Sitting of 5 July 1995

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Grant-Maintained Schools
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
10.2 am
Mrs. Angela Knight: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the future of grant-maintained schools and to enliven this calm and quiet week. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends who have torn themselves away from speculation and their telephones to join me this morning.
With more than 1,000 grant-maintained schools across the country, some 500,000 pupils attending them, and one in five secondary schools gaining GM status, the GM sector is undoubtedly a principal player in education.
The good news is that parents have been voting with their feet and sending their children to grant-maintained schools. The bad news is that, too often, a dirty fight has ensued when a school has chosen to go grant-maintained. I do not object to a battle in which people put forward the arguments, but I object to battles in which Labour party members in particular employ a series of scare tactics and untrue statements.
There have been a great many examples of such battles—there were two in my constituency which were not particularly horrendous, but which I found very disquieting, as did the parents involved. The first example arose when a Catholic school decided to ballot for grant-maintained status, and a Labour politician went round telling the parents that GM status was against their religion. That is the sort of statement that one should not make to a Catholic.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the honour that has been bestowed upon her. Did she notice that the Annunciator said that she was Dame J. Knight?
Mrs. Knight: Since I am not wearing my glasses this morning, could my hon. Friend tell me whether it is now correct?
Mr. Atkinson indicated assent.
Mrs. Knight: Thank you very much.
The second example in my constituency occurred when two schools in Long Eaton decided to ballot for grant-maintained status. There was a ferocious anti-grant-maintained campaign run by a lady who described herself as "just a concerned parent". She called her campaign SOLES: Save Our Long Eaton Schools—
296
from what, I have no idea. Misinformation abounded; those who were in favour felt themselves unable to put their heads above the parapet, and the ballots were lost.
Only a few months later, that so-called concerned parent turned up as a Labour party activist, then a Labour councillor and then on the shortlist for selection as the Labour party candidate in Erewash for the next general election. What was wrong with her declaring her credentials in the first place? If she had wanted a clean fight, she could have had it. She fought a dirty campaign to sway parents. It was misleading, misinformed and wrong.
Those two examples, although minor, have been mirrored across the country. The real purpose of a school becoming self-governing is to enhance its ability to serve the people who really matter: the pupils. A school may serve its pupils by having control over all its budget, and using it in the interests of the children and the school.
As the head of Shennington primary school in Oxfordshire—a recent opt-out—said:
"If a school does decide to become GM the reason should not be money. A school should do it for the freedom because it wants complete control".
That is quite right. Interestingly, when the head of Baverstock school—an early opt-out—was recently interviewed, he said:
"We quickly discovered by handling our own budget, which came direct from Whitehall, we could buy materials and fuel at up to half the price that the council could supply them. Today we have … brand-new classrooms … And instead of having to cut teachers we actually have more staff than the local authority would have allowed."
By having entire control of their budgets, GM schools have achieved such good results, yet too many Opposition Members have overtly and covertly campaigned against GM status.
Mr. David Jamieson: Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the schools which opted out early on have been able to provide some extra staff and some extra facilities because of double funding, which was opposed by the Public Accounts Committee two years ago? Is it not true that £1 extra for a grant-maintained school is £1 less for a local education authority school?
Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman and his friends have tramped that argument all over the place for many years. If it is true, why does he not go home and tell all the schools in his constituency to opt out? If he alleges that GM schools get more money, in their best interests he should tell all schools to opt out and obtain that extra money. I also urge the hon. Gentleman to look at a more general survey of teachers, which was conducted in the past few months.
Three quarters of teachers in GM schools said that their class sizes had not increased, whereas the majority of teachers in LEA schools said that they had. Of those in grant-maintained schools, 90 per cent. said that in-service training was good and special needs provision had improved. An overwhelming majority did not want grant-maintained schools to be abolished. That is a very important survey, revealing interesting results.
There is great interest in GM status: it is a big issue, and grant-maintained schools deserve a secure future. I suggest three ways in which to help secure their future, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools will take on board.
