairly clearly states that the statement shall be a written statement,
"prepared by a legally qualified member of the procurator fiscal service and signed or otherwise authenticated by the victim",
as defined in the subsection. I emphasise that point. In this Committee we have repeatedly noted that in Scotland the public prosecutor—whether it be the Lord Advocate, one of his deputes or a member of the fiscal service—is exercising a role as a public servant, a Minister of Justice, whose duty it is to place all the relevant material before the court. I envisage him as participating in this exercise in that capacity.
What information should the victim impact statement contain? There are a number of heads in subsection (2) of the clause that I have drafted. They include:
"(i) The personal details of the victim, including his relationship (if any) to the offender, (ii) the physical, emotional and mental consequences to the victim of the offence, (iii) the financial or other patrimonial consequences to the victim of the offence".
I acknowledge that that is largely undertaken now. Some might ask: if that is done now, why is the provision necessary? The crucial difference—I urge the Committee to recognise it—is that the victim will have helped to prepare the statement. The victim will have authenticated it and therefore the victim becomes involved in the criminal justice process. However, even if the victim impact statement contained nothing further than the matters listed in paragraphs (i) to (iii), I believe that that would achieve something. The victim would be able to feel that he or she had had an opportunity to play a real part in placing before the court all the relevant facts. Accordingly, at this stage, apart from involving the victim in that exercise for the reasons that I have explained, nothing that I propose is startlingly new. The only new aspect is that the victim is directly involved.
The victim is involved if, and only if, he or she chooses to be involved. That is made abundantly plain in subsection (3) which states,
"Nothing in this section shall compel a victim to assist in the preparation of or to sign or authenticate a victim impact statement against his will".
436
A victim will be able to say, "No, I prefer to leave it to the prosecutor. I've had enough, thank you very much", or, "My confidence is with the court". In the United States research indicates that only 3 per cent. of victims exercised their right. However, that statistic has to be taken with the utmost care because the American system of sentencing is highly distorted by the fact that the prosecutor, the defence and the judge can enter into a plea bargain as a result of which the sentence is determined before the victim impact statement is put before the court. Therefore, knowing that their statement may well have no effect upon the result whatsoever, many victims will not take part. Other statistics suggest that in those cases where the victim has a right to take part, the victim opts to do so in perhaps slightly more than a quarter of the cases. That is also an interesting statistic.
The victim does not always say, "I want blood. I want an execution. I want severe punishment". In a significant number of cases the victim pleads for leniency or some other modest disposal. Those matters have to be borne in mind although I believe that it is dangerous to consider the American experience where the criminal justice system is entirely different.
I turn now to what I believe are the novel features of my proposal. First, I believe that it is essential for the due and proper administration of criminal justice that before the judge determines the sentence to be imposed, he should have before him all the relevant information. I cannot imagine that anyone will contradict that proposition. In particular he needs to have full information about the criminality—the wickedness, the evil as it were—that inspired the criminal act. That is always a relevant matter: how wicked was the person? What is the criminality of the offence? That information might, and commonly does, include mitigating material about the person's background, and state of intoxication—that has a certain relevance in regard to sentencing although not in relation to the commission of the crime itself—or circumstances arising from the events themselves. The criminality is one aspect.
The second matter on which the court requires to have information relates to the consequences of the crime. Some people have argued that one should not take into account the consequences; one should simply consider the criminality. In my judgment that does not accord with common sense. If a drunken driver drives off the road, crashes into a shop front and breaks the glass, that is one thing. If a drunken driver who is just as drunk and no more drunk drives off a road, crashes into a bus queue, and kills three children, that is an entirely different matter and the public would not understand if that difference were not taken into account. Therefore the consequences of the crime are undoubtedly a relevant matter.
It is sometimes true that the consequences of the crime change the character of the crime itself. I give one instance. If you take a bottle into a pub and hit two men on the head, of whom one has a thick skull, he will turn round and punch you on the nose. The other has a thin skull and dies. So you face two charges: simple assault;

437
and culpable homicide. Therefore the consequences matter in relation not only to the nature of the crime but also to the appropriate penalty.
Currently and traditionally the convicted person will be able to place before the court material on all mitigating factors including those essential elements. He has the right to do so personally, or he may do so through his lawyer, commonly at public expense although that is not a matter of any great importance. In addition to placing material before the court by one of those routes, he can submit reports which have been prepared by others—psychological reports and medical reports. Social inquiry reports are placed before the court which largely contain the narrative of the accused person to the appropriate social worker or probation officer. So there are many routes by which the accused can place his account of matters before the court.
Not only that, he is entitled to call witnesses in mitigation of the penalty. He can, and commonly does, make allegations about others who are involved in the case. That sometimes happens in relation to the deceased. For example, we shall discuss later the case of Boyle, which will be referred to in connection with an amendment put down by the Government. The deceased was an infamous criminal called Bennett, from Glasgow. Undoubtedly, when I, as the trial judge, was moved to impose sentence, my attention was drawn to the fact that Bennett was a villain and his loss to Glasgow was not serious. That is a matter which I was asked to take into account. However, sometimes allegations are made about the deceased or the complainer which are not as easy to understand and establish.
In summary, the convicted person can always place before the court whatever he and his lawyer believe might help to mitigate the penalty. He has the right of appeal if the penalty is too severe, but the victim has no say whatsoever. It is not the job of the prosecutor to say anything at all about the possible sentence. In that context, I might refer the Committee to what was said in the McKenzie case in 1989, in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate appeared in his role as Solicitor-General. There the trial judge—who was myself—had taken a course of which the court, I confess, entirely disapproved. In the course of his opinion, which was the opinion of the court given by the Lord Justice General on behalf of himself, the Lord Justice Clerk and Lord Brand, the Lord Justice General, said:
"It is right at this stage to emphasise the position of the Crown in this matter. As we have said, the Crown is the master of the instance at all times up to the moment when the prosecutor has moved the court to pronounce sentence. But at that stage, the matter moves entirely from the Crown to the court, and it is desirable for good reasons of public policy that the Crown should not be involved in the process of sentencing in any way whatever. It is known to all who practise in the criminal system of this country that the Crown has absolutely no role or interest in this process. The learned Solictor-General"—
that is, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry—
438
"today has quite rightly emphasised the importance of this principle and he has stressed that nothing should be done to weaken it in any way by putting the burden of a requirement such as placed on the Crown in this case to participate in the process".
So the Crown thoroughly disapproved of what had been proposed: namely, that the victim should be invited to consider expressing a view on the matter. That is a fundamental principle, that the prosecution should not be involved in the process.
Again, I draw a distinction between Scotland and England on the one hand and the United States on the other. What has happened in the United States as a result of the victims' bills of rights in the various places in the legislation is that the prosecutor has become, as it were, counsel for the victim. So he is the one who presents the victim as an oral witness in support of the victim impact statement. It is he who adduces the witnesses and in one case of which I know, the victim employed lawyers and inquiry agents to round up people who could show what a villain the accused was and the prosecutor then leads all those people as witnesses. The prosecutor enters into the process there. In my view, he should not do so here, except as a person who mediates between the victim on the one hand and the court on the other in the way of helping to prepare the statement and keeping it relevant and balanced.
In referring to what was said in the McKenzie case, I emphasised and I repeat that the Crown has no role in sentencing. In fact, that is the theory, but in practice there are sometimes departures from it. The most common way in which the Crown actually plays a role in relation to sentencing is this. The Crown may decide, for perfectly understandable reasons, to accept a lesser charge or to allow deletions from the charge. So, where someone is accused of using a knife repeatedly, the word "repeatedly" may disappear. If the charge is assault to cause severe injury, the word "severe" may disappear. There will, I hope, always be a justification for that, but there is a power with the Crown to reduce the charge and thus to reduce the sentence.
However, in the more serious case—and the one which is relevant here—the case may be settled by a modified plea. We do not have the American type of plea bargaining with the judge involved, but we have plea bargaining. The accused can go to the Crown and say: "Would you accept such-and-such a plea?" Alternatively, I have known the advocate depute, even in the High Court, to approach the defence and say: "We would be willing to accept such-and-such". That is one thing: to accept a modified plea, drop charge one; plead guilty to charge two; plead guilty to charge three, as amended and under certain deletions. That is the kind of deal which is necessitated by expediency at present.
However, what sometimes goes with it is that the defence and the prosecution agree on a narrative of the matters to be put before the court. I have known that to happen. It is not concealed from the court, and an advocate depute will stand up and give the account and if I say: "What about such-and-such?", he will say: "My Lords, my learned friend and I have agreed the narrative and I do not propose to add to it or subtract from it". What we may then get is, from the victim's point of view, a sanitised version of what happened.

439
The victim being unrepresented, the victim being unheard and the victim being told nothing at all about either the modified plea or the agreed narrative, he or she may simply pick up the evening paper, listen to the evening radio or watch the television and discover what has happened in his absence. There have been a number of notorious cases at least reported in the newspapers of victims, as one can imagine, being seriously upset at the result of proceedings and greatly frustrated that they had no part in it.
All I ask in that regard is that the victim in serious cases involving some kind of personal hurt should be given an opportunity, which he or she can accept or reject, to place his or her views and perspective before the court. I do not suggest that the victim should tell the judge what to do. The maximum I suggest is contained in paragraph (v) of subsection (2) in Amendment No. 86:
"the victim's recommendation, if any, to the court as to whether or not leniency should be exercised in passing sentence".
I wish to emphasise what I believe is the moderation of that wording. I do not believe that the victim should be entitled to say: "Send him away for life", "Execute him", or whatever. I do not believe that the victim should have that right. If the victim should have any word at all in relation to the sentence—and I remain to be persuaded that that is an entirely good idea—it should simply be a recommendation as to whether or not leniency should be exercised in passing sentence.
Paragraph (vi) is a technical matter. The victim's impact statement could contain,
"any other matter prescribed by Act of Adjournal".
That would simply allow the system to be developed in the light of experience.
I believe, in common with others—including the noble Earl to whose amendment we are technically speaking at this stage —that more account must be taken of the concerns of victims, their interests and perspective. They must be treated with greater dignity and respect. They should not be regarded as they were in the past—but I think not now —as fodder for the criminal process. I have been saying that publicly for more than a decade: I referred to the matter in the Reith Lectures which I delivered in 1986. Members of the Committee who were fortunate enough to buy a copy of the book before it was remaindered will find references to it in the book. In particular, I quoted there from an article which appeared in The Times of 5th March 1986 which reiterates something of what I said. I quote from the article:
"After a guilty plea it is possible, and quite usual, for the defendant's lawyer to plead in mitigation of sentence that it was really the victim, not the defendant, who was to blame … The victim cannot insist on being heard".
The author of that article, John Spencer, goes on to quote Victims in the Criminal Justice System in an article which demonstrates that victims though pleased with the police, were,
"increasingly disappointed with criminal justice as the case went on. By the end some were so fed up that they vowed that they would not bother to report an offence another time".
440
That brings me to the next point. There is a danger that if we, as the mechanics of the criminal justice system who try to operate the machine, do not take account of the interests, feelings and concerns of the victims we shall alienate them from the criminal justice system. Each time we alienate a victim we alienate members of his or her family and friends. The criminal justice system is crucially dependent upon the co-operation and support of victims, witnesses and the public. If we neglect the proper interests of victims and others, we put that co-operation and support at risk. Accordingly, in supporting the principle of the amendment that the noble Earl put forward, I commend my Amendments Nos. 84 and 86. I shall return later to the other amendments. For the moment I confine myself to the principle of victim impact statements.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: From this side of the Chamber this amendment obtains a modified amount of support. There is no doubt that everyone in society is anxious that the victim should always be considered right through the judicial process. There is equally no doubt that it has taken a long time for the victim to be recognised as an integral part of the process and not just as an artefact within the process.
One of the difficulties in Amendment No. 86 might be the use of word "impact", which perhaps carries with it several connotations which the amendment could do without. Perhaps it might simply read "victim statements". Otherwise it suggests that what the victim tells the court will have an impact one way or another. If it has an impact and there is no provision for the judge in a particular case to say what element of the sentence imposed is attributable to the victim impact statement, another spectre is raised of appeals being taken against sentence on the basis that the judge was unduly swayed by the victim statement.
There is also the question of the cross-examination of the evidence that is being presented to the court. I know that subsection (5) of Amendment No. 86 obliges the prosecutor to serve the statement on the accused,
"not less than seven clear days before the trial diet".
However, there is no provision that, having received that, the accused can then serve notice on the prosecutor that he intends to lead a multiplicity of witnesses, as was perhaps intended in the case to which the noble and learned Lord has already referred.
In speaking at this stage, I am grateful that, as the noble Earl indicated, he put the amendment before the Committee perhaps as a pipe-opener to the Committee becoming more involved in debating the issue of the victim within the criminal justice system.
What troubles me and a number of other people is that, by the time the case comes to court, the victim—and particularly a young victim—perhaps of a sexual assault, of which, as we all know far too many cases are coming to the fore these days, may have received counselling for a year. That victim may very well be on the road to recovery. If this amendment were to stand in its present form, it would mean that the prosecutor would have to contact the victim—perhaps it might be more appropriate to say an adult victim—who might be receiving counselling. It is well known that reliving the

441
dramatic events of assault can set a person on the downward path back to square one. I wonder whether it might not more appropriately be made clear to a victim, and made a part of statute, that the victim should always have the right to contact the court should he or she so desire. That can be communicated to the victim through the various organisations that now exist throughout the United Kingdom. There are plenty of social workers who could become involved to advise the person of the right to contact the prosecutor if he or she so wishes prior to the case being dealt with. There are counsellors; and there is also a victim support organisation which deals now with many victims—in Scotland in the past year it dealt with 40,000.
The received wisdom, as was brought out in a poll, is that, generally speaking, victims do not want to take part in the retribution process. Basically, they do not want to be involved at the end of the prosecution in the sentencing. I do not say that this happens in all cases, but mainly they just want to forget about it.
It is also always open to the court, when considering sentence, to ask the prosecutor if he can give or obtain further information on the condition of the victim. Indeed, I was involved recently in a case where that was done. The judge insisted that he wanted to know how the victim was. The advocate depute then advised him fully as to the result of the assault.
One other matter which I raise merely in passing is that Amendment No. 86 states:
"the prosecutor when moving for sentence shall, if possible, place before the Court a victim impact statement".
What constitutes the "possible" and what constitutes the "impossible" is not stated. We may get, as it were, a dual standard of justice whereby the prosecutor may say that in a particular case a victim impact statement will not be sought and in another case says that it will. Depending on the nature of the statement, differing standards of justice may be applied in the sentencing. In a case where a person has died, there is the question as to who is the victim. The victim is the body, but the victims in murder cases are the immediate family and even the extended family. In a murder case it may not make much difference, but nonetheless there is a victim.
I am not very happy about victim involvement at all in relation to direct involvement in sentence, even so far as saying to the judge that he should exercise leniency. That is for the judge to say.
The amendments at the hand of both Members of this Committee are well-intentioned and probably necessary in order to put some pressure into this particular area of criminal law in Scotland. It would be interesting to know whether the Government would be prepared to constitute a working party to look into the role and scope of the victim in assault cases within the categories that were defined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, as being applicable in his amendment.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): This has been a very interesting and important debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for his contribution. Not only did he have a number of very
442
innovative and interesting ideas to put forward, but he brought to his argument a comparative perspective of which I believe few of us would have comparable experience.
As the noble and learned Lord expressed in general terms, and as has been expressed in general terms by those who contributed to the debate, it is absolutely right that we should have a proper regard for victims in our criminal justice system. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, if we do not do so we take the grave risk that in future they will not be willing participants in the process of justice. I have no doubt that there has been a sea change in attitude and that must be fostered further. I hope that the Government have indicated how important that is by giving extended funding now to victim support services. In the past year we spent some £878,000 on victim support in Scotland, whereas just over a decade ago virtually nothing was spent.
I am sure that those who have been victims of crime in Scotland in the past would also have complained about such practical matters as the accommodation that was provided for them when their case came to court. They often had to share witness rooms with friends or relatives of the accused and often found themselves in a state of some horror and terror before they even entered court. I have no doubt whatsoever that we should give a proper emphasis to the position of victims and do all that we can to alleviate the difficulties that they encounter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was right to point out that as things stand at the moment there is a considerable volume of information about the impact on victims contained in reports which the police make to the procurator fiscal; and, in cases in which the procurator fiscal undertakes it at precognition, further information relating to that impact will be obtained. That information, so far as it is relevant to the proceedings, is generally communicated by the Crown to the courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said, it seems to be a growing experience that, if that information is not up to date, the court will regularly ask for it to be expanded upon or for fresh information to be provided.
I hope that with that background it will be possible to improve the position in Scotland. I noted with interest that the noble and learned Lord brought forward this matter so that there could be a general debate on the issue. He does not seek to persuade us on the detail of his full amendment at the present time. That is important because he has, in a sense, by indicating that he does not insist on all the detail, removed a number of the worries that I had about the amendment. It had concerned me that this could be an extremely costly exercise which would duplicate effort and waste resources. I am sure that he appreciates the circumstances in which such waste might occur.
I noted with interest, if I understood him correctly, that what he is now driving at is that' if such a victim impact statement is to be prepared, it should be prepared as closely as possible to the point of sentencing and—he will correct me if I am wrong—after the conviction has been secured. If it is prepared at an earlier stage, a number of difficult practical problems will occur.

443
First, the information may be out of date. Let us consider an impact statement for which the charge is one of serious assault and rape. At the end of the day, the jury may come back with a verdict of serious assault only. Considerable detail may be contained in a victim impact statement prepared before the trial dealing with the issues relating to the rape charge on the indictment. That example seems to me to underline the great difficulties that we might encounter if we try to take this matter forward without careful thought. On a number of occasions in my experience it has come about that the victim does not much care for the account given by the prosecutor, which varies not because the matter is not being looked into with sufficient attention to detail but because he understands the legal framework in which the statement has to be made. If the rape charge is not secured by a conviction, he cannot bring forward such information. In those circumstances there can often be irritation and indeed anger on the part of the victim in the case.
I want to read very carefully what has been said in the course of this debate. But it seems to me that what is probably most important for victims as trials go forward is that they should be fully advised of what is going on. It is frustrating and causes anger to discover that a plea of guilty has been accepted and they have been told nothing of what is going on. I hope that the work that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and his Crown office are undertaking, which should mean that the system is providing more information to the victim, will indeed prove to be a successful exercise.
What has come through are the comments of such individuals as Alison Paterson, who is known to many Members of the Committee as the director of Victim Support in Scotland. She was quoted in the Scotsman newspaper of 7th January as saying that she took the view that:
"there's absolutely no evidence to substantiate the view that victims wish a role in sentencing … This cannot address the problems which cause victims distress in the criminal justice process".
Her focus of interest would be the provision of information to victims rather than bringing them into the sentencing process. I understand very well why the noble and learned Lord is so reluctant to see the victim coming into court at a late stage to try to influence sentencing. The wish to have information about what is going on is the greater desire.
Given what the noble and learned Lord said about his recent experience and knowledge of the United States, perhaps I may refer to an article in the Criminal Law Review of 1993, in which Professor Andrew Ashworth of London University assessed the use of victim impact statements in various overseas jurisdictions. He concluded:
"The right to submit a victim impact statement may be high in profile but low in improving genuine respect for victims. We should hesitate and reconsider before going further in this direction".
I do not believe that we should refuse to examine this matter, but for the reasons that I have given, and a number of them were implicit in the Committee's remarks, I believe that we should be very careful before introducing into the system an arrangement which might
444
prove extremely costly in resource terms and which, at the end of the day, might not be of as much value to the sentencer as we would wish.
I have no doubt that questions about the role of the victim, how the victims are to be supported and whether we should go along the line of victim impact statements will form a central part of our debates on the criminal justice system. I am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this amendment and giving us the opportunity to consider this very important matter.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The amendment called for new emphasis as regards concern for the victim. I have been very pleased by the discussion that we have had and very impressed by it. Personally, I see no role for the victim in sentencing. To go back to first principles, we have a court system to take away from the victim the need to seek personal revenge in any form.
With regard to victim impact statements, they could be called for when the social inquiry report is being prepared. At least a second statement could be requested. That would be particularly important when a probation order was being considered by the court. There is always a time lag between the commission of the offence and conviction. In a strange way that may be no bad thing. The time lag allows the offender to be shown the difficult stages that the victim went through in terms of recovery from the impact of the offence.
Finally, I hope that this provision could be considered not just for victims of assault but also for victims of house break-ins when the offender has committed the offence too many times. It would be helpful to obtain information from householders as to how they reacted in the ensuing months.
This has been a useful discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I should like to save time in coming back to these matters by dealing with the remaining matters in the associated amendments, Amendments Nos. 84 and 86.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 82:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Sentence to include compensation order
. After each of sections 217 and 430 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section as, respectively, section 217A and section 430A—
"Sentence to include compensation order.
.—(1) The court shall, in passing a sentence on an offender for any offence, consider the effect of the offence on the victim; and where the victims, or any of the victims, is a private individual and has suffered personal injury (including psychological injury) or financial loss or damage the court shall, subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, include in the sentence an order against the offender compensating the victim or victims against the injury, loss or damage.
(2) The court may decline to make a compensation order under subsection (1) above; and if so the court shall give its reasons for declining.

445
(3) The court may not make a compensation order under subsection (1) above in respect of loss or damage against which the victim is insured or is capable of being insured.".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment on Thursday last, though it was not discussed at that time. Suffice to say that the amendment would have the desirable effect of bringing a new priority to the sentencing process. The compensation order would become automatic unless there was good reason for one not being made; for example, where the offence was committed by rivals rather than against unknown and innocent victims.
Amendment No. 82 is grouped with Amendment No. 146. In a way it deals with victims and with money and for that reason I should like to speak to it at this time while the Committee has victims in mind. The purpose of Amendment No. 146 is to arrange a statutory basis for funding voluntary organisations which seek to support the victims of crime and to enable them to put the experience behind them. At present such organisations are eligible for grant aid from central and local government sources. But that is subject to the changing priorities and whims of political decision-makers. Such changes of political emphasis are not a bad thing. However, that is no way to fund a victim support service.
Discretionary funding is a sound way of funding projects to allow them to prove that they can make a significant contribution to society. I regret that I can see no end to the need for a victim support service. It should remain in the voluntary sector, for it will be staffed by a few full-timers and many volunteers. But the funding of the service should be put on a permanent basis. I believe that the method advocated in the amendment—taking a percentage of the proceeds of compensation—will be supported by the people of Scotland, who are fed up with the effects of offending behaviour on individuals and property both private and public. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: As the Committee will recognise, the amendment proposes also to deal with a requirement upon the court to consider the effect of the offence upon the victim. On that technicality I shall endeavour to make the points that I should have made on the previous matter, had I been on my feet before the noble Earl withdrew the amendment.
I simply want to say that I am satisfied that the amendments being considered today in relation to the impact upon the victim provoked a worthwhile debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl for introducing in his reply the word "revenge". That is something we must take elaborate steps to avoid. If I were to conclude that the introduction of victim impact statements were to make revenge a factor in the sentencing of persons convicted of crime, then I should certainly not support the amendment.
In relation to certain matters of detail, in my amendment, which we have not yet reached and to which I shall not speak separately, I proposed that there should be an intimation to the accused person of the
446
victim impact statement. One reason for that is to allow the details to be challenged, and we would need procedure for that. Another reason is that it is extremely important that we bring home to accused persons, in the calmness of the dock or the cell to which they go after leaving the dock, what was the impact on the victim. Too many crimes are committed by people who dismiss them as having nothing to do with them; they do not care about the consequences. There is much to be said for the view that the victim impact statement should go directly to the accused person and he can have it on the wall of his cell for the period of time that he spends there.
I shall not reply to the matters of detail raised by the noble Earl. I used the words "if possible" because the victim may survive and be a vegetable and therefore be unable to co-operate in any sense required by the statement; he may be a person of low intelligence; he may have disappeared or refuse to co-operate. There are many reasons why I inserted the words, "if possible".
At this stage it is the principle that matters. I acknowledge, as in all these matters, that the devil lies in the detail. It may be that, when one examines all the details and all the matters discussed today and raised elsewhere, it is impossible to find solutions to some of the problems. However, I invite the Government to consider putting the matter to the Scottish Law Commission. Though I support the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, who made a proposal for a study group, I should prefer that it be done by sending the matter to the Scottish Law Commission and I am sure that the Government will consider that proposal.
In relation to details such as the timing of the preparation of the report, that could be done before conviction and might need to be amended if the conviction did not reflect the charge. It is not easy to obtain access to published material on this matter in this country. I have access to a large volume of material from the United States. Members of the Committee may be interested to watch a television programme next month—"The Heart of the Matter"— on a Sunday evening, when some light may be shed upon this matter by those who accompanied me to the United States to look at the Californian system.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord made a suggestion in relation to the Scottish Law Commission. I do not think he will expect me to make an immediate response; but I shall certainly bear in mind what was said both by him and by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, on this matter.
Since the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, courts on this side of the Border have been required to explain decisions not to make a compensation order in specific cases. That requirement seems to have had some success in concentrating judicial minds on the issue of compensation and in increasing the use of such orders. We must take due notice of that apparent success when deciding whether to impose a similar duty on Scottish courts. However, a number of other considerations need to be taken into

447
account. For example, we need to consider whether such a provision would prove equally successful in Scotland in increasing usage.
In order to facilitate comprehensive consideration of the issues involved, the Scottish Office last year commissioned further research into the usage of compensation orders. That research, which is now being conducted by a team from Stirling University, involves statistical analysis and interviews with victims and offenders. Unfortunately, its results will not be available for some months. We take the view that it is reasonable to wait for that research and consider all the issues before introducing a provision of the type now proposed by the noble Earl. I am instinctively sympathetic to the notion that measures should be taken to increase the usage of compensation orders. I shall be grateful if the noble Earl will consider withdrawing his amendment. In return, I shall undertake to reconsider the position and see whether we can usefully take any steps in the current Bill. I stress that at this stage I cannot give any firm commitment; I merely give an assurance that we shall look at the issue sympathetically.
There is one feature of his proposal that I do not regard sympathetically; that is to say, that a distinction should be drawn between those covered by insurance and those who are not. If he reflects upon the matter for a moment he will envisage an awkward circumstance where a householder who is repeatedly broken into may find that the only compensation he can obtain is by turning to an insurance policy. As a result his insurance premium may be increased while the individual next door with no insurance whatever may find satisfaction in compensation orders.
I turn to Amendment No. 146. I appreciate that the noble Earl is assiduous in his efforts to secure maximum support for victim support, and I sympathise with his aim. However, I do not consider that the automatic diversion of any amount from the proceeds of compensation to Victim Support or any other bona fide organisation is appropriate. The noble Earl will appreciate that, although certain parts of the proceeds are distributed, what is left in the ordinary way goes to the Exchequer for redistribution, as appropriate, across the whole range of public support, including the funding of victim support organisations. That is appropriate. Bodies such as Victim Support need consistency so that they can operate and plan within known financial constraints. The rather uncertain quantity that would be implicit in the noble Earl's proposal would not be compatible with that objective. I certainly understand and share his view that Victim Support should be appropriately funded but I would respectfully suggest that this is not an appropriate way.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Once again we have had a rather good discussion. I realise that these were two of my rather more risky amendments and I am not surprised by what the noble and learned Lord has said, particularly about the appropriateness or otherwise of funding Victim Support in the way I am proposing. However, I come back to one of the two central themes which I have been trying to put forward—this mirrors what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—which is bringing home the impact of the
448
offence to the accused. Quite often, at Longriggend remand centre, I would have a discussion along the lines of, "Why did you pick on Mrs. So-and-so and break into her house?" and I would be hit with the answer, "Who's that?" Clearly, up to that point, the offender had not been confronted with what he had done to a particular individual. It is important that we should make it possible for offenders to understand why their behaviour is so unacceptable. However, I note what the Minister said and I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 83:
Before Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Racially motivated offence
In considering the seriousness of any offence which in the opinion of the court was committed with a racial motivation, the court shall treat the fact that it was committed with that motivation as an aggravating factor.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is linked with Amendment No. 130 and the noble and learned Lord the Minister has kindly advised me that he will accept that amendment. These amendments are placed before the Committee because of the increasing incidence of racially motivated or apparently racially motivated crimes in Scotland. The number of such crimes reported to the Scottish police has increased from 299 in 1988 to 726 in 1993. Those are the offences which are reported. Many people who are subject to racial harassment do not go to the police because it just makes matters even worse.
The main amendment is Amendment No. 83, which requires the court to treat a racial element as an aggravating factor in the offence committed. It is brought before the Committee for the general reason that most of these cases are dealt with in the lower courts—either in the district court or the sheriff court—and there are really no proper statistics available. It is hoped that in the near future statistics will be available. The noble and learned Lord the Minister wrote to the Commission for Racial Equality on 4th December and also gave a news conference on the matter. He accepted that not enough statistics are available at the moment and indicated that the Crown Office and the police are monitoring matters to see whether a picture will emerge. However, that will take some time.
An attempt was made to introduce a specific crime of racial harassment in the context of this Bill but it was deemed not to be within the scope of the Bill. I wonder whether the Government, who I am sure will co-operate in every way to see that this vile behaviour is brought to an end if it possibly can be, will in the course of monitoring the information as it comes in bear in mind that there may be a need to introduce a special offence of racial harassment. It is difficult from breach of the peace statistics to tell whether an offence had a racial harassment element to it. However, if a person were charged with racial harassment or, alternatively, breach of the peace, the statistics would become clear in the court.
As with the other matters which have been raised in relation to the victim, it is important that the country should send a message to these racist hooligans that to behave in this offensive way towards their fellow citizens is not acceptable. I am sure that the Government and those on this side of the Committee will do everything in their power to make sure that they suffer for any sins that they commit. In that context, I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Amendment No. 83 is very similar to one which was tabled for England and Wales by my noble friend Lady Flather during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill last year. On that occasion, your Lordships were perhaps influenced by the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Ferrers on behalf of the Government and the proposal was overwhelmingly rejected. Those arguments are as equally applicable to Scotland as they are to England.
No one could disagree with the importance of ensuring that the sentence passed by the court should reflect the seriousness of the crime. That is an important principle with which we all agree, whether the crime is racially motivated or stems from other acute forms of intolerance. However, as my noble friend argued during the previous Session, courts already take into account any such factors when assessing the seriousness of the offence. In addition, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has already instructed that in Scotland the prosecution should inform the court of any evidence of racial motivation in relation to any of the charges. Where the prosecution establishes that an offence was racially motivated, and where the court is satisfied that it increased the seriousness of the offence, the court is already able to take that into account. It will be appreciated that we would not want to single out any factor, but we believe that they should all be balanced and brought before the court. In another place last Session the then Home Office Minister, Mr. Peter Lloyd, made the point that if such an amendment were to be accepted it might send a signal that an assault motivated by the hatred of women, or hatred of homosexuals, or contempt for the frail and elderly, should, for example, be treated less seriously than an assault motivated by racism. It is clear that that would be quite unacceptable.
The noble Lord has already indicated that I am prepared to recommend to the Committee that the second amendment should be accepted. Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires the Home Secretary annually to publish information which will enable persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice better to perform their duty to avoid discriminating on racial grounds. This amendment would impose a rather similar requirement on the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord indicated, that was put to me last year by the Commission for Racial Equality in a letter from its Scottish commissioner. At that time I explained in my reply that after careful consideration it appeared then that the introduction of such a provision would not be appropriate. What caused me to reach that conclusion then is that at the time only
450
a limited amount of information was available in Scotland. That was partly because the proportion of the Scottish population from ethnic minorities is so much less than in England and partly because until recently it has not been possible to extract statistics for common law prosecutions with a racial element. In that context it seemed to me that the information that would be published would be of dubious value.
However, since then matters have improved. Scottish police forces are adopting a system of tagging reported crime with a racial element or allegation. In addition, the Crown Office is introducing a system of recording cases which picks up on the police tags. These steps have been taken because of the importance of addressing racial crime, and that is well understood. They will ensure that in the not too distant future it should be possible to achieve a more detailed analysis of the numbers, progress and outcome of cases with a racial element.
For these reasons I am now happy to recommend acceptance of the new clause. I have no doubt that this action will be welcomed by the Commission for Racial Equality and by members of the ethnic communities in Scotland. I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing it.
6 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for the reply given by the noble and learned Lord. In the circumstances, we shall watch with care what is happening in the monitoring system. I note with interest the undertaking to keep in touch with the Commission for Racial Equality. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 19, line 2, at end insert:
("(d) any recommendation made by the jury in terms of section 217C of this Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment seeks to add a provision to that contained in the clause and requires the court to have regard to,
"any recommendation made by the jury in terms of"
the new section which is to be called Section 217C. That is printed as Amendment No. 87 in the Marshalled List.
This again is a matter to which I return after an interval of about nine years. I first made this suggestion in the Reith Lectures in 1986. It is very important to recognise —in a sense I am dealing at the moment with an objection to this proposal—that consistency in sentencing is important. I recognise at once that if one allows input by juries into sentencing—because the jury sits only once it is unique and it never meets again—one certainly risks an element of inconsistency being introduced into sentencing.
Before I turn to the particular proposal, perhaps I may say that in Scotland at the present time the judges are co-operating in a university-based study into consistency in sentencing. That is a very important piece of work to which much of the credit goes to the Lord

451
Justice Clerk and the other judges who are co-operating. It is hoped that we shall be able much more readily to be consistent in our sentencing in future.
It may be argued that consistency is in a sense all important. I do not believe that that is necessarily so. I do not believe that consistency is enough. Consistency simply means that one judge will do what all the other judges do and there is an element of justice in that. But in a sense there is no public input into what it is that judges should do.
I put this forward for thought. One of my difficulties is that if one has a case where a man on the spur of the moment, as it were, indecently assaults and perhaps even rapes a girl of 14 or 15 years of age, that should call for a certain penalty. If a man spends two years planning a great and monstrous fraud and gets away with, £1 million, so that there is a tremendous element of deliberation, how does one compare those two things? What do the public believe should be the comparison between those two types of offence? There is a difficulty there in that we have not consulted the public.
I am not—although sometimes I have been misunderstood to be—a hanger, flogger, tattooer or a putter of people in chains. My character as such emerged from a misreading of what I wrote in a rather obscure but nonetheless very worthy magazine, some months ago. It was picked up by someone and condensed for the Press Association. Thus I was embarrassed to find myself being praised in the Sun newspaper. I am not a hanger or a flogger. My desire is not that the public should come in and increase the sentence.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee—perhaps "remind" is a very self-indulgent word—of what I said in 1986 and 1987. Relatively few cases go to trial before a jury, but there are enough to allow juries to give a clear indication what the public considers to be appropriate sentences of common crimes. At the present time judges whose contacts with the general public are extremely limited have no reliable way of knowing what the public thinks about sentencing levels. Leaders in newspapers or utterances by spokesmen for particular interest groups such as the Police Federation, cannot be regarded as authoritative guides to public opinion and attitudes. It is possible that juries might be more severe than judges, but it is by no means certain. Juries which have heard all the evidence are much more likely to make a considered and informed judgment than are citizens who are stopped in the street and asked to express off-the-cuff views to professional opinion gatherers.
I believe that to be so. My observation of juries in criminal trials is that they become extremely well instructed. That is partly because they are much closer to crime in many ways than we are. They are much more liable to be the victims of crime than are judges and they are much more liable to be related to, married to or friendly with, the perpetrators of crime than are most of Her Majesty's judges—I hope.
For those reasons it is not improper to consult them. It has often been said—it has become a kind of mantra—that sentencing must be left to judges. I should
452
like to think that there was justification for that. Currently it may be that they are better than anybody else, but that does not mean to say that they are very good. We do not really know what the philosophy of sentencing by judges is. If I recall correctly, an attempt was made by members of the Institute of Judicial Administration at Birmingham University to inquire into the attitude of judges. They went to the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, who is a Member of this House. Marcel Berlins, in writing his profile of the Lord Chief Justice in The Times on 28th November 1985, stated that the Lord Chief Justice refused to allow judges to co-operate in an important and respectable academic study of sentencing policy. I believe that was a study at Birmingham. He is said to have,
"considered that taking part in the research would be time consuming, achieve nothing and could make the judges look foolish".
I understand that that was indeed so. Permission to make that inquiry was denied.
If the judges will not allow themselves to be examined, and if it is contempt of court to question juries, we have no means of finding out what the people who are close to the cases and who are informed about them, can be thinking.
I make no secret of the fact that I should like to go further than just use the jurors in a particular case. There is something to be said for the view that over time we should recruit people who have served on juries and who have delivered verdicts on the merits and who have participated in a sentencing exercise, in order to inform us about what are the options. We are not very well informed in this country as to what they are. I have looked at options which are employed in other countries, particularly in the United States, Canada and Australia. There are many more imaginative things being done than we are attempting. We should be looking at these with the assistance of those who are closer to crime than we are. One way to do it is to recruit ex-members of the jury for that purpose in some kind of study body. These are the ideas which lie behind the proposals which I make.
Amendment No. 87 is in conjunction with the amendment to which I am now speaking. It deals with the particular features of what is proposed although again, as in the case of victim impact statements, I am seeking merely to have the matter properly discussed in order that it might be considered over time. In what will be new Section 217C(2), I want that to apply to cases that have proceeded to trial and where the jury has returned a verdict of guilty. That is the type of case with which I am concerned.
Secondly, in the present draft I am limiting the provisions to those cases where the judge is thinking of imposing a sentence of more than three years: in Scotland that would mean cases heard in the High Court. I am requiring the judge to disclose to the jury the range of sentences that he has in mind. Some people may imagine that sentencing is an exact science and that all judges would arrive at the same conclusion about what a sentence should be. That is not my experience and it

453
may well be that in this limited way judges can obtain some assistance from members of the public as to what should be done.
Subsection (3) is perhaps of more importance. It states:
"Before explaining to the jury what he requires to explain to them under subsection (2) above the trial judge shall hear in open court and in the presence of the jury the submissions of the accused, or his lawyer, and shall cause the clerk of court to read out aloud any victim impact statement prepared under section 2I7B above".
I am seeking to bring sentencing out into the open, as it were, and to have both sides of the argument presented before the adjudicating body makes its decision.
The other provisions are matters of detail. The jury is not obliged to participate in the exercise if it chooses not to do so, and the jury must retire before it decides what recommendations, if any, to make.
I appreciate that these ideas have not hitherto met with any approval. They did not meet with approval when I first put them forward in 1986 when they were criticised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and others. Nonetheless, we must consider such matters carefully. As is the case with victim impact statements, I believe that it is important that the criminal justice system retains the confidence of the general public. One way to ensure that might be to find ways of involving the general public, at least through jurors with experience, in helping to determine our approach to sentencing. It was in that spirit that I tabled the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The noble and learned Lord has put forward an interesting proposal. However, with respect, I think that it is an intrusion into our current criminal justice system which must be treated with great caution. I should like to deal with the amendment in the spirit in which it has been brought before the Committee, as was the case with the previous question of victim impact statements. The question of lay participation in sentencing policy within a court could be referred to a working party for consideration or even to the Scottish Law Commission, as was suggested by the noble and learned Lord in relation to victim impact statements.
Subsection (5) states:
"No jury shall be obliged to make any recommendation under this section against the will of the majority of the jury".
I take it that a majority of eight to seven is envisaged.
However, what is more important and what causes me some hesitation and prevents me from agreeing entirely with the noble and learned Lord is the fact that jury service as it stands is an imposition on the citizen. Many people are absolutely terrified at the prospect of serving on a jury. Of course, they cannot get out of that duty simply by saying that they are frightened because every citizen is told that he has to do his public duty within the legal process.
Let us consider the example of a juror who is not very happy at having to serve on a jury in the first place. If the judge thinks that he is going to give the defendant a sentence of three years or more, under the provisions the juror will be obliged to stay on in the court to
454
determine the sentence recommendation, subject to subsection (5). Let us consider a case involving a serious assault where the judge thinks that he will be obliged to give a sentence of more than three years. Let us also suppose that the jury views the case with equal abomination and that it returns with a majority, saying to the judge, "We think that this man should get 10 years". That being so, a juror is open to possible retribution from the family and friends of the accused on two counts: first, for having been part of a jury which convicted the accused and, secondly, for being responsible for the sentence that was imposed on the accused. In my submission, that is not fair to the jurors.
Nothing in the amendment gives a reluctant juror the right to say, "No, I do not want to be part of this process. I am not staying here to consider what sentence the accused should be given". If Amendment No. 87 were to have any practical effect, provisions would have to be built into it to specify that jurors should have the right to opt out of the sentencing recommendation process if they so chose. Only if the whole jury, by a unanimous vote, agreed to assist the judge should the jurors participate in the process.
I am not sure that close contact with the law and criminals is a good recommendation for taking part in sentencing policy. I may have misunderstood what the noble and learned Lord said, however, and I shall read his words in the Official Report tomorrow.
I am of the view that until something better is demonstrated —and it will take time to demonstrate that, for example, lay input in sentencing policy is better than our current court-led sentencing—subject to the views of the Court of Appeal, judges should continue to administer justice as they have undertaken to do on oath, without fear or favour. That is what society expects of the courts and judges and that is what should happen until it can be demonstrated that there is something better, or that lay input can improve our sentencing policy. For those reasons, I do not feel that I can support the noble and learned Lord's amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have been fascinated by the discussions about the involvement of victims and the jury. I have also been extremely impressed by the very clear exposition which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has given us. I should, however, like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he really feels that being involved as a member of a jury in making a recommendation as to sentencing will necessarily help the public to feel that they are having a say in the system. It seems to me that if a jury recommends a certain sentence and the judge appears to have listened to the jurors, they will be awfully pleased and will think that the system is awfully good, but the victim will not be so pleased because he or she will feel that the jury has influenced the judge. That is not an easy thing to accept. Conversely, if the jury appears not to have influenced the judge and he does something very different from what the jury has suggested, I should have thought that the whole jury would be cross with

455
him, although the victim might be pleased. I do not believe that that will help the public to have confidence in the system or in the judges.
I quite see that from the judge's point of view there is a great longing to know what the public are thinking about what judges do. When I was an honorary sheriff I remember being only too well aware of what the public thought of what I had done because I met them in the street afterwards when they often cursed one into heaps and said, "Why didn't you do something different by way of sentence?" Some even criticised the sort of case that one was handling. When I became a Peer I was asked, "Surely Peers handle more important cases than that?"
I believe that the public think about this a lot and that,' although the press may exaggerate, Members of Parliament, councillors and other people who have to listen to the public's opinion on all sorts of things know a bit about it. I believe that it might be counter-productive if this proposal were to become a regular procedure. People might begin to watch carefully to see what disagreements arose, which might cause upset and disrespect for the law.
Lord Elton: I am not sure whether Sassenachs who are not engaged in this matter should join in, but I was interested by what the noble and learned Lord said. I wonder whether he can explain a couple of points. First, what is the relationship between the judge and the advice of the jury? Will the judge be given guidance as to whether or not to accept it, or what weight to give to it? What happens when there is a perverse recommendation? Is he to say that it is perverse and that he is rejecting it because it is perverse? Will he have to give reasons why he has accepted or rejected the advice or why he has modified his position to come nearer to that of the jury? If judges do not normally accept the advice of juries, will not the process begin to diminish the authority of the judges in the eyes of the public?
Secondly, I see that this procedure is to be brought into action when the judge is minded to pass a sentence of three years or more. Presumably there is some process by which the jury becomes aware of the fact that the judge is so minded. I wonder whether we could be told at what stage in the proceedings that would be, and how it would be communicated.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may follow what my noble friend has just said. As a justice of the peace of a district court, I was always advised by counsel as to what sentence should be passed. To the best of my knowledge—I am on shaky ground here legally—all a jury has ever been asked to do in a court in Scotland has been to return a verdict of guilty, not guilty or not proven. I do not believe that the jury has ever been expected to consider what sentence should be passed.
In relation to Section 217C(3)—Amendment No. 87—if that is approved in principle, I wonder whether the clerk of the court, who is mentioned in that
456
subsection, should perhaps advise the jury as to what it should do or give it guidance. I am not altogether happy with the proposal.
Lord Monkswell: I support the proposal made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It is eminently sensible and I thank him for bringing it before the Committee. I bear in mind the reservations of my noble friend Lord Macaulay, but on reflection I wonder whether the safeguards for which he was obviously looking are not built into the amendment. He suggested that one of the problems might be annoyed victims or their families having a go at the jury because it has been seen to inflict the sentence.
By virtue of the fact that the jury can reach a majority decision on whether to make recommendations to the judge, that decision would obviously be in secret. So no one would know which way any member of the jury had argued. Therefore individual members of a jury should feel safe from any possible repercussions.
It is interesting to compare a jury trial with a trial in a magistrates' court. If we look at what has developed over history, we can see that in the Crown court there is a separation between the jury's decision on guilt or innocence and sentence. There is a separation between the judge and the jury, but in the magistrates' court, the judge and jury are effectively enshrined in the same person. It has recently been recognised that it is not useful to have magistrates who are set above and distinct from society. Successive Lord Chancellors have appealed continually for "ordinary people" to come forward to serve as magistrates. That is useful, because it is wrong for people not to be tried by their peers. That is something that has developed within magistrates' courts which we all welcome.
In a Crown court jury trial we still have a large degree of separation between judges and jurors. The crux of the problem with which the noble and learned Lord is attempting to deal is how judges, in their determination of sentence, can be informed of what is in the minds of ordinary people. The noble and learned Lord has arrived at a mechanism which would be useful. I note that in the amendment he does not take from the judge the responsibility for determining sentence. The jury's role would be purely advisory. It would make a recommendation to the judge who would then take the decision. It would be useful to have that mechanism in place.
Obviously a jury could not be asked to decide what the sentence should be. It is likely that there would be a lack of consistency over time between one judgment and the next, because different people would be involved. It is obviously necessary to leave the ultimate responsibility in the hands of the judge at this stage of the courts' development. With those reservations, I warmly welcome the noble and learned Lord's proposal. I suspect that it will not receive the Government's support or acceptance, but we owe him a debt of gratitude for bringing it before the Committee to enable us to debate this important subject.
The Earl of Harrowby: I hope that the Committee will forgive an Englishman for intruding in the debate. I believe that I am the second Englishman to have done