First, the grant-maintained schools need to know that there is no possibility of local education authority control returning. They need financial security for the future, and

297
they need to plan for more than one year ahead. They need to have an assurance that their budget will no longer be fixed by the LEA's decision about its schools budget. The common funding formula addresses that point to a certain extent, but there are areas that do not have a common funding formula, as the trigger threshold has not been reached.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I fully support what my hon. Friend has just said. Does she agree that one of the strange ironies of grant-maintained schools is that, although they have become grant-maintained to be free of local education authority control, their funding is, unfortunately, still in some ways controlled by local education authorities, whose interests are not in the grant-maintained sector?
Mrs. Knight: I agree entirely. What is happening with too many schools is that the global purse strings are still held by the LEA—the organisation from which the school has opted out. That is an anomaly which I should like to see addressed.
The second area that needs further consideration is more general. There are considerable differences in the amounts spent per pupil in different areas. We all accept that differences arise, but in some instances, the differences are worryingly large. One reason, of which I and my hon. Friends who represent Derbyshire constituencies are aware, is the way in which the LEA decides to allocate its money.
From the latest figures I have obtained from the House of Commons Library, it is clear not only that Derbyshire allocates less than the average of its education budget to the general schools budget, but that the authority is one of the worst delegators in the country in terms of money diminishing as it filters down through the potential schools budget to the aggregate schools budget. Yet it is the aggregate schools budget that equates with the money that gets into the classroom.
Let us take three similar counties in terms of standard spending assessments: Derbyshire, Suffolk and North Yorkshire. One finds that, in terms of the aggregate school budget per pupil, Derbyshire gives £200 less than the other two counties. That means that the authority is not getting money where it is needed—in the classroom.
An aspect over which authorities have no control is the area cost adjustment. As a result of the ACA, about £100 more per primary school pupil and about £200 more per secondary school pupil is aggregated into the SSAs of the 12 south-eastern counties. Although extra costs are recognised, those large sums, distributed on an all-or-nothing basis, are difficult to justify.
There is merit in ensuring that future area cost adjustments do not have those large discrepancies. I also believe that there is merit in looking at a common funding formula for all schools in the country. Those points are easy to make, but the difficulty is getting from A to B. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, however, to look at my suggestions.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On the area cost adjustment, does the hon. Lady realise that the discrepancy is as great or even greater for maintained schools in local authorities? There is a difference of several hundred pounds between the per head expenditure
298
in primary and secondary schools of Newham and Tower Hamlets, both very needy east London boroughs, because of the arbitrariness of the current ACA formula. Does the hon. Lady realise that funding for nursery schools, of which the SSA does not take proper account, automatically reduces the per capita amount for locally managed schools? There are lots of things wrong with the present formula.
Mrs. Knight: To a certain extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, I cannot talk about the situation in London, because Erewash is not a London constituency. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the SSAs are made up of a series of hugely complicated items. That is why I would like there to be a common funding formula for all schools which would be easy to understand. I would like to ensure that the schools get more money than they do at present, and that far less money is held back as, sadly, is the case with too many LEAs.
The third way in which to secure the future of grant-maintained schools is better use of the private finance initiative. "PFI" is not a particularly sexy-sounding trio of letters, but it is an initiative that can be useful to grant-maintained schools. It means that they do not have to wait for public money to carry out the repairs or to build the extensions they need; they can do such work much earlier. We all recognise that many school buildings that were thrown up in the 1960s are in a sorry state of repair.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look again at the PFI. At present, the rules are complicated and the procedures are not very clear to anyone. They have only just been circulated to governing bodies.
Ockbrook Redhill, a school in my constituency, spent considerable time and effort trying to determine whether its proposals were acceptable in principle under the PFI scheme, and on getting the nooks and crannies right. For the PFI to be a useable option, the rules need to be simple, understandable, easy to get going and quick; those are the essential ingredients for a scheme that will be an extremely important route for grant-maintained schools. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at those three points, which would improve and secure the future of grant-maintained schools.
The possibility of an insecure future lies elsewhere. In December, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), the shadow Secretary of State for Education, wrote a secret letter to Labour Members. It began, "Dear Colleague", and was headed, "Urgent—GM Schools". It was the sort of message that one gets in Herge's "Adventures of Tintin", which my children watch avidly on television. The letter continued:
"We are opposed to schools opting out and remain committed to the white paper pledge to bring such schools back … I thought it would be helpful for you to know that there has been no change of policy in relation to events in the last few days."
After 200 days had passed, lo and behold, there were considerable changes to the policy. What else did the hon. Member for Brightside say in December? He said:
"There is no plan to have a paper on GM schools, nor is there any intention that GM status should continue."
Let us see what happened.
A Labour party policy document turned up, warmly entitled "Diversity and Excellence—a New Partnership for Schools". It talks about grant-maintained schools on just about every page. I understand the Labour party's

299
problem, because, when the Leader of the Opposition chose to send his son to a grant-maintained school, as did one or two of his colleagues, he not only pulled the rug out from underneath the shadow Secretary of State for Education and 90 per cent. of the parliamentary party, but took the floor away.
The party was left with two questions which it had to answer. The first was how to reconcile the irreconcilable in a new policy document, and the second was how to pass off the new policy as both changed and unchanged. That is probably why the Labour party has had more changes of mind on its education policy than there are steps in the hokey-cokey; I doubt whether it has finished that dance yet.
So we have this document, "Diversity and Excellence—A New Partnership for Schools", which has been referred to as
"the sort of soft-sell slogan that possesses all the meaningless charm of a detergent commercial."
I wish that I had thought of that myself. In fact, the person who wrote those words was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the former deputy leader of the Labour party.
In December, this document was not going to happen. Although it was not going to mention grant-maintained schools, it in fact uses the words "grant-maintained" on just about every page.
When the document is not talking about grant-maintained schools, it is talking about fairness—fair this, fair that, fair funding, fairness to parents and fair admissions. Presumably all the teachers will be instructed to mark "fair" against every entry in pupils' reports. When the word "fair" is used as extensively as it is in that document, there is more than a fair chance that it is covering up more than its fair share of rubbish. It is worth examining Labour policy a bit more closely, and for real.
Independent grant-maintained schools are not compelled to have politicians on their governing bodies, but the Labour party would force them to include two councillors. We can all imagine which two would be chosen. Secondly, grant-maintained schools receive resources directly from the Funding Agency for Schools, which is also independent. The Labour party would abolish that. In view of the amount of money now being held back from schools by local education authorities, how much would the schools get if the money for grant-maintained schools were directed no longer through the independent funding agency but through LEAs? A lot less than they do now.
The document then says:
"We will set a new national target of 90 per cent. of the school's budget to be delegated from LEAs to the schools".
If that is what the Labour party believes, why does it not ring up all its Labour-controlled local education authorities now, and tell them to delegate 90 per cent. of the education money to schools tomorrow? The Labour party has not done that, and its real policy has been to hold back as much money as possible in LEAs, not to give it out to schools.
Even if 90 per cent. of the money went to schools, that would mean that a secondary school with a budget of £1.5 million would have £150,000 taken away, and a primary school with a budget of £200,000 would have £20,000 taken away. Teachers would have to be taken out of those schools. That is what the Labour policy really means when one translates it out of the fudge in which it is written.
300
The Labour party would also interfere in the way in which schools are run. Independent grant-maintained schools are now allowed to apply to the Secretary of State for permission if they wish to expand, but Labour would make them apply to their LEA. That would mean that a popular school would not be allowed to expand. We should return to the same fudge that happened when popular schools were penalised in an attempt to force parents to send their children to schools to which they did not want to send them.
The language in the document is different from what we have seen before; it is a fudged language that has shimmied around one or two edges to please the Islington chatterati. None the less, the document is as great a threat to grant-maintained schools as any previous Labour proposal.
The debate is about grant-maintained schools, but I emphasise the fact that, whether schools are grant-maintained, voluntary, run by the local education authority or independent, they are equally important, equally valued and equally distinctive in their own way. I always hope one day to see the return of direct grant schools, in which I was educated as a child, which were abolished when the Labour party was in control. All types of schools are important, and in the programme of education reform, the watchword must be stability.