457
so. The noble and learned Lord's proposal worries me. First, it seems to me that under the proposal, or part of it, emotion can enter into the sentencing decision, as it may with laymen, whereas it is not supposed to with judges. If the proposal centres on advice from a jury in a particular case, that advice is bound to be tainted by emotion and that cannot be right.
If, on the other hand—I believe the noble and learned Lord referred to this during his exposition—judges can take advice from juries on a panel in a later study conference, that is unobjectionable, and might be of value. One other aspect of the proposal which has not been mentioned is that at present to send someone to prison requires two parties: the jury to bring in a verdict, and the judge to pass sentence. Under the proposal we are converting the future of the man in the dock to the decision of a unified party. There is a conflict in our system of jurisprudence that has always countered that and forbidden it. I should be loath to see that two-party decision cancelled.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My noble friend Lady Carnegy was right in saying that there is a great yearning among judges to discover whether the priorities that they set in sentencing and the severity that they attach to some offences are shared by the public. They are suspicious that the views expressed by sensationalist leader writers may not properly reflect the views of the public as a whole. I understand their desire to meet as fully as possible the views of the society in which they live.
I share the view expressed on both sides of the Committee that the model which the noble and learned Lord brings forward—that is, introducing the jury into sentencing—is, to say the least, difficult. The jury has an important role in our legal proceedings but the issue of sentencing is very different. As has been indicated, I suspect that juries would not welcome such a role and would want the judge to give them the clearest possible indication of what they might recommend. If that is the case, there would be little point in asking them to take part; they would merely be looking for a clear steer from the judge as to what he thought appropriate beyond merely explaining the range of sentence that would be available to them.
During the debate on a previous amendment, the noble and learned Lord pointed out that, in these matters, the devil is in the detail and it seems to me that the devil is in this particular detail. In Scotland, the verdict of the jury can be returned by a majority, even of eight to seven. If in the High Court the jury were asked to return a verdict, one could conclude that the logical view of the seven who voted not guilty was that the convicted person ought to be admonished or given the minimum sentence. Presumably, those jurors would continue to hold to the view that the accused did not do what he was convicted of by the majority. I suppose that a large number of jurors would be sufficiently sophisticated to detach themselves from their view on
458
guilt or innocence and offer a view of what the broad public might think. However, I suspect that that would be extremely difficult for them.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that sometimes the sentencing philosophy is difficult to discern and that in many circumstances it is not as openly discussed as it might be. It would be interesting by one research route or another to attempt to discover exactly what those who have been in our courts think of sentencing. However, given the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, that has its own difficulties.
We need to approach the matter with care and in some detail. It appears to me as regards the cases in respect of which judges are criticised in public for the sentences that they have imposed—they are seen as too lenient or too severe —that the detail of the reasoning behind the sentences is imperfect. Many factors that influence a judge are not brought before the public and therefore they are not allowed to reach a full understanding.
The noble and learned Lord introduced the debate in order to air his consistently held views. Clearly, a great deal of interest has been excited but I believe that thus far the noble and learned Lord has not secured a great deal of support. However, there is general agreement that it would be useful if the public's views of the sentencing approach of judges were better understood.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may deal with one or two points before responding to the final summary of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, mentioned the possibility that the jury might influence the judge. That is not the danger of the system; it is the point of the system. Perhaps I misunderstood what was said.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is what I saw as a problem. I said that if the victim believed that the jury had influenced the judge the wrong way there would be trouble with the victim's family. If the jury believed that the judge had not paid attention to it, it would be disillusioned with the system and would be cross with the judge. I was not suggesting that the jury must not influence the judge—surely, that is the object of the exercise.
Lord McCluskey: I regret that I misunderstood the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may deal with the points raised by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Once the judge decides to impose a sentence of three years or more, under my system the next responsibility falls upon the judge to say what it will be. It could be five, six, seven or even eight years. He specifies the range of sentencing that he has in mind. He then invites the jury to decide within that range. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause prohibits the jury from going outwith that range, thus avoiding a perverse result. It states:
"it shall not be competent for the jury to make a recommendation of a period falling outside that range".
The judge will specify a range which is not, one hopes, perverse.
I do not speak for other judges but wish to set out my personal experience. I attend a trial and preside over it. I wait until the jury returns a verdict and am then given a

459
copy of the accused's convictions. The advocate depute addresses me and I must then ponder the matter of sentence. Sometimes I do so at once, sometimes I sit on the bench for several minutes and reflect and occasionally I retire to consider the matter. I have even retired overnight.
Sentencing is not an exact science and I think about whether it is a four or five-year case. No computer can tell me that and I am feeling for some assistance within that limited range. I do not doubt that some other judges experience such difficulty. If they do not, my judgment is that they are not as good judges as they might be because the task is shrouded in difficulty.
It is not an astonishing and novel idea, in particular in Scotland, that lay people should play an important role in determining how cases are disposed of. Members of the Committee will recall passing the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which came into force in 1971 and under which children's panels were constituted. Those panels consist of three lay people who determine the issues in relation to young offenders. It is true that there is a separation between determining guilt and determining sentence, as referred to by the noble Earl. The children's panel system recognises that the sheriff determines guilt and the panel determines sentence. Three lay people determine sentence, though not in the ordinary sense of sending people to prison but of probation, supervision and so forth. Therefore, the idea is not entirely novel.
I am also anxious that unless we do something we shall run the risk of matters being taken out of our hands. That happened in the United States and there has been the substantial movement to which I have already referred. That is a movement to remove altogether from judges their discretion in relation to sentence. I believe that that is very bad. But if the public do not have confidence in what the judges are doing, that may happen.
The noble Earl referred to the clerk of a magistrates' court. That is a very different situation. In that situation a magistrate is commonly a lay person and the clerk of the court should be a qualified assessor. Therefore, he advises on what is competent. Because he is supposed to know what the statute allows, and because he is experienced, the magistrates may look to him for a hint as to what the sentence should be. That is rather different. One could not contemplate a clerk of the court in the High Court or the sheriff court giving the judge advice as to what should be the sentence.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, used an expression which I never use; he referred to "ordinary people". He was trying to convey something which I also sense. I should rather find a different route for discovering what the public thinks—those people who are living in places where we do not go—from that which we have at present because I fear that politicians, judges even and people who agitate on behalf of the public are heavily influenced by what they read in the newspapers and see
460
on the television. That is highly selective and tendentious, and I do not necessarily share the agenda of those who write in the newspapers.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord. With regard to the expression "clerk of the court", I hope the Committee will forgive my ignorance but I thought that such a person was a qualified lawyer. It may be that there has been a misunderstanding in that regard. But I felt that if a jury were to be involved in the decision that the sentence should be, for example, five years, I assumed that there would be a legally qualified person to advise the jury from his experiences and that he would at least give a guideline in that respect.
Lord McCluskey: In the High Court the clerk of the court is not legally qualified; and even if he were, he would not be nearly as highly qualified, I hope, as the judge. The dangers of the clerk of the court intervening in that process were underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, some 20 years ago when he dealt with the abolition of burgh courts. He told the tale of the new magistrate who sat on the Bench. He turned to the clerk of the court in respect of an offence and asked him, "What shall I impose?" The clerk of the court told him to impose the maximum sentence and the magistrate turned to the accused and said, "I sentence you to death".
I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the expression "an idea whose time has come". I have a feeling that this is an idea whose time has not yet come. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may now return to the meat of Clause 27, which deals with the question of sentencing following a guilty plea or what may be called "the discounting of sentence". In my submission to the Committee, that is an extremely dangerous innovation into the law of Scotland. I understand that it is already used in England and, indeed, a recent report indicated that a judge had told an accused that he would take into account at which stage during the trial he had chosen to plead guilty, albeit that he was exercising his right to challenge the Crown case and sustain the presumption of innocence for as long as he could against the evidence.
If such an innovation is introduced into the law of Scotland, people may choose to plead guilty for the wrong reasons. Indeed, they may instruct their advisers to plead guilty while protesting their innocence because looking at the long term they may think, "I may be found guilty anyway. If I am found guilty I may receive a sentence of x years. If I take the short road now, at least I can save myself a couple of years".
That will raise difficulties in relation to representation because, as far as I am aware, no lawyer in his senses would take instructions from an accused person to

461
tender a plea of guilty prior to the start of the trial on the understanding that of course the client maintained his innocence. In that situation all that can be done is to say, "I am sorry. I cannot accept your plea of guilty to anything which you say you did not do", even if that carries with it from the accused's point of view a degree of pragmatism and realism.
It may affect also the public interest in that prosecutors may be persuaded against the public interest to reduce serious complaints on indictment; for example, by deleting phrases such as "attempted murder" and taking a plea to assault to severe injury or reducing a serious sexual assault to indecent assault in the knowledge, through consultation with the accused's advisers, that if that is done a plea of guilty will be forthcoming and the prosecutor will not have to conduct a trial on the major issue. I am not saying that that will happen but I am saying that there is a danger that it may happen.
The Bill provides that the court "may" take into account the point at which a person pleads guilty but does not say that it "shall" do so. Therefore, to that extent it introduces a degree of uncertainty in the legislation and inconsistencies in the way in which the courts are run. For example, there may be a lazy judge—I am sure that no one has ever heard of a lazy judge but in this Committee I can say that I have heard of one and I know a few— who makes it known that, if an accused pleads guilty at an early stage, instead of going to prison he will be sentenced to perform community service or whatever and avoid incarceration. A diligent judge may acquire the opposite reputation and no guilty pleas will be tendered in his court.
In any event, what is proposed is against what, as I understand it, the Court of Criminal Appeal has said should not happen in Scotland. In the case of Strawhorn v. McLeod in 1987, the Lord Justice Clerk indicated that no inducements should be offered to an accused person to plead guilty. Indeed, I read in the newspaper today, in an attempt to have a sheriff's behaviour reviewed, reference is made to the very fact that one of the complaints is the offering of an inducement to a person to plead guilty.
That raises many professional problems. It is not doing justice and it does not achieve any degree of consistency. There cannot be a graded discount. It is not like a Christmas sale where there is 10 per cent. off, 20 per cent. off or 30 per cent. off and one chooses the best discount. In the absence of a scale of discounts, which cannot be given because each case depends on its own facts and circumstances, that is not an acceptable clause. In my submission, the Government should take it away and think again.
If it is designed, as it may very well be, to reduce the number of unnecessary trials and to save the time of witnesses, police officers and all the matters which we consider and hear about day in and day out, the motive behind the clause is quite acceptable. But the execution
462
of that motive should certainly not be carried out in that way and I oppose the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord McCluskey: I should like to support the noble Lord in this regard. I shall deal with a technical point first and I hope to do so briefly. The clause states that,
"a court may take into account—
(a) the stage in the proceedings for the offence at which the offender indicated his intention to plead guilty".
It very commonly happens that at an early stage an offender indicates his intention to plead guilty to something. But of course at that stage he has not even seen the charge. He has seen the petition which is served upon him within the first few days, but the terms of the charge may well differ from those in the petition. Therefore he does not in fact get an opportunity to respond to the charge itself until approximately four or five weeks before his trial. He may indicate his intention to plead guilty to something, but to what? That is not a matter which is made clear here.
But my real point is that this clause is entirely and absolutely unnecessary. Judges routinely take into account the matters which are specified here. No doubt is created in my mind by the 1987 case. That case in effect, as the noble Lord indicated, states that one cannot have any inducements or discounts. If I recall correctly, that sounds a bit like an advertisement for double glazing. One cannot have discounts and one cannot have formal inducements because that would introduce something which is entirely different. However, it is routine for me, and for other judges, to inquire when it was that the plea was first intimated. Then I am given the kind of response I have mentioned. It is routine for me to inquire why it was not then accepted. One sometimes receives quite a detailed story. I have a case before the Court of Appeal at the moment, the details of which I shall not go into. But in essence the plea was tendered rather late because, according to the accused person, his previous solicitors were not competently handling his case.
It is perfectly legitimate for the court to inquire into this. It is equally legitimate for an accused person to raise this matter and say, "I offered to plead on such and such a date" or, "I offered to plead on these terms, and that plea has finally been accepted, or a plea like it". Therefore the real point is that Clause 27 is entirely unnecessary. For the reasons which I specified in some detail when I dealt with an earlier amendment on the first day, it is quite wrong in principle for the legislature to put into statute provisions which are quite unnecessary. These provisions are quite unnecessary. I invite the Government to reconsider the need for them.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether it is absolutely obligatory at the moment for the lawyer to point out to the accused that there is this option and that it can make a difference. Would that not be more necessary if it were in the law? It seems to me that all this spinning out of cases is sometimes quite unnecessary. There are cases of a plea coming much too late or being changed much too late. I believe that all these circumstances which cost so much

463
should be avoided if possible and I believe that could be done in the interests of justice. Would it not make a difference if that provision were in the statute?
Lord McCluskey: Certainly I would understand that the answer to the question is "no". It is not obligatory for an accused person's lawyer to advise him of his right to plead guilty. But on the other hand, I do not think that accused persons would need legal advice to the effect that they are entitled to plead guilty. I take the point made by the noble Baroness that of course if this statute were enacted in these terms the advice from the lawyer would be likely to be, "If you plead guilty early you are liable to get something off", but I think that would be the advice given now under the present circumstances. Any lawyer worth his salt acting on behalf of an accused person would appreciate that the earlier that person pleads, the more likely he or she is to receive leniency because that avoids expense, delay and the unnecessary bringing of witnesses to court, or indeed the precognoscing of witnesses by the procurator fiscal following upon the police investigation. I think that is so well known and so well understood among the legal profession and among the fraternity whom it serves in the criminal courts that it is unnecessary to put it in the Bill.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: In our view the provision does not significantly alter the law of Scotland in relation to early guilty pleas. However, we believe it usefully clarifies the existing law. It certainly does not impose, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, seemed to fear, a formal or rigid system of what is commonly known as sentence discounting.
Since the case to which he referred of Strawhorn v. McLeod in 1987 there has been some doubt about the propriety of taking into account the time and circumstances of an accused person's plea of guilty. In its judgment in that case the Appeal Court held that,
"a declared practice of discounting"
was objectionable. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, it was, and remains, perfectly proper to reduce a sentence to take account of a guilty plea where that appears to be justified by the circumstances of the particular case.
It was widely perceived, however, that the effect of Strawhorn was to prohibit such a reduction in sentence. I understand, following the consultation paper that we issued —the review of criminal evidence and criminal procedure—that a proposal along the lines of what is now contained in Clause 27 was suggested by High Court judges in their response to that paper because it will make it clear that it is indeed permissible to take into account a guilty plea when considering sentence. This will remove any inhibitions felt by sentencers. I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that I suspect it will remove inhibitions not among the senior judiciary but, I believe, among the inferior judiciary who have inhibitions following on that case. They will know that they can take into account the fact that a plea has come earlier rather than later.
While in many respects I wish it was not necessary to have this clause, I part company with the noble Lord in that I believe that in the circumstances it is necessary
464
to place this measure on the face of the statute. However, at the same time I of course accept entirely what he says about what is appropriate and proper to do in Scotland at the present time.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful for the explanation which the Minister has given and for the contributions made by other Members of the Committee. It is the first time I have realised that the aim of the measure is to clarify the existing law. I still believe that once the measure is on the statute, this type of plea bargaining between the accused and the court will be, as far as the accused is concerned, a trip into the unknown. However, in the meantime I withdraw my opposition to the clause.
Clause 27 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay: I think this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn. I suggest that the Committee Stage begins again at eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 6.58 to 8 p.m.]
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 88:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
("Victims right to attend sentencing proceedings
. After section 217A of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Victim's right to attend sentencing proceedings.
217D. The victim of any crime, or the next of kin of the victim if the victim has died, shall have the right to attend all sentencing proceedings in solemn procedure under this Act and shall be given adequate notice by the Crown Office of all such sentencing proceedings concerning the person or persons who committed the crime or offence concerned.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 88 is associated with matters that we have already discussed. I can therefore deal with it fairly briefly.
I mentioned at an earlier stage that from time to time the person who is truly the victim of a crime discovers from the newspapers or the radio what has happened to his case. He may even discover it in a less formal way. That can lead to frustration and discontent. Accordingly I propose—although I suggest that we begin gradually because I am a pragmatist in these matters—that the victim of any crime, or the next of kin of any victim who has died, should have the right to attend all sentencing proceedings in solemn procedure under the 1975 Act. I am concerned with the more serious cases—those which are liable to attract a sentence of imprisonment exceeding six months.
The other aspect of the matter is that the Crown Office would be required to give adequate notice of all such proceedings.
Once again I appreciate that difficult problems are involved in this matter, because it is quite common that sentencing follows immediately upon a plea of guilty or upon a verdict of guilty delivered in the court. Therefore one can only give tentative notice that sentencing might take place on a particular occasion. However, it appears that the matter may be met if the Crown were to intimate to the victim that the case starts on a particular date and is expected to finish on that or a subsequent date, and

465
the victim has the right to attend. At the end of proceedings on that date, if sentencing has not been pronounced, the victim would be informed by the procurator fiscal of the date to which matters have been postponed.
That is the minimalist position as regards according to victims the dignity and respect of which I spoke earlier and which the noble Earl has supported.
The Earl of Balfour: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps he can say whether the victim has any right to attend the court at present.
Lord McCluskey: The answer is that the victim has no more right to attend the court than the noble Earl has as a member of the public. Any member of the public is entitled to attend the court. The victim may be cited to attend the court as a witness, but that is as far as it goes. The victim has no right to attend other than as a member of the public, but because the victim will know more about the proceedings than most people it is likely that he will be able to exercise that right in a way in which the noble Earl or I might not be able to exercise it. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: In principle rather than detail, this is an interesting and welcome amendment which has been put before the Committee. Various matters arise. In a long murder trial, for example, the court can only guess when the case may end. Difficulties arise where, for example, there is a change of plea on perhaps the second day of a case which might be expected to run for two weeks. That is not an unusual feature of life in the courts.
This is a socially oriented amendment which would be welcomed by victim support organisations, which want the victim to be deeply involved at the early stages of a case if possible but not too deeply involved in the later stages when it comes to questions of revenge and so on, which we shall discuss later.
Therefore, I support the amendment in principle although not in detail.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Two of my amendments are grouped with the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. Perhaps I may speak to them briefly.
Amendments Nos. 129 and 131 are both concerned with the treatment of victims. The background to the amendments is that I believe that we now offer considerable care to offenders but I feel that we could do slightly better for victims. Therefore, in Amendment No. 129 I seek to assert a new overarching principle of liaison and care for the victim by the court system.
I envisage that there would be increased contact with victims to ensure that they know what is happening and how it will be carried out at the court hearing. At trials there would be a victim and witness support service in the courthouse staffed by properly funded volunteers. That would reduce many of the anxieties felt by victims and witnesses.
466
Regarding Amendment No. 131, there would be no loss and everything to gain if the court service were able to give more information to witnesses and victims about the case and the court process in which they are reluctantly involved.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Following on the question which my noble friend Lord Balfour asked, it is the position that all members of the public are entitled to attend proceedings in open court. If one of those members of the public happens to be the victim he or she can, of course, be present.
Nevertheless, I believe that there is a problem. I do not know the noble and learned Lord's practice, but I am aware of cases in which the victim has been in the court building and for one reason or another a plea has emerged quickly and the plea of guilty has been taken and discussions over what sentence might be imposed are under way, but the victim has no idea of what is going on. I am conscious that in a number of cases that has caused great offence. In the past I have sought to encourage members of the judiciary—whether they be superior or inferior—that in such circumstances it is desirable to invite not only the victims but any of the witnesses who are present in witness rooms to come into the court to hear what is taking place. That seems to go some way to satisfying them.
As the noble and learned Lord anticipated, the second leg of his amendment placing a duty on the Crown Office to give adequate notice of all sentencing procedures has its difficulties. Those of us who have practised in the courts are well aware that it is difficult to predict when a plea of guilty may be tendered. In practice it is usually the case that sentence follows immediately.
However, I do not wish to sound negative, notwithstanding those difficulties. All police forces in Scotland now have clear policies on the provision of information to victims, and we need to determine exactly what information victims need and want. I hope that it will meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord that we believe that the correct way to attempt to answer that question is to ask the victims themselves. That is what we are doing at the moment. We have commissioned research into the information needs of victims. I hope that the results of that research will be available soon. Both my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and I are agreed that we should be guided in our approach to the provision of information by the results of that research.
Although he is not at present in the Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, last Thursday asked about provision of support for victims in court in Scotland. We had a slightly uncertain ending to that exchange. It might be helpful if I place the position on record for him.
The national standards for social work service in the criminal justice system in Scotland set out in the court-based social work section that court social workers should provide information, advice and support to victims of crime. Those standards emphasise that victims appearing in court are often under severe stress. One task is to make appropriate referrals to victim

467
support schemes. Court social workers should be aware of the problems those people face and provide immediate assistance wherever possible. Responsibility for first-line support to victims in the courts in Scotland is therefore vested in local authorities and is funded 100 per cent. by the Scottish Office. Victim Support (Scotland) will arrange for a victim who requests assistance to be accompanied to court and will provide support and assistance to those referred to it by the court social worker.
I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord that we respond quite as vigorously north of the Border as is done south of the Border to the needs of victims as they come into court.
Lord McCluskey: Perhaps I may deal briefly with the technical matters. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, states that it may be difficult to predict when a case is likely to end. If we refer to solemn procedure, and cases which are in court, generally speaking the prosecution knows some little time in advance when there will be a plea of guilty, and sometimes the court is informed, too. It is perfectly possible to invite the victim to telephone in and to receive a message on an answerphone. That is now done, for example, with prospective jurors who are invited to telephone a specific number and receive an answer. It is perfectly possible to produce such a system.
In those cases which go to trial, the problem is more easily solved. If a case goes to trial, one will have a speech by the prosecution, a speech or speeches for the defence and a charge by the judge. That process in most cases is likely to take a day or two. Accordingly, it cannot be difficult either to intimate the necessary information directly to the victim, or to do so by the means to which I have referred.
I am not entirely happy with Amendment No. 131 in the name of the noble Earl. If the prosecutor were obliged to inform the victim of the progress of the case and dates of the outcome of the case, one is talking about a massive increase in work for the prosecutor and a massive increase of paperwork. I do not believe that that is a step to be taken early on. As I suggested, we should proceed step by step.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the victim sometimes has no idea of the progress of the case. That is part of my point. In order to minimise the burden upon the prosecutor we should introduce into my amendment the phrase, "so far as is reasonably practical", or some such words.
The noble and learned Lord has drawn attention to the fact that the police have and exercise certain responsibilities in the matter. Local authorities have and exercise certain responsibilities in relation to victims. That is right and proper. The noble Earl drew attention on various occasions to the contribution by the voluntary sector. That is entirely laudable. However, my additional point is this. It is not enough for the criminal justice system to leave the issue to local authorities, the police and volunteers. The criminal justice system must accept its responsibility direct to the victim. I urge the Government to bear those considerations in mind in
468
their thinking on this matter in relation to the Bill or any subsequent measure. With those observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: Clause 28 is yet another of the group of clauses which I fear is entirely unnecessary. Clause 28 empowers the court to pronounce an opinion on the sentence or disposal order which is appropriate in any similar case. The court undoubtedly has that power now. It has no doubt about the matter, although I speak for myself and not on this or any other occasions for other judges. It uses that power. I could give the Committee instance after instance in which a court has exercised that power and commented on that type of case. Indeed, if the Committee will consider the report of the McKenzie case—I referred to it earlier—the court went to the unusual length of suggesting to me before I passed sentence what might be an appropriate sentence. That is a special case, but there are many cases in which, when commenting on an allegation that a sentence was excessive, the court has said, "Far from being excessive, we would always expect the judge to impose a sentence of at least this length or even greater in similar cases". The result is that it is unnecessary to have the clause in the Bill.
I shall repeat the arguments as briefly as I can. The paragraphs in the Renton report which deal with this issue —they are referred to at col. 303 in the Committee proceedings reported in Hansard of 12th January 1995–indicate that it is quite wrong to legislate unnecessarily. This is an example of unnecessary legislation.
In my opinion it is also quite wrong to make unnecessary inroads into the exercise of judicial discretion for reasons with which I dealt earlier. That is particularly true in relation to the day-to-day details of how judges should deliver their opinions. This is Parliament saying to the judiciary, "Please put this in your opinion". It is a hint. We do not need hints from Parliament as to what to put in our opinions. I feel a certain distaste for Parliament nudge-nudging and wink-winking in the direction of the judiciary in such matters. It is bad practice. It is unnecessary. It is slightly vulgar (if I may use that word in current context). It changes absolutely nothing and I should like to know why the Ministers propose the clause. I oppose the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I support the observations of the noble and learned Lord in opposing the Question that Clause 28 stand part of the Bill. I do not have the experience of the noble and learned Lord; but it seems to me that the side note seems to be entirely misleading. For whatever reason it refers to "sentencing guidelines". A guideline tells someone where to go and how to get there. The amendment would lead to casual indications being given to the lower courts from the higher courts as to what they should or should not do in specific cases. It is presumably meant to fetter the

469
discretion of the lower courts and to say to the lower courts, "We have said that you must not go beyond what we have stated".
As referred to on a prior occasion, the courts in England have tried guidelines. One or two judges have had the courage in local situations to say, "If it were open to me to do what I consider appropriate in the public interest in this locality, I would give you X-number of years. But if I do so, I shall be overturned by the Court of Appeal and there is no point in my giving you the sentence that I consider appropriate". That has a double effect: a beneficial effect on the accused; and perhaps a detrimental effect on the victim who does not see the perpetrator of violence against him or her receiving what the court regards as an appropriate penalty.
If the judge ignores the opinion of the higher court—the provision is not a guideline; it is merely an indication—what effect would that have? There is no indication in this amendment to indicate what the guidelines are. Perhaps, like some other amendments to the Bill, this has come too soon. It might be appropriate if some research were done into the consistency of sentences. It is a theme which runs right through the Bill. If sentencing guidelines are to be set up, then let us have a structure—for example, a sentencing guidelines council involving lay people. We go back to the victim impact statement, the involvement of juries in sentencing. Here we come to another element and perhaps we may examine it and ask whether it is right that there should be a body which, from the top, says: "This is the way we think it should be done in cases which fit into the structure". But the thing about structures, like rules, is that there must be exceptions and I am loath to support any clause which fetters the discretion of the judge.
Perhaps the judge in the law court in the local community should have more flexibility than —saving the presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—the higher courts. It is the lower courts that have to deal with the realities of local life and impose a sentence which sends a message to the local thugs, hooligans and thieves that the local court will not put up with their nonsense any more. Those courts are not interested in what the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh may think. I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: On a number of occasions in the course of this Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has addressed the argument that it is only appropriate in legislation to look to a mischief and seek to remedy it. Without getting engaged in an elaborate debate with him, I would extend that somewhat and say that it is appropriate enough for Parliament from time to time not just to address directly a mischief, but, where it has a view that it would be helpful to give encouragement to a particular approach, Parliament should do so.
I entirely accept the noble and learned Lord's view that at present if the Court of Appeal in Scotland wishes to set out a series of guideline judgments on sentences,
470
it could do that. However, I believe that it is right that on the face of the Bill we should do no more than suggest to the courts that such an approach is desirable. It is in no sense a direction to them. With respect, I do not agree that what is being proposed is in any sense an inroad into a proper judicial discretion.
I have little doubt that those judges in the High Court who regularly conduct or preside over trials will have little cause to rely on sentencing guidelines. But possibly more important and a perspective that has not yet been clearly identified is that those who operate in the inferior courts would welcome more widely than the Court of Appeal seems to appreciate just that guidance from the Appeal Court. When we went out to consultation on that, 21 district courts responded to the consultation paper on sentencing and appeals. Of the 21 who responded, 13 supported sentencing guidelines and eight did not.
Other respondents who supported guidelines include victims' groups, two of the three police associations, the Scottish Law Commission, the Faculty of Advocates and a significant number of legal academics. In that context, I am aware of the proper desire of the noble and learned Lord to ensure that the statute book is not unnecessarily encumbered with clauses that add little to the law. However, I feel quite strongly that the perspective that he ought to take in regard to the matter is not that of a superior judge in Scotland but rather that of an inferior judge in Scotland. All the indications are that they would welcome a more vigorous and developed policy on guidelines than is now the case.
The Earl of Balfour: Obviously the direction is mostly to the sheriff court or the district court. Could guidelines be put forward by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the form of statutory instruments rather than the primary legislation which is being established in the Bill? I feel that perhaps we are being a little dictatorial here.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: No, I am afraid that I cannot agree at all with that proposition. I wish to have no part in giving guidelines, nor does my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wish to have any part in giving guidelines to the judiciary, at whatever level, on what sentences they should impose. It is for Parliament to set out the maxima and, within that, it is for the courts themselves to determine. I have no doubt that the matter must be left to the court.
However, I hope that the clause will encourage the High Court to take opportunities, as it feels appropriate, to set out guidelines in particular cases. It may not be of great significance to those who impose the most severe sentences in our courts, but I believe that, if that approach were to be taken, it would he warmly welcomed in the inferior courts.
Lord McCluskey: In leaving the matter, I should say that, of course, all judges—and that must include those who sit in the law courts—would welcome a solution to their problems. We must search for certainty. If the High Court were to set forth not so much guidelines as strong indicators of what should be done, that would rob the

471
local judges of their duty to exercise a discretion based on the facts of the case and the circumstances of the locality. So it is important that they should not be provided with solutions which they can dial up on a computer.
At an earlier stage, I mentioned the SIS, the sentencing information system, which is currently being studied by the judges in the High Court. That could reach a stage at which it would be possible to dial and input the data relating to a particular type of case, a particular type of offence and a particular type of offender. Then one would end up with an average or a median solution to the problem. I think it would be a pity if we went down that road, either by that means or by this one. Then judges in the inferior courts—and I use the term technically—might feel that they no longer needed to exercise their own discretion.
However, having said that, I am sure that the Government will reflect on the wisdom of putting such matters into the statute. I would not accuse the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, of wanting to erect a kind of Fraser of Carmyllie monument in the law of Scotland in the shape of this Bill. There are many other monuments—some built on sand— which he has already enacted into law. I say no more about that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Supervised attendance orders]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 19, line 36, at end insert:
("() In subsection (3) (a), for the word "16" there shall be substituted "18".").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 89, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 90. These are minor and technical amendments, their purpose being to clarify the position with respect to the use of supervised attendance orders as an alternative to imprisonment for fine default. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 19, line 41, leave out ("16") and insert ("18").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 93 together, as they form part of the same parcel. The objective behind them is to introduce a higher degree of judicial discretion as to whether fines should be imposed on a person at the age of 16 or 17.
The view has been expressed that the court should have a discretion regarding the penalty. At the moment, the court can only allow 28 days for any fine to be paid. At this time of financial stringency it is very difficult for young people of that age to find the money readily.
Twenty-eight days is not a long time to find the fine. Indeed in some cases there may be a compensation order attached to the fine. I hope that the Government will give these three amendments some consideration and perhaps come back at a later stage of the proceedings to indicate what are their final views.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: From what the noble Lord has said I am rather concerned that he may have misunderstood what is our purpose behind these provisions. The policy underpinning the provisions is very simple. It is to avoid wherever possible imprisonment for an offender who is 16 or 17 years old where the court considered that the offence of which he was convicted did not merit a custodial sentence in the first place. As a matter of policy I assume that he would think that that was desirable.
The proposals in the Bill mean that, where an offender is 16 or 17, a supervised attendance order would be available in the first instance instead of a fine. Alternatively, the court could impose a fine to be paid within 28 days and, if the offender defaulted, an SAO would be imposed automatically. Imprisonment for fine default would therefore not be available for offenders of this age group even at first instance.
Experience shows that offenders in this age group more often than not have no income or other means to pay a fine. Consequently, they default and are then caught up in the laborious and often fruitless process of fine enforcement. Some are imprisoned—in 1993, 102 16 and 17 year-olds were sent to prison for fine default. In the vast majority of these cases the amount of unpaid fine was less than £200. I question whether there is any gain to be secured in imprisoning such youngsters.
Supervised attendance order schemes are a positive substitute for such a sanction but it has been recognised that the court must retain some discretion as respects the choice of disposal at first instance. That is why our proposals will enable the court to retain the sanction of a fine where it thinks that there is a reasonable chance that it will be paid.
I hope that I do not need to elaborate on my policy. If the noble Lord would like to consider what I have said, I am sure that this is at least one clause in the Bill which, knowing his background and his interest in such matters, he will indeed warmly welcome.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for what was an explanation of a rather circuitous form of justice, if that is the correct word; namely, that once the young person gets on the circuit he may or may not fall off or end up at the final destination. I shall read with interest what the Minister said, and I am obliged to him for paying attention to the amendments in the way in which he has done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 21, line 35, at end insert (", subject to paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the 1990 Act,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This clause will place courts under a duty to make a supervised attendance order in certain circumstances. Clearly we would not wish that duty to apply if no relevant scheme is in operation where the offender resides. This amendment will ensure that that is the case. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Probation orders requiring treatment for mental condition]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 23, line 22, after ("or") insert ("clinical or").
The noble Lord said: For the convenience of the Committee, perhaps I may in speaking to this amendment refer also to Amendment No. 96. This is a fairly minor amendment which ensures that, say, a clinical psychologist can provide treatment for a person subject to a probation order who suffers from a mental condition. There is a view that is expressed that only properly qualified clinical psychologists should be able to provide treatment in terms of Sections 184 and 385 in the 1975 Act. That should not be the exclusive prerogative of practitioners registered with the British Psychological Society. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Clause 33 was introduced to allow offenders suffering from a mental condition which, while not thought to require treatment through detention under a hospital order, might benefit from treatment by or under the direction of a chartered psychologist to receive such treatment as a condition of a probation order. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that this is a positive step towards improving facilities for the treatment of mentally disordered offenders.
The amendment that is proposed by the noble Lord, while at first glance it seems to clarify who may provide the treatment, could in fact cause some confusion, the term "clinical psychologist" having no clear, generally accepted definition. The term "chartered psychologist" as defined in the clause, in effect covers registered clinical, educational and forensic psychologists. To include specifically "clinical psychologist" in the clause is unnecessary. On that basis, and given that short explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I shall have to take advice on whether what he has said is factually correct. I am not fully qualified to say whether his definition of a clinical psychologist in the context in which he presented it is correct. I shall make due inquiries, as they say in certain quarters. If my inquiries show that the noble and learned Lord is not correct in what he said,
474
then, as General MacArthur said, "We shall return". In the meantime, I shall depart and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Sentence for offence committed while subject to requirement to perform unpaid work]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 24, leave out lines 3 to 6.
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 98 and 99. The effect of the amendment is to delete the requirement for offences committed while the accused is subject to a community service or other order to be separate or liable to indictment.
The Law Society of Scotland has expressed the view that the accused could be prejudiced if the fact of his earlier offence is known to the judge or jury. That may or may not be a proper view. The accused is always entitled to the presumption of innocence. It may be that the Government should give some consideration to deleting these provisions and providing the appropriate notice to the accused on a separate indictment or complaint. The matter referred to is not necessary for the proof of the commission of the offence libelled and is therefore irrelevant to the issue that is before the court. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While it is, and has been for some time, our policy to encourage as much as we can the use of community service orders—and indeed I believe that it has been successful —what we must ensure is that where such community service orders are undertaken it is to be regarded with great seriousness if someone offends while at the place where work is being done as part of that community disposal. The proposals that we have in Clause 34 were published in Firm and Fair and at that time received no adverse comment. The concerns of the noble Lord over the possibility of prejudice against the offender caused by libelling the circumstances were indeed given careful consideration for just the reasons that he has outlined.
We believe that the clause as drafted provides the clearest and fairest way forward by best informing the court of the true nature of the offence and also informing the alleged offender of the full scope of the charge laid against him, hence giving him an opportunity to respond to it.
I should say that this clause arose out of a particular case where someone under a community service order, having gone to an old lady's house to undertake some redecorating, while there took the opportunity to leave the window open and then returned later that night to steal property from her. It is difficult to see how the full circumstances of that case would be explained to the court if it could not at one point or another be explained to it that the accused was in the property at the time lawfully discharging what was required of him in terms of a community service order.

475
So, while I understand in principle what concerns the noble Lord, after much careful thought we have reached the conclusion that this is the best way to approach the matter.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation, which to me certainly puts the matter in a different light. I appreciate that in the course of a trial technical difficulties might arise in the proof of a primary offence. The fact that the offence was created at a place where the order was being carried out would be an aggravating factor that the prosecutor might bring before the court in moving for sentence. I see the practical difficulties and certainly will consider what the noble and learned Lord said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Leave to appeal]:
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 25, line 11, at end insert:
("() In section 228(2) of the 1975 Act (right of appeal) at the end there shall be inserted "but no appeal shall be entertained by the High Court on the ground of an alleged miscarriage of justice consisting of an alleged misdirection of the jury by the trial judge unless, before the jury has returned a verdict, there has been presented to the trial judge a Note of Exceptions to the Charge specifying the alleged misdirection, whether it be a misdirection by omission or by commission.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, I am conscious of the fact that the amendment might have been better phrased and better placed, as it were, but I have chosen to put it in this place because it is an amendment to Section 228 of the 1975 Act. It raises a point which I believe that the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who will reply might say should be dealt with by the Sutherland Committee. I am not sure about that. But if the noble and learned Lord were disposed to give me such a reply, I would be inclined to accept it.
Perhaps I may illustrate the matter in this way. In the late 1950s I appeared in a case which (again) was called McKenzie, although that time I was McKenzie's counsel. We appeared in the Glasgow High Court in what I might call the twilight days of Lord Carmont. Lord Carmont omitted to tell the jury that the burden of proof was on the Crown; or indeed that the burden of proof was a heavy one—namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt. For some reason— perhaps because he was asleep (I do not remember who he was)—the prosecutor did not draw his Lordship's attention to those significant omissions. We, who were acting for the defence were entitled to exercise our right—and we did so—to sit on our hands and say nothing. The result was that we had an unanswerable appeal when the matter went to the Criminal Appeal Court. In those days there was no retrial and so the conviction had to be quashed.
I regard it as intolerable that when those who represent the accused person know perfectly well that there has been a misdirection by the judge—because he has omitted to say something, or even because he has made an obvious mistake, as sometimes happens,
476
particularly towards the end of the week or the end of the day—the defence should be able to sit on their hands and wait until the charge is finished, knowing that they then have a good ground of appeal. Even today, when there is the right to a retrial or the Crown may exercise that right, if allowed it by the court, it is not satisfactory because it is very expensive and causes much delay and uncertainty.
Accordingly, I seek to introduce into the criminal procedure a step which was well known in civil cases—and still is well known indeed but there are very few jury trials in civil cases nowadays. But in the 1950s and 1960s, if counsel recognised that the judge in his direction to the jury had made a statement of the law or indeed some statement of mixed fact of law which counsel thought was challengeable, then it was his duty to lodge with the judge a written note of exceptions. It was handwritten and quite informal but it raised the point. Only then could the point be taken on appeal.
I am not sure how far one would go in relation to criminal matters, but in the last few words of the amendment I have drawn attention particularly to the misdirection by omission. That is the hardest thing of all to pick up. I have known cases in which I have been involved as counsel—and I am very sore about a case in which I was involved as a judge—where at a later stage someone came along and noticed what no one at the trial had noticed because it was entirely unimportant; namely, an alleged omission by the trial judge.
One has to recognise, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will recognise it, having been there many times, that on appeal in the Criminal Appeal Court there are a number of very clever, able and highly talented lawyers who can sit down with a judge's charge and consider the case with lateral thinking. They come up with conclusions as to what is missing that no one else had thought of before. In other words, one becomes slightly divorced from the reality of the trial. Sometimes, those points may strike a chord with the appeal court, which itself is slightly divorced from the ordinary realities of the trial, as it has recognised itself many times in its judgments about the distinction between reading the charge, reading the evidence and taking part in the trial. So I do not slander the appeal court when I say that.
For all those reasons I urge the Committee to accept this amendment which would thus enable the trial judge at least to be asked to consider whether his directions are sound at the time and in the proper context; namely, in the context of the trial itself. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am rather concerned about the absolute terms of this amendment. At the end it states:
"no appeal shall be entertained by the High Court on the ground of an alleged miscarriage of justice … unless … there has been presented to the trial judge"—
presumably at the trial—
"a Note of Exceptions to the Charge".
It is easy enough—although it is never easy—in civil cases to present a note of exceptions; but the atmosphere in a civil jury trial is entirely different from the

477
atmosphere in a criminal trial. People are being asked to make instant decisions and it is not easy, with the responsibilities involved in the criminal trial, to take what might be looked upon as a casual matter; namely, to prepare a note of exceptions before the jury retires. This amendment is in absolute terms. What happens when one of the clever counsel or clever lawyers to whom the noble and learned Lord referred gets hold of the charge and says, "This is an absolute nonsense"? I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the appeal is not to be heard because of, in broad terms, the negligence or omission by the original counsel; and if so, what sanction does the man in the middle withall—the accused—have against the original counsel.
In its present terms the amendment may raise a number of problems and many more problems than it seeks to solve.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I do not feel able to accept this amendment. I do not go along with the description by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, of the position in a civil jury trial in relation to a note of exceptions being easy enough to devise. It was quite a heavy burden on any counsel involved in a civil jury trial to get that right.
At the end of the day, looking at the whole position, if one could detect that there had been a miscarriage of justice, would our system be improved if the matter could not be raised because somebody below had failed to spot the omission at the time? By the wording of the amendment—I do not tie the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to it —it is a movable feast to say the least. One does not know how long it will take before the jury returns a verdict. To tie the right of appeal to the need to put in a note of exception within that time would be too hard.
If everyone were as acute and quick as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is now and undoubtedly would have been as a counsel, this provision might be all right. But one has to allow for people who are not necessarily quite so quick and who may on occasion overlook something. If it is overlooked, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said, by counsel or the agent appearing, it would be too hard to say that in the situation it could not be raised.
Nonetheless, having had on occasion the honour of defending a charge by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, against what looks like a good deal of hindsight by counsel in the Court of Appeal, I have some sympathy with the point he makes. But on the whole, from time to time, though the Court of Appeal may allow itself to accept points which may not have been live points in the trial, it is conscious that what must be dealt with are the issues that arise at trial. If on occasion a matter gets through on appeal which was not a live issue and when, on looking back at it, one feels that the appeal court took a harsh line, that is probably a price worth paying rather than having what would, in practice, come to be thought of as being too draconian a rule which would be capable—though the noble and learned Lord does not intend it—of wreaking injustice if it were applied in that way.
478
Therefore, while I acknowledge the problem which the noble and learned Lord seeks to address, I do not feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord McCluskey: I am forced to write to the Sutherland Committee to ask its members to consider the matter. Perhaps I may deal briefly with the points of substance that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is concerned about the absoluteness of the rule. That can easily be dealt with by introducing what the Americans call the "gorilla" rule; in other words, the phrase is put in, "except with the leave of the court".
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Will the noble and learned Lord spell "gorilla" for us?
Lord McCluskey: Not at this time of night.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Are we talking about the animal or the activity?
Lord McCluskey: We are talking about the animal. When one puts in an expression like "except with the leave of the court on cause shown", the Americans describe it as the "gorilla" rule. The gorilla rule is formulated in this way: when one asks where a 600lb. gorilla sleeps at night, the answer is, anywhere a 600lb. gorilla wants to sleep. That is the way the court in America seems to approach the matter in that it does what it wants.
I do not believe that we would treat the rule in precisely those terms. The Lord Advocate said, "If in the court below people failed to spot the point"; that is exactly my point. I can think of a specific case and it wounds me. I sometimes wake up in the middle of the night suffering from a recollection of it. Undoubtedly nobody spotted the point because there was nothing very much to spot. Eventually, with hindsight and with infra-red vision, somebody spotted the fault which had been missed at the time and the court was persuaded to regard it as a misdirection. However, I do not want to bring tears to your Lordships' eyes at this time of night.
On the point, technically, about how difficult it is to do this during the course of a trial, if those who represent the accused—or for that matter the Crown, because the Crown must be alert to what is said by the judge in the charge to the jury—find that there is a misdirection, they may have difficulty in deciding whether to take the point or to formulate it. But there is nothing to stop them coming forward to the court and saying, "Would your Lordship not accept a verdict from the jury until we have had an opportunity to lodge a note of exception?"
I shall reflect upon what has been said and put these matters in my submissions which I hope to make shortly to the Sutherland Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 25, line 33, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 101 is grouped with Amendment No. 102. It seeks to amplify the documents which a judge should consider before

479
deciding on leave to appeal and to provide for oral representation on the need for leave to appeal. The important document is probably the charge to the jury, which is not normally available. Nevertheless, the submission by the appellant or on his behalf is equally important to give the judge a rounded view of what is in issue. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments. Amendment No. 101, which the noble Lord does not press and which concerns the note of appeal, I do not believe to be necessary. Where there is a note of appeal there should not be any need for a further submission.
One can debate Amendment No. 102, but I see no objection to putting on the face of the statute a need for the judge's charge to be included. However, the amendment is technically defective because, as the noble Lord will immediately accept, in a case where the appeal is only against sentence, there is no question of the judge's charge arising; or, indeed, where the judge's charge was not in issue. I am therefore happy to accept the spirit of Amendment No. 102 and come forward on Report with a suitable amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for accepting that point. I accept his criticisms of the defect in drafting. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before calling Amendment No. 103, I should inform the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 104.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 26, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert:
("(6) Consideration whether or not to grant leave to appeal under subsection (1) or (5) above may take place in chambers without the parties being present, but the judge, in the case of subsection (1), or the High Court, in the case of subsection (5), will have the right to order a hearing with the parties present to enable the application for leave under section 228(1) or under subsection (1), (4) or (5) of this section to be the subject of submissions.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I wish to raise a serious matter in relation to Clause 35 which I believe to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, I shall develop that point on the Motion that the clause stand part. Subject to that, if we are to introduce for the first time in Scotland a provision of this kind whereby a person may not appeal other than with leave from a judge or from the High Court itself, we should at least allow the court to entertain oral submissions if it chooses to do so.
The Committee will see that what is to be new Section 230A of the 1975 Act starts on line 14 on page 25 of the Bill,
"The decision whether to grant leave to appeal for the purposes of Section 228".
That is the standard section which provides that any person convicted on indictment may appeal in accordance with the provisions of this part of the Act to
480
the High Court against conviction/sentence or conviction and sentence. The later provision deals with summary cases. The matter therefore goes first to a single judge who sees a number of documents which are specified in subsection (2); namely, the note of appeal, the certified copy of proceedings and the trial judge's report.
The court itself, when reading the documentation, may decide that it is appropriate to hear representations on specific points. For example, in answer to some point made in the note of appeal, the Crown may wish to receive submissions from the advocate depute, from Crown counsel, to see whether the point is one on which Crown counsel can offer some assistance in the form of authority or argument. Furthermore, the note of appeal does not have to set forth the argument. Again, I dealt with that in the book that I wrote. That is well understood in the profession: the note of appeal should set forth the grounds of appeal, not the argumentation in support of it. There is no quotation of authority for it, for example, in the note of appeal. The submissions of the party therefore are not put before the judge and the judge may want to know whether there is any real substance in the matter; whether he can be given any guidance on the matter. But also the court itself may see a point that was missed and it may be a point that appears at first glance to be one of fundamental nullity.
As the Committee will appreciate, if a point of fundamental nullity is noticed, for example by the court itself or for that matter by the Crown, and drawn to the attention of the court, the court must take notice of the point of fundamental nullity, whether or not it is contained in the note of appeal. It may be that some point in the note of appeal is not very well put and ought to be developed. There are many reasons why either the single judge who is considering the documentation or the appeal court which is considering the documentation might want to have some representations. Accordingly, I am saying that the court itself—either the single judge or the High Court—might wish to raise some matter and have further submissions on it from the parties. That is what my amendment is concerned with.
The new subsection (6) would simply say:
"Consideration whether or not to grant leave to appeal under subsection (1) or (5) above may take place in chambers without the parties being present, but the judge … or the High Court … will have the right to order a hearing with the parties present to enable the application for leave under section 228(1) or under subsection (1), (4) or (5) of this section to be the subject of submissions".
I cannot see what can be wrong with that in the context of a provision for leave to appeal. Although I do not think it would cure the fundamental defect in Clause 35, I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The provisions of Clause 35 are intended to introduce a new procedure which will allow the High Court to filter out frivolous and unmeritorious appeals quickly and simply. The decision whether to grant leave to appeal will be made on the basis of all the papers which will be available to the appeal court at an appeal hearing without the need to convene a full hearing of the appeal court. The noble and learned Lord has referred to the documents and we

481
have already indicated that we think they would be supplemented by the charge. There is no question of these new arrangements reducing the level of scrutiny of appeals in general since only appeals which are clearly without merit —those which are unarguable is the way it is expressed—would be refused leave to appeal. Any appeal which appeared to demonstrate arguable grounds would be granted leave and would proceed to an appeal hearing in open court.
These amendments, which require the consideration of whether to grant leave to appeal to be carried out in certain circumstances in open court, would transform what is intended to be a simple and entirely preliminary consideration of what is, we conceive, a narrow question into a full hearing which would duplicate in effect the role of the appeal hearing. We conceive that that would be undesirable. It might give rise to questions as to how much thought had to be given to whether something was or was not arguable whereas we consider that if a judge thinks that it may be arguable or is arguable he should grant it.
The noble and learned Lord raises an interesting point in connection with the question of fundamental nullity. I should like to reflect further on that. But as a provisional matter it is noticed that he may give his reasons in writing. I should have thought that a judge who had perceived a fundamental nullity would have it in mind to put that matter into the document which he prepared. If he did so I would envisage that that matter would then be raised by the applicant if he then took it on to appeal under the later provisions in subsection (4). But subject to looking at that, I believe that there is everything to be said for stressing that the only question here is whether it is arguable, and that matter can be decided, as it is at the present time in England, on the paperwork. It can then be reconsidered by two or three judges on appeal in terms of the later provisions of the clause.
I took the point which the noble and learned Lord made at Second Reading that there is a danger that a single judge might not always be as vigilant as he might. The fact that he has to express his reasons in writing and the fact that he has the prospect of the matter being considered on appeal should ensure that it is, as far as one can predict, properly dealt with. I would suggest that the provisions which we have, subject to the point which the noble and learned Lord has raised, are proper in the circumstances.
Lord McCluskey: I do not think that the debate so far has properly come to terms with the fact that we are introducing here something which is absolutely novel in the criminal procedure in Scotland. It has never been done before. The Scottish criminal procedure is highly unusual, if not unique, in the respect that there is a one-stop appeal. Whether one is convicted in the district court, in the sheriff court, in the sheriff and jury court or in the High Court, one instantly appeals straight to the High Court of Justiciary. There is no appeal from the High Court of Justiciary. The High Court, sitting as three judges, may decide for assorted reasons to refer the case to a Bench of five, seven, nine, 11 or even 13
482
judges, but there is no further right of appeal. Accordingly, what we are talking about here is the accused's right of appeal.
I am glad that the Lord Advocate reminded your Lordships of what was said at Second Reading. For those who were not present I referred then very briefly—I do not have the document with me now—to a document produced in England by Justice. The document referred to a case in which the papers were accidentally sent twice and arrived with the same judge. On one occasion, on perusal, he granted leave to appeal; on another occasion, on further perusal, not realising that he had already decided the matter, he refused leave to appeal.
There is nothing desperately unusual about that kind of thing. It sometimes depends on what side of the bed one got out of in the morning how well disposed one is towards a particular matter. Jurists call it "digestive jurisprudence" for obvious reasons. There is a good deal of danger in having a single judge decide this matter. It appears to me that it would not necessarily be a great addition to the expense if the single judge had the right to satisfy himself by inviting submissions. It is not a requirement. It is just a right for him to invoke the assistance of parties, which could be done in chambers. I urge Her Majesty's Ministers to think about this matter before the Bill is finally decided. However, for the moment, although I shall come back to matters of deep principle on the clause itself, with the permission of the Committee I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: In considering the appropriateness of enacting Clause 35, I ask the Committee to come to terms with its details. I have already mentioned them so I can do it fairly briefly. The clause envisages that the process of applying for leave to appeal begins with the single judge. When one looks at this clause along with Clause 53, in a sense one sees that in fact the first step is that the accused person has legal aid. I believe that I am right in saying that under the provisions of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 the legal aid which was granted for the purposes of the trial will continue up to and including that stage. There is no question of denying legal aid at that stage.
However, the matter then comes before the single judge in chambers without an appearance by the parties. The single judge receives documents and nothing but documents. The documents are those which are listed in subsection (2). As I have already mentioned, the note of appeal simply sets forth the grounds of appeal. It happens from time to time that, very helpfully, parties choose to put rather more detailed submissions, as it were, with reference to authority and statute in the note of appeal. There is no compulsion on them to do that at the present time. The note of appeal may simply state the grounds of appeal. That is all that is required by the practice note which governs this matter.

483
Subsection (2) (b) of the new section refers to the certified copy or the record of the proceedings at the trial. That is a very formal document which simply records the names of the witnesses, the times when the court sits, who appears and matters of that kind. There is nothing of substance there.
The third significant matter is paragraph (c):
"where the judge who presided at the trial furnishes a report under section 236A of this Act, that report".
I have written and read many such reports. The judge is faced with the note of appeal which is essentially critical of the judge. It may criticise his charge, his ruling as regards the admissibility of evidence; it may criticise his observations to the jury during the course of the trial and it may criticise his directions to the jury at the end of the trial. It may also criticise the sentence imposed or any related matter.
So when a judge is sometimes faced with a barrage of criticism of what he has done or omitted to do, of course the temptation is to be defensive. I have seen many of these reports which are defensive in character. The judge will say, "I made a perfectly proper decision and looked at this authority or that". He becomes a kind of advocate for the accuracy of that which he has said and the authenticity of all the things he has done.
In a sense he becomes one who pleads his own case: at best he is going to be entirely neutral. At that stage nobody, in the course of a document, pleads the appellant's case before the judge who is sitting in chambers or before the appeal court which is sitting in chambers.
I reminded the Committee and particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, of what I said at Second Reading about the Granger case which went to the European Court of Human Rights. It is now reported in 12 European Human Rights Reports 1990 at page 469. What that case established, among other things, was, first, that appeal proceedings are covered by Article 6 of the European Convention. I do not believe that I need go into any detail in that matter because I do not believe that that would be disputed, least of all by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
Perhaps I may read to the Committee very briefly what Article 6 says. I take the parts which are quoted on page 479 of the report,
"In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal".
That is reading the matter short. As I have said, in determination of a criminal charge that includes the appeal proceedings. I now come to the important part:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require".
So the essence of the matter, leaving aside the legal aid dimension, which is the heart of the Granger case, is that everyone charged with a criminal offence, including the appeal proceedings, has the following minimum rights,
"to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing"
484
or provided by legal aid.
Clause 35 says that when it comes to the appeal the accused has no right to appear before the judge or before the High Court. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has just explained that that is not necessary, simply because the case may be unarguable. The question of unarguability was dealt with in the Granger case when, although the High Court of Judiciary had pronounced the Granger appeal unarguable and unstatable, nonetheless the Court of Human Rights held that he should have had representation for the purposes of hearing, that appeal.
I await the Lord Advocate's answer with interest, but without having had the benefit of hearing any contrary argument—one always likes to hear the contrary argument for reasons that I have sought to explain—I cannot see how this clause can stand part of the Bill in the face of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I conclude with why I also object to Clause 53 and why I shall oppose the Question that that clause stand part of the Bill. Clause 53 appears on page 45 of the Bill and deals with legal aid in criminal appeals. In effect, it says that a person cannot get legal aid for an appeal unless the judge or the High Court has given leave. We are exactly in Granger territory now because in that case Granger was not granted legal aid and that was held to be a contravention of the European Convention because of the complexity of the case that he had to argue. In this case, combining Clauses 35 and 53, the accused person who seeks to appeal will not be entitled to representation by his lawyer and will have no right to appear in person. That is a plain contravention of the article. It is for those reasons that I invite Ministers to withdraw Clause 35 and why I do not think that the Committee should grant the clause its approval at this stage.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made a number of comments in connection with Clause 35 and referred back to what he said on the amendments in relation to the form of the note of appeal. He pointed out that, under the present form, the judge would get a note of appeal which would not necessarily contain any reference to authorities. The noble and learned Lord said—and I can see the force of it—that having a note of any relevant authorities could often be of assistance to a judge, especially when considering the matter by himself.
The Government are always anxious not to interfere unduly in the workings of the High Court of justiciary. We have been criticised on occasion in Committee debates for seeking to do so. We have taken note of the fact that under Section 233(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 the form of the note of appeal is something that can be determined by Act of Adjournal. Therefore, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that if the judges think that it might be of assistance—I can see that they may well do so —it would be open to the High Court to specify a form of the note of appeal which would include reference to authorities.

485
Looking at the matter more widely (because the noble and learned Lord looked at it more widely) I believe that the noble and learned Lord was saying that the provisions were objectionable under the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble and learned Lord rightly drew a connection between Clauses 35 and 53. He said, "If you don't get through the test in Clause 35, you don't get legal aid". I might put it the other way round and say, "If you do get through the test in Clause 35,"—the matter is arguable—"when you appear in future in the appeal court, you will have legal aid and you will therefore have representation".
I defer to the noble and learned Lord's experience in almost every sphere except in terms of trips to Strasbourg because in my time I have had probably more than my fair share of trips to Strasbourg in connection with the proceedings of the criminal appeal court in Scotland.
What the Strasbourg judges, whom it is a pleasure to visit, I may say, object to principally is that in Scotland we have a system which allows people to appear in the Appeal Court. They appear in the Appeal Court and they have sitting opposite them representatives of the Crown. In the Granger case, it was my noble and learned friend the Minister of State who was then Solicitor General, and on other occasions it may be advocates depute, and so on. What is then said to be wrong is that there is an infringement of the principle of equality of arms, because the judges say that where there is a hearing in front of the court, it is wrong that one side—the Crown—should be represented while the other side—the accused—is not. One can see the force of that in some respects.
We have argued all sorts of things—for example, the fact that the Crown does not necessarily speak, and so on—but we have been rejected. Nonetheless, if one has regard to other aspects of the jurisprudence of the courts—we have from time to time sought to invoke them—one finds that the position in relation to leave to appeal is different. That matter has been explored in connection with the position in England and Wales. That occurred in particular in the case of Monnell and Morris. In that case, the court in Strasbourg held that it was consistent with the convention for one to have a system of leave to appeal, such as is envisaged here, where written representations were put in by the appellant, but where there were no representations from the Crown. Therefore there was no infringement of the equality of arms. In other words, the court did not accept —with the greatest possible respect—the construction put upon Article 6, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has advanced.
In considering the clause, we had regard, and had to have regard, to the jurisprudence of the court in Strasbourg, because there would be no point in putting it forward if it would inevitably fall. We believe, for the reasons that I have indicated, that the clause is consistent with that, and it produces a system which will allow the court to weed out frivolous appeals, and thereby—I put considerable weight on this—allow those appeals which are not frivolous, but serious, and raise points which have to be decided, to be brought on and disposed of
486
more quickly. Therefore, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, his criticisms of the clause are not justified, and it should stand part of the Bill.
Lord McCluskey: I am reluctant to leave the matter in that way because I am not satisfied that the answer that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has given is a convincing one. Section 233(2) of the 1975 Act deals only with grounds of appeal. I do not read that—I may be wrong—as empowering the court, by Act of Adjournal, to require an accused person to state his arguments in the note of appeal. I doubt very much whether the court would regard that requirement as intra vires.
The second point concerns the Granger case. I recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was Solicitor General at the time the case was heard in Strasbourg, although I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, was the Solicitor General at the time the matter was argued some years previously in the High Court in Edinburgh. I recognise that in the Granger case the grounds of appeal were very well detailed. So much so, that the court in Edinburgh, despite the fact that Granger was not represented before it, chose to hear Granger in full. Granger read out a speech which had been written by his solicitor and which dealt with all the grounds of appeal. In the view of the Lord Justice Clerk, who was presiding, he did so very convincingly.
Perhaps I may refer to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Paragraph 21 of its report states:
"The High Court of Justiciary unanimously refused the appeal on all grounds. In his written judgment the Lord Justice Clerk, who presided, gave full consideration to each of the grounds, but was satisfied that none of them had substance and that there had been no miscarriage of justice".
That virtually says that these points are unarguable; it is virtually the same test. Therefore, the Lord Justice Clerk and his colleague would have said that the matter was unarguable.
The Government, in the person of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as he now is, argued that the appeal by Granger did not require a grant of legal aid, which the Government describe as being, "wholly without substance" and having "no reasonable prospects of success". I refer to page 480, paragraph 45, of the report. Therefore, from time to time both the government counsel and the judges refer to the matter as being one without substance. Accordingly, it seems likely that that is a case in which the court would have upheld that the appeal was unarguable. It would have done so without representation by or for Granger and that would be in conflict with the article.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate specifically referred to there being no equality of arms. The point was that, on the one side, the court saw the Solicitor General for Scotland, with his Crown Office assistant, argue the case and, on the other side, a man standing up and reading a speech that had been prepared for him by his solicitor. It considered that there was no equality of arms there. I recognise that principle but urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to bear in mind what I said earlier—that the judges'

487
report is not, or is commonly not, an impartial assessment of the situation. It ought to be and in my book I invite those who write such reports to try to make them impartial. However, I know that when one sits down with all the criticisms of one's charge and one's behaviour, it is difficult to sit back and be impartial about the matter. One tends to reply as an advocate on one's own behalf. It is one's last kick at the ball before one reads in the papers that the appeal court has overturned the decision on the ground that one is some kind of clown and has misdirected the jury.
I have expressed the matter in terms that are perhaps unduly lighthearted at this time of night. However, I mean the point and I hope that the Government will think carefully about the matter. In the meantime, I withdraw my opposition to the clause.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Extension of certain time limits with respect to appeals]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 29, line 22, at end insert:
("() In Section 451(2) of that Act after the word "reasonable" there shall be inserted "and shall pending the report liberate the appellant forthwith".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been grouped with Amendment No. 108. Their purpose is to ensure that a person in custody pending an appeal by stated case should be liberated pending an appeal in the event that the time limits for stating the case are extended. From time to time we have heard the complaint that by the time stated cases are received the convicted person has served the sentence in the matter under review. In the interests of the convicted person, therefore, this amendment is not unreasonable. What is happening is completely outwith his control. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Lord's amendment would result in the strange effect of appellants being liberated automatically where an extension was granted. They would be liberated not even on bail or subject to appropriate conditions.
Provision is made for an extension. Where that arises, it could be that it could reach the stage where the person concerned had served the vast majority of his sentence before his appeal could be considered. However, where such an extension is made that could in itself be a ground upon which an appellant could make a further application for bail under the terms of the existing legislation. Therefore, we see no reason for such a provision. It is already covered by the legislation.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The noble and learned Lord says that these provisions are superfluous in the present state of law and that the convicted person has ample scope within the present law to be liberated. With respect, I do not accept that in its entirety. I accept the criticisms which he makes of the fact that there is no mention in the amendment of bail or conditions
488
imposed. However, he may wish to think again about the matter with a view to providing that a person may be liberated on bail under such conditions as the court may wish to impose pending receipt of the stated case. However, I have noted what the noble and learned Lord said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [New prosecution for same or similar offence]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 29, line 30, leave out ("In each of sections 255 and 452B") and insert ("(1) In section 255").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 38 ensures that in a fresh prosecution following appeal an accused may not be charged with an offence more serious than that of which he was originally convicted. Subsection (2), which is envisaged in the amendment, deals with the position in summary cases. To ensure that this restriction does not hinder the Crown in leading all relevant evidence, the clause gives both parties power to lead any evidence which it was competent to lead in the original proceedings.
These amendments are intended to assist the accused and the court by requiring the prosecutor to indicate on the fresh indictment or complaint any matters about which he intends to lead evidence by virtue of that power. That may and usually will be done by including the relevant charge.
Of course, under the decision of the Appeal Court in Nelson, that gives much of the cover. But there may be occasions when that may not be appropriate—for example, where there is an unappealed minor conviction on the previous indictment which relates to matters which it would be relevant to lead in evidence. In that situation, it could not be made the subject of a charge because there has already been a conviction, but, according to and modifying existing practice, it would be possible to give notice on the face of the indictment to the accused that it is intended to lead evidence of a certain kind which would be relevant to the proof of the main charge. We see that as being of assistance to the defence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 29, line 40, after ("shall") insert (", subject to subsection (1C) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord McCluskey: There is a point which I wish to raise in relation to subsection (1C) but perhaps I should wait until Amendment No. 113 is called. Although this is a paving amendment, I believe that it is appropriate for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to explain his position in relation to Amendment No. 113. Otherwise, if the Committee were to refuse to allow

489
Amendment No. 113, we should be in a rather bizarre position because we should have agreed to Amendment No. 111, which inserts the reference to subsection (1C).
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I believe that in speaking to Amendment No. 109 I have also spoken—perhaps I should have done so explicitly—to Amendments Nos. 111 and 113. In connection with the position on evidence, I explained about giving notice of evidence relating to the main charge. That was what I was speaking to in relation to Amendment No. 113. I apologise to the Committee for not making that clear.
Lord McCluskey: The fault may well be mine. I did not realise the connection. I wish to draw attention, however, to what is contained in this new subsection (1C), the terms of which are set out in the Marshalled List under reference to Amendment No. 113. The subsection states:
"The indictment in a new prosecution under this section shall identify any matters as respects which the prosecutor intends to lead evidence by virtue of subsection (1B) above".
This is an attempt by the Minister to solve a problem. The problem, I believe, arises in this way. If a person appeals against conviction and his appeal is successful, the court may order a retrial. But the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will recognise that before the person gets to the stage of appealing, it may be that he faced half a dozen charges and the Crown, for perfectly respectable reasons, decides not to proceed with the other five. It may decide that they were really paving charges, as it were, to give notice of evidence which was intended to be led and therefore they are dropped. Of course the jury, or judge, returns a verdict of acquittal, perhaps under our new procedure, or the jury may acquit if that is the way it is done. Accordingly when the retrial is ordered, these charges cannot be brought. It is therefore necessary, if one intends to lead the evidence which would have supported these charges, to give notice. But we end up with an entirely novel creature in our procedure—an indictment which charges certain matters as the charge, and an indictment which contains also, as a kind of addition, the statement; by the way, the Crown will need evidence in support of these other matters. I do not recognise that creature and I do not know how it would affect general arguments about competency and relevancy and other matters of that kind.
The new provision states:
"The indictment in a new prosecution under this section shall identify any matters as respects which the prosecutor intends to lead evidence".
What I want to know is the following. If a person, having appeared in the court below has been acquitted, whether by the verdict of the jury after evidence, or by the verdict of the jury, or by intervention by the judge as is permitted under the 1993 Act, will it be competent to include in the indictment—in the new prosecution—matters which relate in effect to the person's involvement in those charges?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble and learned Lord is drawing attention to an important matter on which we have focused in this amendment partly as a
490
result of comments which we have received. We think it is right that where the Crown has been given the right to bring a fresh prosecution there should be a certain procedure. One can think of, for example, a murder as being the classic case. The noble and learned Lord will know the kind of case that I am thinking of where it is necessary to include another charge. Under the recent decision in Nelson the cases where that will be necessary may be reduced, but there may nonetheless be cases where, solely in order to prove the main charge, it may be desirable to have the opportunity to relead evidence which would technically relate to another charge. I accept, of course, that there may be circumstances where the court below has done that—perhaps it was done for evidential reasons—and where therefore there has been an acquittal on that matter.
We envisage that using this provision it will be possible to give notice not that we seek a conviction on that matter, but that we seek to lead evidence on that matter. The noble and learned Lord says that he does not recognise that. I accept that it is not a matter which has been dealt with in that way. But the noble and learned Lord will recognise that where, for example, it has been necessary for the proof of a charge to lead evidence of matters which would be criminal behaviour had they occurred in Scotland but which —I am thinking of a particular case—occurred in Belgium or Germany, in practice it has been possible to include in the indictment words to the effect "further it will be shown that" and then to narrate the evidence.
That is what we envisage doing. It will not be possible in that situation for the Crown to seek a conviction on the matter. To that extent the matter is decided by what happened in the court below. Nonetheless, it will give notice to the accused that in proof of the charge which we seek to prove on reindictment we shall seek to lead evidence of those matters.
Lord McCluskey: I understand the answer given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and I have sympathy with what he intends to do. However, I urge him to think again. In particular, as he knows, it is common in a murder charge to find that the accused is charged with a breach of the peace and other minor assaults or possession of a weapon. To clear the ground for the jury, these matters may be dealt with or the jury may itself return verdicts. If the person has been acquitted of breach of the peace, possession of an offensive weapon or of the preliminary or subsequent charge, or of the assault upon the police or whatever it may be, then can it be right to include in the indictment a notice to the effect that the Crown will lead further evidence to show that he committed the breach of the peace, assaulted the police, possessed an offensive weapon or whatever it may be? The matter needs further thought.
I do not believe that the matter has been properly thought through in these provisions. With that advice I suggest that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate should think about the matter further.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McCluskey Lord McCluskey moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 29, line 42 after ("proceedings") insert ("and, for the removal of doubt, it shall be competent for the accused to lead evidence of statements made extrajudicially by any person who was accused along with him in the earlier proceedings, regardless of the result of those earlier proceedings for that person.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 112 is concerned with the particular matter which perhaps lawyers alone will understand, but I shall do my best to explain it as briefly as possible.
In a case which was heard a year or two ago in the Appeal Court there had been two accused persons—McLay and Harkins. Both were charged with murder. Each of them said "It was not I who did it. It was the other person". They lodged defences of incrimination. At the conclusion of all the evidence and the speeches the trial judge directed the jury that it was not a case in which it could be held that the two had acted together in concert. Accordingly, while there was evidence on which the jury could convict McLay and acquit Harkins, or evidence on which it could convict Harkins and acquit McLay, there was no evidence on which it could convict both. It was one or the other, or neither. McLay was convicted and Harkins was acquitted, it so happens on a not proven verdict, which was somewhat illogical in that case.
Shortly thereafter it was discovered by and on behalf of McLay, the convicted man, that both before and after the trial Harkins had said to a number of other people that it was not McLay who committed the murder but himself. In other words, it was discovered that Harkins had confessed to the crime before, after, and possibly during the course of the trial. Accordingly, McLay appealed and argued that that was additional evidence which ought to be put before the court to show that a miscarriage of justice had taken place. The court held that it was indeed additional evidence, but that it was not admissible evidence. It was not admissible evidence because it was hearsay evidence. It was a statement made by a living person—to wit one who was available to give evidence, although it so happened that Harkins had made it clear to McLay's representatives that he would not give evidence at any second trial. Accordingly, the evidence was regarded as hearsay, the court decided that it was inadmissible and the defence was not allowed to lead it.
The curious factor was this. It was acknowledged by the judges in the case, notably the Lord Justice Clerk and myself—I wrote a dissenting opinion—that any evidence which showed that Harkins committed the crime was plainly evidence that McLay did not because it was a one or other situation, as I explained earlier.
In delivering the leading opinion, the Lord Justice Clerk stated in terms at page 411D of the 1994 Scottish Criminal Case Reports:
"I accept that at the first trial evidence of confessions made by Harkins would have been admissible, but this would have been because he was an accused and statements by an accused person may be proved. No doubt such evidence might have incidentally benefited the appellant; as the trial judge pointed out in his report, this was a case where the deceased must have been stabbed by a single assailant, either Harkins or the appellant. Harkins and the appellant each sought to incriminate the other and, accordingly, any
492
evidence tending to inculpate one would tend to exculpate the other. In these circumstances I accept that if evidence had been led at the first trial of confessions made by Harkins, such evidence would have assisted the appellant".
However, despite that view the court declined to allow evidence to be heard as additional evidence which, being that very evidence, would have been admissible at the first trial but could not be admissible at the second trial and therefore could not be regarded as admissible evidence.
I regard that as an extraordinary anomaly in our law. The Lord Justice Clerk was satisfied with the law as it was; indeed I believe that the other judges were. In that context, although the Lord Justice Clerk was not suggesting that the law should be altered by legislation, he said that if it had to be altered, it should be by legislation. I propose that that should be done. Although the words in my amendment "for the removal of doubt" may not be entirely appropriate, the essence is clear, that,
"it shall be competent for the accused to lead evidence of statements made extrajudicially by any person who was accused along with him in the earlier proceedings, regardless of the result of those earlier proceedings for that person".
Accepting that the amendment may be technically defective, nonetheless I hope that the Government will consider it. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may briefly support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I share his misgivings about the present state of the law. We have been told time and again about allegations of miscarriage of justice. I should have thought that the amendment is at least one step towards the prevention of miscarriages of justice. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
I shall not go into it in detail at this stage except to say this. I understand that the Law Commission will shortly be reporting on the question of hearsay. I hope that this case is considered closely in that report. I am not privy to it. I look forward to seeing the report in due course. In the meantime, I add my support to the submission of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope that the Committee and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will not think me discourteous if I reply briefly. It is not because I do not recognise the difficulty of the specific case to which the noble and learned Lord refers. He will acknowledge that having considered the matter carefully, his colleagues came to a different view: that no exception on the common law should be allowed although they recognise that there might be a case for legislation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said, we are expecting—I would say imminently—a report from the Scottish Law Commission which deals with matters of hearsay. I happen to know that the case of McLay is among the issues which the commission has considered. I do not know its views on the matter. Therefore I cannot anticipate them.

493
However, perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that in all the circumstances it would be appropriate for us to consider the matter in the light of the report by the Law Commission which undoubtedly will have been able to take this case into account in the wider context of a review of various problems regarding hearsay.
Lord McCluskey: I am perfectly content with that answer by the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 29, line 42, at end insert:
("(1C) The indictment in a new prosecution under this section shall identify any matters as respects which the prosecutor intends to lead evidence by virtue of subsection (1B) above.".
(2) In section 452B of the 1975 Act (corresponding provision in relation to summary proceedings)—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (1) there shall be inserted "Subject to subsection (1A) below,"; and

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(1A) In a new prosecution under this section the accused shall not be charged with an offence more serious than that of which he was convicted in the earlier proceedings.
(1B) In proceedings in a new prosecution under this section it shall, subject to subsection (1C) below, be competent for either party to lead any evidence which it was competent for him to lead in the earlier proceedings.
(1C) The complaint in a new prosecution under this section shall identify any matters as respects which the prosecutor intends to lead evidence by virtue of subsection (1B) above.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Examination of facts]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 32, line 22, at end insert:
("() Where it appears to the court that it is not practicable or appropriate for the accused to attend an examination of facts the court may, if no objection is taken by or on behalf of the accused, order that the examination of facts shall proceed in his absence.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 114, perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 118, 125A, 127A, 127B and 127C.
The two amendments to Clause 41 extend to the holding of the examination of facts, the principle enshrined in Section 174 of the 1975 Act that court proceedings may be taken in the absence of the accused, if the court considers that it may be impracticable or inappropriate to attend court, and where there is no objection to such a course of action.
The four amendments to Clauses 43 and 44 provide that an appellant may, if he wishes, attend appeal hearings provided for in these two clauses, unless the High Court determines that his presence is not
494
practicable or appropriate. This formula will allow the High Court so to determine either on distress or harm to health along the lines of Section 174 of the 1975 Act or on grounds that the appeal is only on a point of law, that is, along the lines of Section 240 of the Act. It seems right in the circumstances to provide for both. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 32, line 27, leave out ("as nearly as possible").
The noble Lord said: This is a short amendment omitting the words "as nearly as possible" at page 32, line 27. The objective behind the amendment is to ensure, so far as possible, that the ordinary rules of evidence and procedure which would apply in a criminal trial apply to the examination of facts and that some degree of rigidity is imposed on the leading of the evidence.
It is of course appreciated that the proceedings may cause great evidential difficulties; but in my submission to the Committee it would not do any harm to make that flexible change, if we may call it that, in Clause 41. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have some sympathy with the thinking that lies behind the noble Lord's amendment. It is our intention also to ensure that the rigorous standards relating to evidential and procedural matters at a trial should equally apply at an examination of facts. To take a couple of examples, that means that witnesses would have to be sworn and could be held in contempt of court.
However, we do not propose dilution of those standards and the safeguards which they represent by the use of the words "as nearly as possible". It simply reflects the fact that an examination of fact cannot exactly replicate a trial. For example, there will not be a jury present and there will be no verdict at the end.
I should say to the noble Lord that there is also precedent for the use of the words. If he were to look at Section 4(7) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976, again it is appropriate that procedures should mirror trial procedures and standards as nearly as possible, while recognising the fact that they cannot be an exact replica.
I am not aware that the courts have had difficulty in interpreting such words in a way that ensures that the interests of justice are served. I hope that with the parallel and that explanation the noble Lord will feel confident that we are after the same objective and can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: It is clear that we are all after the same objective in these unfortunate cases. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his reference to Section 4(7) of the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976. As they used to say in show business, I have not brought my music with me so I cannot refer to it now, but I shall in due course take note of what the noble and learned Lord said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 33, line 6, at end insert:
("() The court may, on the motion of the prosecutor and after hearing the accused, order that the examination of facts shall proceed in relation to a particular charge, or particular charges, in the indictment in priority to other such charges.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 116, perhaps I may also speak to Amendment No. 119. Clause 41 already provides that courts may desert individual charges pro loco et tempore at an examination of facts. Let me explain why. For an accused facing multiple charges there may be a main charge or a group of main charges and a number of lesser ones. If the court considers that the accused did the act charged as the main offence, that would be sufficient to entitle the court to impose an appropriate disposal. In practical terms—i.e. for purposes of disposal—it might be unnecessary to proceed further to consider all the lesser charges, although the Crown might wish only to desert those remaining charges pro loco et tempore rather than outright, in order to allow of the possibility of re-indictment of those charges should the accused recover his sanity. The clause already provides for such desertion of charges on a motion from the prosecutor and after hearing the accused or his representative. The accused may of course not wish to leave all the remaining charges unaddressed and may express that view to the court. On the other hand, the accused may agree that further prolonging the examination of facts is indeed unnecessary.
The provisions already in the Bill to desert individual charges pro loco et tempore are of little practical benefit, however, unless the court also has a power to address charges individually or in groups, as it sees fit. This is what Amendments Nos. 116 and 119 provide in respect of examinations of facts in both solemn and summary proceedings. In both cases the decision so to proceed would be on the same basis as desertion of individual charges; that is to say, on a motion of the prosecutor and after hearing the accused.
I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may make just one comment. There appear to be a remarkable number of government amendments to this Bill at Committee stage. Certainly, all of us would be warmly in favour of ensuring that we do not make mistakes in legislation. But there really is little excuse for the number of government amendments to this Bill. We are not discussing the Report stage of the Bill; we are in Committee. I really do hope that in future—and I hope that the Government's business managers will take note of this—we do not waste an enormous amount of time in this Chamber discussing government amendments which should have been foreseen by the departments concerned before the Bill was published.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: A number of these amendments may not have come out of responses to representations of views expressed in this Chamber, but in the process of bringing together this Bill we have consulted widely throughout Scotland. A considerable
496
proportion of the amendments follow on from the continuing consultation that we have had with senior members of the judiciary in Scotland. It is for that reason that we introduced them.
There is, I accept, another fairly large group of amendments. But, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, certainly understands, we wish to approach our changes here by consolidating from law procedure in Scotland once this Bill has completed its stages. A large number are pre-consolidation amendments. I certainly understand that, while it may be somewhat tedious for the Committee, this approach is welcomed by those who have the responsibility of putting the law into practice in Scotland.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I understand the point about consolidation, and I do not want to go over the ground yet again. The only point that I would make is this. There is a great case to be made for formulating legislation after the consultation period. To have a running series of amendments as the noble and learned Lord suggests does not seem to me to be a sensible way of approaching the legislative process.
As the noble and learned Lord is aware, there have been constant complaints about the length of the sittings of this House. The only way in which we can begin to correct that is for government departments not to start putting down shoals of amendments to a Bill which should have been properly drafted in the first place.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Perhaps I may briefly intervene. I did not raise the point because I did not wish to set up any acrimony between this side of the Chamber and the Government because we have a particular objective in this area. However, I happened to stay down south this weekend. When I phoned home this morning I discovered that there is a letter from the Scottish Office lying there which contains all the government amendments. So this morning, at 11 or 12 o'clock, was the first opportunity that I have had to consider the additional government amendments.
It is completely unfair to the Committee that a mass of amendments should be added on because, apart from anything else we were allocated only two Committee days for the Bill, it being anticipated that today would sufficiently see off what was left at the end of the first day. Suddenly we are faced with the present long list of amendments, which may or may not, depending on the view of the Committee, involve a very late sitting tonight.
I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord the Minister said, but these amendments come rather late in the day and I take some convincing that the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, do not have some merit at this stage in the proceedings. The Bill must have been envisaged over a goodly period during the past year or year and a half. But we are stuck with them now. How far we proceed with the Bill tonight, remains to be seen.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I want to add a short comment at this point. In this discussion I was immediately reminded of an occasion on which I had the privilege of

497
meeting the parliamentary draftsman in connection with a housing Bill brought forward when my noble friend Lord Sanderson was Minister of State for Scotland. At that meeting I was fascinated to learn from the parliamentary draftsman that in a consolidation Bill he was not permitted to change a single word of the existing legislation.
If these amendments are in any way designed to simplify the law, even if they have been added at this stage, I am sure that it will be of benefit to all those who must understand the legislation when the Bill becomes an Act. That needs to be borne in mind. I certainly had a lesson on the occasion of that meeting.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 33, line 35, leave out ("on indictment") and insert ("in a complaint").
The noble and learned Lord said: In view of the previous discussion, perhaps I may say that this is a minor amendment to the new section to be inserted into that part of the 1975 Act which deals with summary procedures. The reference should be to criminal charges "in a complaint" rather than "on indictment". I am sure that the distinction is clear to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 34, line 2, at end insert:
("() Where it appears to the court that it is not practicable or appropriate for the accused to attend an examination of facts the court may, if no objection is taken by or on behalf of the accused, order that the examination of facts shall proceed in his absence.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 34, line 31, at end insert:
("() The court may, on the motion of the prosecutor and after hearing the accused, order that the examination of facts shall proceed in relation to a particular charge, or particular charges, in the complaint in priority to other such charges.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 116, I spoke also to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Disposal of case where accused found to be insane.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 35, line 16, leave out from ("in") to ("specify") in line 18 and insert ("such hospital as the court may").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121.
Under present solemn procedures, where a person is found insane in bar of trial, the wording in Section 174, to which I previously referred, is that the person:
498
"shall be detained in a State hospital or such other hospital as for special reasons the court may specify".
The wording probably reflects the days when in respect only of those facing the most serious charges did proceedings reach that stage. I am not sure whether the wording that I quoted quite amounts to presumption in favour of detention in a state hospital, but it contrasts, for example, with the wording of Section 175 of the Act which governs the making of hospital orders in respect of convicted persons. There, the court may order detention in:
"such hospital as may be specified in the order".
The preconditions for specifying the state hospital are clearly spelt out; that is, where the court is satisfied on the basis of medical evidence that an offender on account of his dangerous, violent and criminal propensities requires treatment under conditions of special security and cannot suitably be cared for in a hospital other than a state hospital. We are of the view that a more flexible formula would be appropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 36, line 11, leave out from ("in") to ("specify") in line 13 and insert ("such hospital as the court may").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 36, line 28, leave out ("(3) to (6)") and insert ("(6) to (9)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Supervision and Treatment Orders: Schedule to be inserted in the 1975 Act]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 84, line 32, after ("officer") insert ("regarding his supervision").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is again a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Appeal by accused in case involving insanity]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 37, line 7, leave out ("seven") and insert ("21").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 124 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 125 to 127. They are basically the same amendment in different parts of the Bill and the aim behind them is to extend the time limits to be employed in appeals by accused persons involving the question of insanity.
The idea behind the amendment is not to impose too rigid a timetable. I know that the Minister at an earlier stage referred to the importance of running a tight ship in the administration of criminal justice. Bearing in

499
mind the unanimity which I hope we all have in this area of the criminal justice system, perhaps the Government will consider that seven days is too tight a schedule in the circumstances with which solicitors and others may be faced when taking proper instructions from accused persons in these conditions. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is the first time that there will be a right of appeal against a finding of fitness or unfitness to plead. In relation to one part of the amendment I should be extremely reluctant to extend the period for appeal against a finding of fitness or unfitness to plead. As the noble Lord will appreciate, that matter will hinge principally on expert medical evidence, and the finding, one way or the other, is the court's assessment of the accused's fitness or unfitness to stand trial now rather than at some point in the future. To extend that beyond seven days would be undesirable.
Having said that, I accept that we may not have given enough detailed consideration to the appropriate appeal procedures in relation to findings and disposals of examination of facts. The previous arguments to the one I have just addressed do not apply, and a longer period than seven days may be required to consider, lodge intimation of and prepare such appeals.
I am not wholly persuaded that the figure of 21 days is the right one and it is not clear to me why that period should be chosen. But I am happy to undertake to reconsider the appeal periods in this second category of cases and to bring forward further proposals for consideration at a later stage. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his co-operation in this matter. I accept that 21 days may be too long an extension and look forward to the result of his deliberations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 125A:
Page 37, line 23, at end insert:
("() An appellant in an appeal under this section shall be entitled to be present at the hearing of the appeal unless the High Court determines that his presence is not practicable or appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is consequential. I spoke to it when dealing with Amendment No. 114. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 38, line 14, at end insert:
("() An appellant in an appeal under this section shall be entitled to be present at the hearing of the appeal unless the High Court determines that his presence is not practicable or appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 [Appeal by prosecutor in case involving insanity]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 127B:
Page 39, line 8, at end insert:
("() A respondent in an appeal under this section shall be entitled to be present at the hearing of the appeal unless the High Court determines that his presence is not practicable or appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 114, I spoke also to Amendments Nos. 127B and 127C which are essentially consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 127C:
Page 39, line 46, at end insert:
("() A respondent in an appeal under this section shall be entitled to be present at the hearing of the appeal unless the High Court determines that his presence is not practicable or appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 and 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Committal to hospital for inquiry into mental condition]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 41, line 27, at end insert ("if he is legally represented").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that where an order for continuation of commitment is made it should be made in the person's absence only if he is legally represented. Continued commitment is a matter of importance to the individual and to ensure that it is done properly and with proper information before the court making the extension legal representation is not only essential but fair to those covered by this clause of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I agree with the noble Lord that continued committal to hospital is a matter of considerable significance and not something to be contemplated lightly. But there are inevitably cases where it is necessary; for example, where the inquiry into the person's mental condition is not yet complete. We agreed with the suggestion from the senior judiciary that it might be appropriate to provide for a hearing to be held, without need for the person's attendance, simply to continue the period of committal provided that neither the person in question nor anyone on his behalf objected to that. Indeed, the reasoning was to prevent unnecessary travel, stress or distress to someone who may be ill.
The purpose of this amendment appears to be to preclude such hearings in absentia for those who are not legally represented. But if someone has just exercised his right to defend himself in person rather than through legal assistance he should be allowed himself to make the choice as to whether to attend the continuation of the committal hearing. We have included safeguards in our proposals. The court may permit continued

501
committal to hospital only on the evidence of a medical practitioner and if a suitable hospital is available for his continued detention. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that explanation. I had not quite fully appreciated the context with which we are dealing. I trust that what he has agreed with the judiciary does not contravene anything the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said in relation to the European Convention, but that is perhaps a matter for another day. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 129 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I do not propose to move Amendment No. 130.
The Earl of Balfour: I believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser said that he was going to accept Amendment No. 130.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: That is perfectly correct. It was dealt with an earlier stage when we were dealing with Amendment No. 85. It has already been debated.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: If the noble Lord moves it, I shall certainly accept it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 130:
Before Clause 48, insert the following new clause:
("Information on race discrimination
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers expedient for the purpose of facilitating the performance by persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice of their duty to avoid discriminating against any persons on the grounds of race.
(2) Publication under subsection (1) above shall be effected in such manner as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the information to the attention of the persons concerned.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 131 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Prints, samples etc. in criminal investigations]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 42, line 38, at end insert:
("(3C) The duty under subsection (3) above shall not apply where the record, sample or information in question is of the same kind as a record, a sample or, as the case may be, information lawfully held by or on behalf of any police force in relation to the person.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Section 28(3) of the 1993 Act provides that prints and impressions taken in the course of investigation must be destroyed if the person concerned is not proceeded against or convicted. This amendment would enable the police to retain prints and so on from a person whose prints are already held
502
on record because he has been convicted of a previous crime. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the best and most complete records of convicted persons are kept. If the prints taken of an already convicted person in the course of a new investigation are of better quality than those already held on record, they can be substituted for the inferior set. Amendment No. 134 is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): I have to tell the Committee that in calling Amendment No. 133, if it is agreed to I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 134.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 43, line 46, after ("sample") insert (", print or impression").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Jurisdiction of district court in relation to statutory offences]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 44, line 30, after ("court") insert (", as respects any statutory offence,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have given an indication that I would oppose the Question that Clause 50 stand part of the Bill. I ask these questions for information purposes. It is rather a stark clause. I wonder whether one or other of the Ministers can explain to the Committee what the end result of the particular clause will be. For example, statutory offences are of importance to the individuals involved. Does this clause envisage the gradual shifting down of important matters to a lower level within the court structure?
I should also like to know what the impact will be on the legal aid scheme once this matter is through. Will legal aid be available to all persons affected by this provision? What does the Minister believe that the ultimate costs of that will be to the legal aid scheme? I appreciate that these matters are being raised at short notice and that I have not given notice of them, but I think that it may be of interest to practitioners in the courts at least to have a general picture of the objective behind the clause.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It might be helpful if I explain the thinking behind the clause. It is related to Clause 51, which follows it. As noble Lords who have studied the matter will be aware, the power of the procurator fiscal to make a conditional offer of a fixed penalty is defined in Section 56 of the Criminal Justice

503
(Scotland) Act 1987 by reference to offences which may be tried in the district courts. It is in order to provide an increased range of offences in relation to which the procurator fiscal may, in appropriate circumstances, grant or make an offer of a fixed penalty that the matter has been put in this way. As I have said, the provisions are defined by reference to the district courts.
The clause provides that, except so far as any enactment otherwise provides, a district court shall be competent to try any statutory offence which is triable summarily, subject to the proviso that the sentencing power of the district courts is not increased. The fact remains that the Crown will be able in appropriate cases to put such a case to the district courts under any statute, but will do so only where the Crown considers that it would be appropriate for that offence to receive only such a sentence as can be imposed by the district courts.
More significantly—or in a wider context—the provisions will allow the procurator fiscal (again where all the circumstances make it appropriate) to make an offer of a fixed penalty in minor cases involving a wider range of statutory offences. It is for that reason that the clause has been introduced. I am not aware that it will have any effect on the legal aid position. It is certainly not driven by any such consideration. There is no intention to drive cases down into the district courts. I have sought to explain the thinking behind the clause to the Committee and that it will still be appropriate to decide by reference to the gravity of any offence which is the most appropriate forum in which to try it.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Lord Advocate for that explanation. Like a number of people, I am becoming concerned about the extension of fiscal fines and whether that involves a diminution of the quality of justice. I wonder whether people are not being driven into a court where they will be offered a fiscal fine where, no doubt, solicitors will not be involved in the consideration of such cases. That seems to involve not only a diminution in the quality of justice, but also in the advice that might be proffered to people who are charged with offences that are serious to them. Such people are then faced with the temptation either of paying £50 in the form of a fixed penalty with no conviction or of taking advice when a lawyer might say, "You have a good defence". I am a little concerned about that and we shall watch developments with interest. In the meantime, I withdraw my Motion.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 [Conditional offer of fixed penalty by procurator fiscal]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 44, line 41, after second (""the"") insert ("in the second place where it occurs").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 136, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 137, which provides that procurators fiscal may make a conditional offer of a fiscal fine to cover more than one offence. It often happens that a report by the police contains evidence of the commission of more than one minor offence arising out of the same incident. The amendment would avoid the
504
need to make several conditional offers requiring the accused to pay several separate small fines by instalment at the same time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 44, line 42, at end insert:
("() After subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) A conditional offer may be made in respect of more than one relevant offence and shall, in such a case, state the amount of the appropriate fixed penalty for all the offences in respect of which it is made.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 45, line 14, at end insert:
("(7B) There shall be no fixed penalty without conviction for those penalised as a result of violence or threats of violence against women and/or their children.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is of some significance. As I mentioned in relation to an earlier amendment, there is some concern at the dilution of the legal system and that an easy financial way out of a proper justice system is being looked for. The amendment relates purely to charges of violence or threats of violence against women and/or their children. It refers to what is broadly recognised as being domestic violence. Such behaviour, as we all know, carries with it on many occasions considerable physical, psychological and social distress, with consequences for wives, partners and children.
The amendment is put down to serve notice so that the husband or partner who inflicts violence, or threatens violence, on people, especially within the domestic situation, is not just taken down to an office or receives a letter from the fiscal—I understand that is how it is done—saying, "We propose to offer you a fiscal fine of £50, and goodbye". It is important from the public's point of view that people who assault mothers and children or partners and their children should have brought home to them that society regards it as a serious offence. A fiscal fine, certainly from experience in divorce work, will be laughed at by some of the people who inflict violence on their partners and cause distress to the children. We know that violence to the partner has a knock-on effect on the children. Equally, violence to the children has a knock-on effect on the partner, and violence to both in a family fracas has drastic effects on both sets of people.
What is proposed in the amendment is that persons who indulge in such violence should have a message sent to them by the community that it will not put up with such behaviour; there will be no easy way out; and the person concerned will be forced to come to the court and, if the evidence is sufficient, be prosecuted; or, if the partner or wife decides not to pursue the matter, that will not be news to those involved in the courts.
The amendment is saying that there must be a limit to fiscal fines. This is one area in which the Government might consider saying, "No, you are not going to have a fiscal fine. Come and tell us how it happened. You

505
can hear the evidence from your wife, child or other person. If convicted, the court will deal with you in the normal way." I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I cannot accept the amendment. I understand what the noble Lord is saying, but as he knows, in any case, including cases of the kind mentioned in the amendment, it is always open to a procurator fiscal, in the exercise of his discretion, to take no proceedings or to issue a warning letter. That applies to cases of alleged violence towards women.
All the amendment would do would be to make it impossible for a procurator fiscal to make an offer of a fiscal fine, but a fiscal fine would be a more stringent penalty, or approach, than that of taking no proceedings or of issuing a warning letter, neither of which is struck out by the amendment. We do not believe that it is appropriate to put a straitjacket on the procurator fiscal's discretion. The procurator fiscal is used to approaching all these delicate matters and to considering in all cases what is the most appropriate approach. For example, it might be that the violence offered to a woman was offered by another woman, or that the threat of violence was to be seen as a foolish threat which was not intended to be carried through. It might also be that the whole thing appeared to be a trivial or relatively petty matter.
There is a range of circumstances and we do not believe that one can prescribe for this kind of approach in this particular case. We believe that it is important that the procurators fiscal should always consider the circumstances in any case. When they do so a whole range of disposals—from taking no proceedings through to prosecuting in the matter—may be appropriate. We consider that it is proper for them to have that range open, including a fiscal fine in appropriate cases.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I note what the noble and learned Lord says. The amendment may not be happily phrased, in common with a number of amendments before the Committee. The great compulsitor on an offending partner—if we narrowed it down to an offending partner or husband, or a wife who assaults her husband—is publicity. No man likes to be known in the local community as someone who thumps his wife or abuses his children, physically or otherwise. Taking the matter out of the public domain causes some degree of concern. Of course, the procurator has various options open to him and can send the case to mediation. If there is any hope of saving a marriage or improving a situation, that is important.
We shall see how matters progress once the fixed penalties are in operation. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Legal aid in criminal appeals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 139:
506
Page 45, line 35, after ("(1)") insert ("—(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141. Their purpose and effect is to make it clear that appeals in cases involving insanity are excluded from the provisions of Section 25 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. Criminal legal aid in appeals involving insanity will therefore be automatic, as provided by Clause 52 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 140 and 141:
Page 45, line 36, at end insert ("; and
(b) at the end there shall be inserted the words "other than an appeal in relation to which section 22(1) (dc) of this Act applies.").
Page 46, line 1, leave out ("subject to section 22(1) (dc) of this Act,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 53, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monkswell: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, signified his intent to oppose the Question that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. Unfortunately, he is unable to be present at the moment and has asked me to convey his apologies to the Committee for his absence. He has also asked me to advise the Committee that, on the basis that the subject was spoken to in the debate on Clause 35, he no longer wished to oppose the Question.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 [Supervision and care of persons diverted from prosecution or subject to supervision requirement etc.]:
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 143:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—
("Liability of bankrupt to pay fines and compensation orders.1985 c. 66
. In section 55(2) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (effect of discharge of bankrupt on certain liabilities), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"(aa) any liability to pay a fine imposed in a district court;
(ab) any liability under a compensation order within the meaning of section 58 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980;".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 provides for the discharge of certain liabilities at the expiry of a period of three years. However, specific exemption is made in respect of fines and other moneys due to the Crown.
We consider that the same principle ought to apply to any fine imposed in the district court and to any compensation order which may be made by any court under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987. In particular, I believe that it is important to provide that, where a compensation order is made in respect of a victim, every opportunity should be taken

507
to ensure the payment of such an order. It would of course remain a matter for the court to determine whether enforcement or non-payment of any fine or compensation order should be pursued and the court would no doubt wish to take into account the effect and timing of the bankruptcy proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 144:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of office statistics
. It shall be the duty of the Crown Office to make public, on an annual basis, statistics which properly disclose its performance during the past year. In particular, the statistics shall apply to—
(a) the annual spending of each of the offices of the Procurators Fiscal and a classification of amounts into that spent on staffing, on administration and on other expenses which shall be further defined;
(b) the average number of cases prosecuted in each office of the Procurators Fiscal along with the number of prosecutors in each office;
(c) the average preparation time given to prosecutors for crimes and offences on a categorised basis;
(d) the number of times cases fail to proceed because the Procurators Fiscal Service has failed to cite:
—the accused
—the witnesses; and
(e) the number of times the prosecutor has requested a postponement of the case, giving the figures for each jurisdiction and the reasons for the request.").
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will see from the side note, the purpose of the amendment is to oblige the Crown Office to make public certain statistics on an annual basis so that the performance of the Procurators Fiscal Service in particular can be gauged on proper and accurate information.
Various requirements are set out in subsections (a) to (e). Despite its wording, the amendment is not intended to be critical of the Procurators Fiscal Service, which performs a very valuable function within the community in Scotland. Its purpose is to get into the public domain more information so that the service is not seen to be operating in a form of secrecy.
An annual report is published by the Crown Office. That is a very nice brochure with pictures, and so on, which is very interesting but it does not provide the information on which one can gauge the cost-effectiveness of the Procurators Fiscal Service.
As I understand it, and I have seen it in operation, the Procurators Fiscal Office is under-staffed and under-funded. I have spoken to advocates depute who perform in the High Court in Scotland. Sometimes they even deal with murder trials. The tradition and, indeed, the requirement of some judges was that an advocate depute should not appear in the High Court unless he was instructed by a member of the Procurators Fiscal Service. Now in the High Court the advocate depute is lucky if he sees a procurator fiscal in the course of a trial. The advocate depute is left to sink or swim in the court. Sometimes he is assisted by an unqualified precognition clerk to whom he must turn for advice. That is a very unsatisfactory situation.
It is extremely alarming if that reflects what is happening in the fiscal service under the system of administration of justice in Scotland because it is important that skilled people should be operating in the court context. It is not good for the system to have an overworked staff working under continuous pressure. If any Member of the Committee happens to walk into a busy sheriff court in Glasgow, he may well see a young fiscal walking along with a pile of papers. I do not know how long the fiscals now have to read their papers, but at one time it was not unknown to be handed the papers at quarter-past nine and to be expected to be in command of all the papers and deal with solicitors at a moment's notice by 10 o'clock; otherwise one ran the risk of incurring the wrath of an irascible sheriff, who no doubt had had a comfortable night and had read no papers, apart from the Herald or the Scotsman on the way to court.
It is unfair that young people in the fiscal service should be subjected to such pressure. Indeed, the indications are that good quality lawyers are not prepared to stay in the fiscal service and are moving back into private practice because they are not prepared to tolerate the unfair burden which society imposes upon them in relation to the administration of justice and the protection of us all.
This amendment, as I say, is tabled on a broad basis to put a duty on the Crown Office to give the public more information about what is happening in the system so that the public can look at their service. After all, the public are paying for the service. It is not as if the noble and learned Lords the Lord Advocate and the Minister of State were paying for it out of their own pockets. The taxpayer pays for the service and the taxpayer is entitled to full information and full disclosure of the cost-effectiveness or non-cost-effectiveness of the service. It is for that purpose—and it is no criticism whatever of anyone—that the amendment is tabled. If the criminal justice system in the prosecuting sense is being overwhelmed and overtaken by events to the extent that justice is being adversely affected, that is serious, but no one can judge that unless he has material with which to examine what is happening. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has acknowledged, the Crown Office publishes an annual report and that is part of the Government's initiative under the justice charter. Although it is an attractively produced brochure it also contains a great deal of statistical information. I am keen that it should do so, partly in order that MPs and others who are interested in this matter should be provided with information. My experience is that despite the fact that we provide the information in an attractive form, quite a few of them do not seem to read and digest it because I am often asked questions the answers to which are there.
Much was said by the noble Lord about expenditure on the procurator fiscal service. In real terms in the past 10 years or so there has been an increase of about £24 million on expenditure on the procurator fiscal service. Of course I accept that the position is not exactly as it always has been in that service. It is the case that

509
nowadays advocates depute often have the assistance of precognition officers. I would not accept, as seemed to be suggested by the noble Lord, that these are not skilled people. They are not lawyers but they are certainly people who are skilled in what they have to do and they are often in a good position, because of their knowledge of the case, to assist the advocates depute with the prosecution.
In my position I have occasion quite often to attend people's retirement celebrations. I can tell the noble Lord that those who retire now and who must have been in office as procurators fiscal in the time when the party which he supports was in power, often recount tales of going into court with only a short time to prepare their cases. I think that has often been the hallmark of the service over many years. In part that is the nature of these matters because, as the noble Lord knows, cases come up quickly, especially custody matters and other such cases.
That having been said, we are, of course, always concerned to provide information. We do that when we are called upon to do so. We are constantly striving to improve the quality of our statistics. We are greatly assisted in doing so now by increased computerisation. We use them not only so that the public, when they request that information, may see it, but also—this is also important—so that those who are running the procurator fiscal service may spot, for example, where there are particular pressures or where some office is performing differently from another office and whether one should therefore inquire why that may be so. If I may use the jargon, they are useful management tools. We shall continue to gather statistics where appropriate and provide such information as we are gathering when requested to do so.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged to the Minister for that reply. I was not for one moment suggesting that precognition officers are not skilled in the work that they do; namely, precognoscing witnesses. I was discussing whether the team representing the Crown is properly skilled in the law. For example, in a four-man murder case there may be four Queen's Counsel and four junior counsel being opposed by one advocate depute who has no one with whom he can consult on questions of law. Precognition officers are not skilled in matters of law. That is the point that I am trying to make.
If people who are skilled in the law are not available for major trials in Scotland that is an indication that there is something wrong with the system. I do not say that that is the Government's fault. I merely ask whether that is happening. If it is happening, how will it be stopped? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate can be assured that he will receive every support from this side of the Chamber in attempting to reach a resolution of the situation.
We are concerned because burden after burden is being placed on the procurator fiscal service. In this Bill there is a duty to agree uncontroversial evidence. Who will do that? —the procurator fiscal service. That is placing another burden on the service. Who will be
510
responsible for fiscal fines? The procurators fiscal will be responsible. As the law develops, additional burdens are placed on the service.
I note the assurance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that if people want information, broadly speaking they can obtain it or find it in publications. However, I may return to the issue at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Clause 57 [General provision]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 48, line 25, leave out ("including an absolute discharge").
The noble Lord said: The reason for proposing in Amendment No. 145 the deletion of the words "including an absolute discharge" is that an absolute discharge is not normally regarded as being a conviction. The reason for giving an absolute discharge is that a person will still have a clean record.
It may be that a person who has been given an absolute discharge has benefited to some extent from the activity with which he was charged. However, it seems a waste of time to take further action against a person who has been given an absolute discharge by a court which has heard all the evidence in the case and submissions from each side of the Bar. The wording seems an unnecessary addition to the clause. Therefore, I propose the deletion of that particular phrase. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The position is that one of the disposals which is available in solemn proceedings or summary proceedings is the absolute discharge. I accept that it may be unusual in those circumstances for these particular provisions to be applicable or for it to be wished to apply them. Nevertheless, there may be cases where it would be appropriate for the machinery to be operated. Therefore, in order for those cases to be dealt with where appropriate it seems right that an absolute discharge should be included.
In order to allow for those cases, even if they are relatively few, we believe that the words should be included. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
In adopting the wording we are following the recommendation of the Scottish Law Commission.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I appreciate that, but the point was made for another reason. I have heard what the noble and learned Lord had to say and I shall consider it. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Realisable property]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 49, line 42, at end insert (", less any amount due by him at that time in respect of any compensation order under section 58 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 made before the confiscation order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 146A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 153D and 193.
In its report, the Scottish Law Commission considered that there should be no "obligations having priority" when the court came to consider the amount that might be realised at the time a confiscation order is made. We accept the broad approach of the Scottish Law Commission in this regard. However, where a compensation order has previously been made to a victim and remains unpaid we consider that that order should retain the status of an obligation having priority.
We believe that the interests of victims who have been granted previous compensation orders should be recognised in that way. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 60 and 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Statements relevant to making confiscation orders]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 146B:
Page 53, leave out lines 3 to 8 and insert ("the court shall consider the matters being challenged at a hearing.
(7) Where the judge presiding at a hearing held under subsection
(6) above is not the trial judge he may, on the application of either party, if he considers that it would be in the interests of justice to do so, adjourn the hearing to a date when the trial judge is available.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clauses 62(6) and (7) make provision for the hearing of an application challenging a statement under Clause 62(1) about the accused's benefit from the commission of the offence.
Clause 62 proceeds on the basis that the trial judge will be available. If a hearing cannot be arranged "within a reasonable time" the hearing may proceed before another judge.
We consider it preferable to alter that provision slightly so as to allow for matters to proceed before another judge unless either party applies, in the interests of justice, for the hearing to be adjourned to take place before the trial judge.
I believe that the amendment achieves a clearer procedure and would allow hearings to proceed as soon as possible while nonetheless providing the necessary safeguard. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 63 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Confiscation orders where proceeds of crime discovered at later date]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 56, line 17, leave out ("6") and insert ("5").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 149. Read together they give a degree of uniformity to confiscation and applications for a confiscation order and the period for which a person can claim compensation for wrongful confiscation.
I am not sure from where the period of six years comes. I suspect that it comes from the English law of prescription whereas the normal Scottish prescription period of five years applies to contract and delictual rights. That can be found in the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. To give uniformity to the Bill, and equality for each side (if I may so put it), I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: While I accept that in its report the Scottish Law Commission referred to the quinquennial period, nonetheless the Scottish Law Commission recognised that other factors have a more direct bearing on the recommendation for six years. In particular, there is the fact that the Finance Act 1985 has a requirement that value added tax records, which may be important in discovering additional proceeds, should be preserved for six years. Perhaps I may point out that there are other areas, for example in relation to back tax under the income tax legislation, for which six years is the statutory period. There is no real, direct connection with the period of prescription. It was not in regard to the limitation period in England that that period was chosen.
In addition, in view of the close relationship between Scottish and English drug trafficking legislation, and the confiscation regime generally, for which the period of six years applies, I think that it would be appropriate that the six-year time limit should be applied. For that reason, I do not accept the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am obliged for that explanation. When I hear in respect of confiscation orders that six years later the VAT returns of the people involved in those activities will be of any significance, it shows a substantial amount of charity and faith in human nature on the part of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. However, I understand the reasons for it. I do not accept them, but I shall not make an issue of it at this point. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 147A:
Page 56, line 38, leave out ("11(2)") and insert ("58(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 67 to 69 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Compensation]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 59, leave out lines 37 to 41 and insert:

513
("(a) a constable of a police force within the meaning of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, by the police authority or joint police board for the police area for which that force is maintained;").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 148, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 150. They are technical amendments to Clause 70 to reflect the fact that, following local government re-organisation, where joint police committees previously existed they will now be called joint police boards. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 60, line 12, at end insert:
("() Until the date on which paragraph 71 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 comes into force, the reference in subsection (5) (a) above to a joint police board shall be construed as a reference to a joint police committee.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 [Suspended forfeiture order]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 60, line 33, at end insert ("or, as the case may be, the finding that he committed the offence with which he was charged").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, this amendment is technical. It simply reflects the fact that a forfeiture order may be made in summary proceedings where an absolute discharge order is made. The general background to this was considered in relation to Amendment No. 145. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 150B:
Page 61, line 44, at end insert ("or forfeited to another person under that section").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 150B, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 150D to 150M. The principle underlying these amendments is to retain the court's existing flexibility to dispose of forfeited property as it may direct. The provisions of the Bill, which are based on the Scottish Law Commission's report and recommendations, provide only for property to be vested in the Crown. While this will be the normal procedure, we consider that the existing flexibility to allow the court to direct that property may be vested in another person should be retained. We are thinking, for example, of a case where it was vested in the police authorities as a reward for what they had done in a particular case. The amendments also make certain consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No.150C:
514
Page 61, line 47, at end insert (", whether or not constituted by a stipendiary magistrate").
The noble and learned Lord said: We believe that by their nature the forfeiture provisions proposed in this clause are not particularly well suited to the general business of the district court, although we are considering what may be appropriate for this court and may return to the point at a later stage. Meanwhile, this is a minor amendment which makes clear that the provisions in this clause should not extend to the district court, whether constituted by a justice of the peace or a stipendiary magistrate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 [Forfeiture of property subject to suspended forfeiture order]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 150D to 150H:
Page 62, line 26, after ("Crown") insert (", or such other person as the court may direct,").
Page 63, line 3, leave out ("Crown") and insert ("prosecutor").
Page 63, line 9, leave out ("Crown") and insert ("prosecutor").
Page 63, line 12, after ("forfeited") insert ("to the Crown").
Page 63, line 15, after ("Crown") insert (", or another person, under this section").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Recall or variation of suspended forfeiture order]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 150J:
Page 64, line 27, after ("Crown") insert ("or another person").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 [Property wrongly forfeited: return or compensation]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments 150K to 150M:
Page 64, line 37, after ("Crown") insert ("or another person").
Page 64, line 43, after ("Crown") insert ("or, as the case may be, the other person").
Page 65, line 3, leave out ("by the prosecutor").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc, having spoken to them already.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Restraint orders]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 150N:
Page 67, line 17, leave out subsection (5).
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 150N, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 151A, 151B and 153E. These amendments are intended to remove the requirement on the prosecutor to enter on the appropriate property register any restraint order.
In their form restraint orders are directed principally against the person rather than the property. In consequence, descriptions of property in the restraint order will often be not at all detailed. The description may amount to no more than a postal address. In such circumstances it is difficult to see what could properly go onto the land or Sasines Register.
In practice, where a restraint order is made, the Crown will seek an inhibition in respect of the accused. That inhibition will be recorded on the Register of Inhibitions and could therefore be examined by any prospective purchaser of property. In these circumstances there seems no need for any registration of the restraint order itself on the land register or the Sasines Register. As I say, it would be inappropriate. I accordingly beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 67, line 27, leave out ("Part of this Act") and insert ("Chapter").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Restraint orders in relation to realisable property]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 68, line 21, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment when I spoke to Amendment No. 150N. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Restraint orders in relation to forfeitable property]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 151B:
Page 69, line 23, leave out subsection (5).
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 82 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Provisions supplementary to section 83]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 73, line 2, leave out ("or likely to be brought").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 153. The purpose of the amendments is to take out the words as indicated. The point behind the amendments is that the use of the words,
"or likely to be brought",
or,
"or were likely to be brought",
are too vague and might lead to unnecessary work being done in Scotland in relation to proceedings anticipated in the High Court but not already brought. The deletion of those words from the section would leave it quite firm that it is only where an action has been brought that the order can be sought in Scotland.
It has the appearance, with the use of those words, of the equivalent of a fishing diligence in a civil case being applied to the criminal law. In my submission there should at least be active proceedings before any proceedings are taken under this section. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The effect of the amendment would be to take away from the Court of Session powers to order the inspection of documents in relation to anticipated English proceedings, these powers being similar to the powers which the Court of Session already enjoys in respect of its own domestic proceedings.
It seems unsatisfactory to take away this particular aspect. In an appropriate case it can be a useful remedy. The Court of Session in fact already enjoys a similar power under existing law in respect of proceedings in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in particular by virtue of Section 91 of that Act. The effect of Clause 84 is largely to re-enact that provision for this particular legislation.
In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate had to say. I do not intend to press the amendment at this stage of the proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 91 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Disposal of family home under Chapter I or II]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 77, line 43, leave out ("was") and insert ("has been").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 153B and 153C. These are technical amendments and simply seek to ensure that the relevant interest in the family home which is protected by Clause 92 can include one which exists at the time of the proposed disposal of that family home. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 153B and 153C:
Page 78, line 16, after first ("person") insert ("has or").
Page 78, line 17, leave out ("was") and insert ("is").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 153B and 153C. I beg leave to move them together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 Relating to Part II]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments. Nos. 153D and 153E:
Page 101, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert:
("(ii) for the words from "except that" to the end there shall be substituted ", less any amount due by him at that time in respect of any compensation order under section 58 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 made before the confiscation order.";").
Page 107, leave out lines 24 to 29.
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 153D and 153E; and, with the leave of the Committee, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 153F:
Page 116, line 31, at end insert:
(" .In section 6(3) (jurisdiction and procedure in respect of certain indictable offences committed abroad)—

(a) after the word "section" there shall be inserted "—(a)"; and

(b) for the words "as if" there shall be substituted—"; or

(b) in such sheriff court district as the Lord Advocate may determine,
as if".
. Section 20(2) (record where accused does not emit declaration) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment makes minor changes to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, prompted by our ongoing review of criminal procedure, legislation and anticipation of consolidation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 153G:
Page 116, line 38, at end insert:
(" . For section 42 (procedure on resignation, death or removal of Lord Advocate) there shall be substituted the following section—
"Resignation, death or removal of Lord Advocate.
42.—(1) All indictments which have been raised by a Lord Advocate shall remain effective notwithstanding his subsequently having died or demitted office and may be taken up and proceeded with by his successor.
518
(2) During any period when the office of Lord Advocate is vacant it shall be lawful to indict accused persons in the name of the Solicitor General then in office.
(3) The advocates depute shall not demit office when a Lord Advocate dies or demits office but shall continue in office until their successors receive commissions.
(4) The advocates depute and procurators fiscal shall have power, notwithstanding any vacancy in the office of Lord Advocate, to take up and proceed with any indictment which—

(a) by virtue of subsection (1) above, remains effective; or

(b) by virtue of subsection (2) above, is in the name of the Solicitor General.

(5) For the purposes of this Act, where, but for this subsection, resignation by one Law Officer would result in the offices of both being vacant, he or, where both tender resignations on the same day, the person resigning from the office of Lord Advocate shall be deemed to continue in office until the warrant of appointment of the person succeeding to the office of Lord Advocate is granted.
(6) The Lord Advocate shall enter upon the duties of his office immediately upon the grant of his warrant of appointment; and he shall as soon as is practicable thereafter take the oaths of office before any Secretary of State or any Lord Commissioner of Justiciary.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 153G may require a little more explanation and Members of the Committee will readily understand my comparative lack of enthusiasm for a provision which contemplates circumstances in connection with the resignation, death or removal from office of the Lord Advocate. Nevertheless, the amendment is necessary. It deals with the problems which can arise in connection with criminal proceedings between the time when a Lord Advocate is appointed and the receipt by the Crown Office of the warrant of appointment signed by the Sovereign. It was established by the case of Halliday in 1891 that a new Lord Advocate cannot function as such until the Royal Warrant appointing him reaches the Crown Office.
Section 3 of the 1887 legislation deals with the situation which can arise on the resignation of a Lord Advocate and provides that the Lord Advocate shall continue in office until his successor receives his appointment. However, that Act does not deal with the distasteful prospect of the death or removal from office of the Lord Advocate. Nor does it explain precisely when a Lord Advocate may be said to have resigned.
The position here is regulated by Section 42 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, which also applies to a resignation. This section provides that all indictments raised by a Lord Advocate shall remain effective, notwithstanding his subsequently having died or demitted office and may be taken up and proceeded with by his successor. This deals adequately with indictments which have already been raised. The problem, however, is with new indictments. The strict time limits which apply in Scotland make it necessary to ensure that there cannot be a period of time, even if that period is as short as one day, in which a new indictment cannot be raised.
The 1975 Act partly deals with that problem by allowing persons to be indicted in the name of the Solicitor General when the office of Lord Advocate is vacant. That is certainly a useful provision but one which provides a solution only where there is a Solicitor General. It does not address the situation when both law

519
officers resign at the same time or where, for whatever reason, there is no Solicitor General when the Lord Advocate demits office.
There also remains the difficulty which the Crown Office and procurators fiscal face in knowing precisely when to stop indicting in the name of the "old" Lord Advocate or Solicitor General and start using the name of the new Lord Advocate.
The solution proposed by Amendment No. 153G is to create a new Section 42 of the 1975 Act, incorporating in part the provisions of the existing section and of Section 3 of the 1887 Act, but providing also, in subsection (5), that where the resignation of one law officer would result in the offices of both being vacant, he or, where both tender resignations on the same day, the person who resigns from the office of Lord Advocate shall be deemed to continue in office until the warrant of appointment of the person succeeding to the office of the Lord Advocate is granted. Subsection (6) provides that the Lord Advocate shall enter upon the duties of his office immediately upon the grant of his warrant of appointment.
I commend the amendments to the Committee while expressing the hope and expectation that these arrangements will not be required for some time yet. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: These are eminently sensible proposals for the smooth running of the system of criminal law in Scotland. From this side of the Committee perhaps I may say that we do look forward to the demise of the present Lord Advocate but purely in the political sense. Otherwise, we wish him well in his post.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 153H:
Page 116, line 38, at end insert:
(". In section 54 ("money" to include coin, bank notes and post office orders), for the words from "all" to the end there shall be substituted "cheques, banknotes, postal orders, money orders and foreign currency".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment to Section 54 of the 1975 Act will substitute for its present definition of "money" the more modern definition recommended by the Scottish Law Commission in its report on Confiscation and Forfeiture, which is being implemented in Part II of the Bill. This is an opportunity not only to modernise but to provide greater consistency in advance of the planned consolidation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 116, line 38, at end insert:
(". In section 26 (bail before committal)—

(a) in subsection (2), for the words from "immediately" to "or" there shall be substituted ", on any occasion on which he is brought before the sheriff prior to his committal until liberated in due course of law, to apply"; and

520

(b) in subsection (3), the words "or justice" shall cease to have effect.").

The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 154 perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 183. The case of Campbell Petitioner, which was determined by the appeal court in 1989, revealed a gap in our law. At present, Section 26 of the 1975 Act enables a sheriff to grant bail immediately after an accused has been brought before the court for examination. Section 28 of the 1975 Act deals with the admission to bail of an accused who has already been committed until liberated in due course of law. The case of Campbell involved an accused who had not been committed until liberated in due course of law but who had long since been committed for further examination and had subsequently been arrested for failure to appear for trial. The High Court held that Section 28 did not apply to the accused as she had not been committed for trial and it was too late for Section 26 to apply to her and that her position was one which did not fall within any of the relevant statutory provisions. Accordingly, the sheriff had no power to grant bail to the accused. This amendment to Section 26 makes it competent for a sheriff to consider an application for bail on any occasion on which an accused is brought before the court prior to full committal. Amendment No. 183 is a technical consequential amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 117, line 10, at end insert:
(". In section 78(1) (lodging of record copy of indictment and list of witnesses), for the words from "record" to the end there shall be substituted "the prosecutor shall on or before the date of service of the indictment lodge the record copy of the indictment with the clerk of court before which the trial is to take place, together with a copy of the list of witnesses and a copy of the list of productions.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is one of a number of pre-consolidation amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 117, line 11, leave out from ("witnesses),") to end of line 12 and insert ("after the word "accused" there shall be inserted ", where the case is to be tried in the sheriff court, at or before the first diet and, where the case is to be tried in the High Court,".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment changes paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Bill. That paragraph amends Section 80 of the 1975 Act by altering the time limits for objecting to witnesses to take account of the new mandatory first diet in the sheriff court. However, there will be no first diet in High Court cases and so in such cases the time limit should continue to be related to the trial diet. This amendment will ensure that that is the case. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 156 and 157 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 117, line 43, at end insert:

521
(" . In section 127 (procedure where trial does not take place), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1ZA) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, where a trial diet has been deserted pro loco et tempore and the court has appointed a further trial diet to be held on a subsequent date at the same sitting the accused shall require to appear and answer the indictment at that further diet.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: At present, where a trial for whatever reason has to be deserted pro loco et tempore a minimum period of nine days must elapse before the new trial may be commenced. This amendment would allow for the trial to proceed during the same sitting where the court could arrange for the trial to be held on a subsequent date during that same sitting.
Such an arrangement would minimise the inconvenience to those witnesses and others who had been called to the sitting for the trial diet. The provision would allow for the trial to proceed on the basis of the indictment as originally issued. Since witnesses are in any event called to the sitting, the disruption to them is likely to be minimised. The amendment would allow the trial to proceed within the timescale originally envisaged. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 159 to 162 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 118, line 17, leave out paragraph 16.
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 169. It is designed to delete the new clause proposed by the Bill in relation to the order in which evidence is given for the defence. The view is taken that the accused should not be forced to give evidence first as there may be occasions when he wants to comment on evidence which has been led on his behalf. It would be illogical to force him into the witness box as the first witness before that evidence has been heard. Otherwise we are then faced with the situation of accused persons having to ask for leave to be recalled to deal with evidence led by their own witnesses. That does not seem to be fair justice and may lead to further expense, delay and appeal in the course of criminal trials.
The amendment made to the Act in Schedule 5, paragraph 16 and the corresponding one dealt with in Amendment No. 169 appear to be unnecessary and not necessarily in the best interests of justice. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Paragraphs 16 and 41 of Schedule 5 are the result of a recommendation from the well known Standing Committee on Criminal Procedure (the MacLean Committee). The problem that paragraphs 16 and 41 seek to address is that Sections 142 and 347 of the 1975 Act make it possible for the accused to remain in the dock, listen to the evidence given in his defence and, if he is so minded, alter his evidence in the light of what he has heard. That would obviously be undesirable.
522
Paragraphs 16 and 41 substitute a new section for the existing sections to the effect that, except on cause shown, where the accused is to give evidence he should be called as the first witness for the defence.
It may be argued that there will be occasions where it would be unreasonable to insist that the accused must give his evidence first before any other defence witnesses are called; for example where the accused's opinion or comment upon other defence witnesses' evidence is required. It is for that reason that the new Sections 142 and 347 provide for the court to permit, on cause shown, someone other than the accused to be called as the first witness for the defence. That particular exception would seem to cover any of the difficulties which the noble Lord envisages. On that basis I hope that he will feel that he can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I see the logic behind what the noble and learned Lord has said. If the accused changes his evidence or his position, having perhaps lodged a special defence and having heard the witnesses not come up to scratch, that would be a matter for the jury to consider should he give evidence. To take the matter to its logical conclusion, if this section is deleted the accused could choose, at the end of having led all his evidence, not to give evidence at all. That would be a matter for him and it would be in keeping with the presumption of innocence and his right to remain silent. I note what the noble and learned Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164 and 165 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 119, line 22, at end insert:
(" . In section 191(4) (effect of probation and absolute discharge) the words "placed on probation or" and "probation order or" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a minor and entirely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 120, line 15, at end insert:
(" . In section 268 (reckoning of time spent on bail pending appeal), in subsection (4)—

(a) after the word "safety" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as respects a child sentenced to be detained under section 206 of this Act, the place directed by the Secretary of State"; and

(b) after the word "safety" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as respects such a child, place directed by the Secretary of State".").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 167 seeks to ensure that the position of children sentenced to be detained in criminal procedure is the same as that of prisoners and young offenders, in the event that they are granted interim liberation pending an appeal. The children referred to are those sentenced under Section 206 of the 1975 Act.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the position of child detainees is the same as that which applies to prisoners and young offenders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 168 to 170 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 121, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
The noble and learned Lord said: This corrects a small drafting slip. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No.172:
Page 123, line 32, leave out from ("(2)") to ("to") in line 34 and insert ("Subsection (3) of section 375ZC of this Act shall apply to an order made under subsection (1) (b) (i) above as it applies").
The noble and learned Lord said: This minor amendment corrects an even smaller mistake. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 174:
Page 125, line 12, after ("trials)") insert ("—(a)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 174, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 175 and 190. This amendment will require the court, when considering whether to grant an application that a child's evidence should be taken by non-conventional means, such as by closed circuit television, from behind a screen or on commission, to take into account the views of the child himself or herself. That seems a sensible measure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 125, line 13, at end insert ("; and
(b) in subsection (2)—
(i) the word "and" immediately following paragraph (a) shall cease to have effect; and
(ii) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "; and
(c) the views of the child.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 176 and 177 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 125, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("(breach") in line 33 and insert:
("70.—(1) The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 18(1),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 125, line 35, at end insert:
("() In section 28(3) (destruction of prints and impressions), the words "or 384(1) (probation)" shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to this amendment in speaking to Amendment No. 166. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 125, line 35, at end insert:
("() In section 33 (evidence of children on commission)—

(a) in subsection (1), the words from the beginning to "and" where it first occurs shall cease to have effect; and

(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(4) Subsections (2) to (4), (5A) and (6) of section 32 of the 1980 Act (evidence by letter of request or on commission) shall apply to an application under subsection (1) above and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed under that subsection as those subsections apply to an application under subsection (1) of that section and evidence taken by a commissioner appointed on such an application.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 125, line 35, at end insert:
("() In section 34 (concealment by screen of accused from child giving evidence), after the word "been" there shall be inserted "or is likely to be".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment will enable the court to consider an application for the use of a screen to shield a child witness when giving evidence in court at an earlier stage than is possible under the existing statutory provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 125, line 35, at end insert:
("() In section 28(1) (Prints, samples etc. in criminal investigations) after the word "questioning)" there shall be inserted "or has been liberated on bail in terms of section 1(2) (b) (ii) of the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980.".").
The noble Lord said: This amendment, is probably helpful to the Government. In fact, it seeks to bring people who have been granted bail within the provisions of Section 28 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 in relation to the taking of samples. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate that, even at this very late hour, the noble Lord is seeking, as always, to be helpful to the Government in proposing improvements to the Bill. However, I am concerned that the effect of what the noble Lord proposes may be to extend widely the powers of Section 28. At present Section 28 applies only to those who are detained or who are in custody. The amendment would extend those powers to an accused who has been liberated, and, in any event, in practice I do not believe that the additional reference is needed. I hope with that briefest of explanations the noble Lord will appreciate that despite his attempt to be helpful, it is unnecessary.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Since my last gasp attempt to be helpful has been rejected, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 130, line 37, column 3, at beginning insert:
("Section 20(2).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 153F. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 130, line 37, column 3, at beginning insert:
("In section 26(3), the words "or justice".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 154. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 131, line 23, column 3, at end insert:
("In section 191(4), the words "placed on probation or" and "probation order or".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to the amendment with Amendment No. 166. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 131, leave out lines 49 and 50 and insert:
("In section 337A(1) the word "and" immediately following paragraph (a).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to the amendment in speaking to Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 132, line 49, column 3, at beginning insert:
("In section 56(2), the word "and" immediately following paragraph (a).").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to the amendment in speaking to Amendment No. 174. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 133, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert:
("In section 28(3), the words "or 384(1) (probation)".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already spoken to the amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 166. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 192;
Page 133, line 2, column 3, at beginning insert:
("In section 33(1), the words from the beginning to "and" where it first occurs.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 180 I spoke also to Amendment No. 192. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 133, line 14, column 3, leave out from ("5,") to ("in") in line 16.
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to the amendment in connection with Amendment No. 146A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  TURKEY: AID FOR METRO PROJECT
  Lord Redesdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What factors influenced their decision in 1990 to give £22 million for a metro project in Turkey which was known to be uneconomic.

  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)
  The decision took account of both commercial and political factors.

  The key commercial consideration was the potential loss of both the immediate and any potential future contracts in Turkey. The political considerations took account of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the previous month and Turkey's positive stance following the invasion.

  Lord Redesdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the £22 million donation to the Turkish metro project has been paid in full and if not, how much of the Aid and Trade Provision (ATP) funds it has consumed.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  To date £10.6m has been expended from the Aid and Trade Provision on the Ankara Metro Project.

  INDONESIA: AID FOR TELEVISION STUDIO PROJECT
  Lord Redesdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether political and commercial considerations were instrumental in the decision to grant the £9.3 million soft loan for a television studio in Indonesia in 1986 and what these considerations were.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  I refer the noble Lord to the Answers given in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the honourable Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and the honourable Member for York on 10 January at cols. 14 and 16–17.

  ATP: MAJOR PROJECTS
  Lord Redesdale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they can list all ATP projects over £5 million since 1992, and those ATP projects which have been deemed unacceptable by the Overseas Development Administration's Projects and Evaluation Committee, including each project's value.

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
  Since 1992 agreements have been concluded on the following ATP projects with an ATP value of over £5 million.WA 32

  Country

  Project

  ATP value £million

  China

  Urumqi PTA (Petro-chemical plant)

  33.745

  China

  Fushun Heat and Power

  11.694

  China

  Urumqi PX (Petro-chemical plant)

  13.045

  Philippines

  Navigational Aids

  6.435

  Turkey

  Ankara Metro

  22.250

  Morocco

  Tetouan Gas Turbines

  10.925

  All the above projects were approved before the requirement for consideration by ODA's Projects and Evaluation Committee (PEC) was introduced in June 1993 for projects with an ATP grant of £5 million and above. Since that date the PEC has considered five ATP projects, none of which it deemed unacceptable. None of the projects recommended for approval by the PEC has, however, yet reached the stage of formal agreement with the recipient government.

  LONG-STAY PATIENTS: TRAINING IN USE OF MONIES
  Lord Rix
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  In the light of the decision to issue revised guidance on the use of patients' monies for the benefit of long-stay patients, whether they will sponsor a training video for staff (as proposed by Age Concern, MENCAP and MIND) on the lines of the video already produced in Scotland.

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege)
  The Department of Health is always ready to consider applications for funding of innovative projects under our Section 64 grant programme. We do, however, receive a large number of bids under this scheme and any proposed project would have to be assessed on its individual merit and in the light of available resources.

  BREAST SCREENING
  Lord Gainford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to improve quality in the breast screening programme.

  Baroness Cumberlege
  The National Health Service breast screening programme is achieving good results in terms of screening coverage and of cancers detected. The Public Accounts Committee has praised the programme and singled it out as an example on which any future health screening programmes should be modelled. The programme is achieving targets set for it in terms of women taking up screening appointments and numbers of cancers detected.

  One of the main strengths of the programme lies in its robust quality assurance systems, which have identified a higher than expected rate of breast cancers being detected in the interval between screening appointments. In order to enhance further the sensitivity

  WA 33
  of breast screening and to ensure that we detect more cancers at an early stage, the Department of Health is taking action to:

  require two views to be taken of each breast for all women being screened for the first time in the future. Research evidence produced from within the NHS breast screening programme shows that this will increase the number of cancers detected;

  require screening centres to increase the optical density (contrast) of mammograms. Research from within the screening programme has shown that when pictures of the breast are darker, small cancers can be detected more easily; and

  ensure the provision of focused clinical update training for radiologists to improve further the detection of particular types of cancers which are proving most difficult to see on mammograms.

  An Executive Letter setting out this action in more detail will be sent to health authorities within the next few weeks.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER: HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked the Chairman of Committees:

  On whose authority it was decided that the health and safety standards of the Palace of Westminster should be set by European Community Regulations and whether such decision contravened the 1935 judgment in the Kings Bench Division concerning Palace of Westminster privileges.

  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)
  United Kingdom health and safety legislation is not considered as applying to the Palace of Westminster, having regard to the 1935 decision in R. v. Graham-Campbell ex parte Herbert [1 KB 594]. This decision indicates that the courts will not, in the absence of express provision or necessary implication, treat the provisions of an Act of Parliament as binding on the two Houses themselves, so far as those provisions would affect the internal affairs of the Houses. The Palace
  WA 34
  authorities do, however, try to comply fully with the relevant legislation as if it were binding on them in the same way as on the Crown.

  The Government are committed to applying the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to the Palace of Westminster as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises. The House of Lords Offices Committee agreed to this in principle in its Sixth Report, Session 1992–93, HL Paper 109, to which the House agreed on 27 July 1993.

  No relevant EC legislation is directly applicable: European directives on health and safety are usually implemented by regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 applied to the two Houses provisions on compensation to employees who are disadvantaged as a result of health and safety activities. These provisions gave effect to EC Directive 89/381/EEC on measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work.

  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER REFURBISHMENT: HEALTH AND SAFETY-RELATED COSTS
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked the Chairman of Committees:

  What was the cost of the internal refurbishment carried out in the Palace of Westminster during the summer recess, and what proportion related to the necessity to renew furniture in accordance with the health and safety regulations.

  The Chairman of Committees
  Internal refurbishment is carried out throughout the Palace of Westminster on a continuing basis. The cost of the majority of work is shared with the House of Commons on a 40:60 basis and the expenditure on internal refurbishment during this financial year will be in the region of £950,000. It is, however, difficult to arrive at a figure which relates to internal refurbishment alone during the summer recess 1994. Most of the furniture in the Parliamentary Estate meets current British Health and Safety recommendations but £30,000 will be spent this financial year to bring it up to standard.