We must continually ask what schools, teachers and parents want. Parents want high standards. They want to get the best out of their children. They want good English, good grammar and a decent grounding in maths, and they want their children to know their historical and geographical place in the world. That is easy to say but hard to produce, but we are currently achieving it.
survey of 500 grant-maintained schools whose results were published recently in The Times Educational Supplement showed that the huge majority of schools were in no doubt about the advantages of going grant maintained. Ninety-two per cent. had appointed more staff, a similar percentage had increased spending on books and equipment, and they were achieving consistently good exam results and attendance rates. That is what parents are looking for.
Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady has just listed all the advantages of grant-maintained schools. Can she tell the House whether there is any hard evidence that, as a result of those advantages, standards have been levered up?
Mrs. Knight: In 1993, 41 per cent. of 15-year-olds in grant-maintained comprehensive schools achieved five or more GCSEs at grades A to C compared with 36 per cent. in LEA-controlled schools. So schools in the grant-maintained sector are producing better grades for pupils than were achieved under LEAs. [Interruption.] Whether Opposition Members like it or not, that is the case.
Ms Estelle Morris: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked whether the schools had improved, given the extra funding that they gain from their grant-maintained status. It is no good giving us raw figures for examination passes. The hon. Member for Bath is right; there is no evidence that standards have improved. That is the key question, given the amount of resources that have been put into those schools.
Mrs. Knight: I appreciate that nothing will convince the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, because of their constant hostility to grant-maintained schools. In fact, I have not heard her express any genuine interest in standards.

301
Parents want their children to be taught well, and to get good grades in their examinations and a good start in the world. In practice, they are voting with their feet and sending their children to grant-maintained schools because they know that that is what they will get. There are now 1.3 million parents with children in grant-maintained schools. Those schools are popular with parents, and they are here to stay. We need to recognise that and to secure their future—and we need to abolish proposals such as those of the Labour party.
10.26 am
Mr. David Jamieson: The speech by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) was interesting, but packed with inaccuracies and false statements. The fundamental flaw in Conservative policy in recent years has been its concentration on the education of the few rather than of the many. Over many years in this country, we have been successful in educating very well indeed the brightest and the best, but we have failed to educate those in the next group down. We have failed to educate the mass of the people to high standards.
Grant-maintained schools were created to destroy local education authorities. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the debate has been peppered with denigration of the work of LEAs and of locally elected councils in general. The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), lost no opportunity to attack local education authorities throughout the country.
As the Conservatives have lost more and more seats on local councils, until they have only a tiny rump of councillors left, their desperation has increased to grasp back control of schools. Essentially, grant-maintained status has nationalised schools and put them under state control.
The hon. Member for Erewash and I served on the Standing Committee on the Education Act 1993—for nearly 180 hours, I believe. At every stage, nearly every clause gave the Secretary of State for Education more and more direct powers over grant-maintained schools, so they are no longer locally accountable.
Grant-maintained schools join other failed enterprises such as city technology colleges, which were supposed to spread across the country raising standards. We have seen what has happened to many of them. One, in Birmingham, had lower standards in technology, mathematics and science than the local comprehensive school.
So much for jacking up standards. We heard in a debate the other day that just 32,000 pupils were involved in the assisted places scheme, but they received twice as much funding as children in LEA schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I intervene briefly, as I suspect that discussion of city technology colleges at great length would be rightly ruled out of order by you, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman makes his point in the shadow of last week's announcement that we have reached 100 schools which are either CTCs or technology colleges, the latter being built substantially upon the success of CTCs.
Mr. Jamieson: The Minister has not answered the question. I made the point that the 15 CTCs have had
302
highly preferable funding, yet have not proved that that funding has led to improved standards in the schools. Perhaps the Minister can give evidence later that standards have increased as a result of the extra funding that CTCs have received.
I have no argument with the teachers, parents or pupils in grant-maintained schools, but the system is failing. There are three main areas where I object to grant-maintained schools. First, the early opt-outs received considerable extra funding. The hon. Member for Erewash glossed over the point I put to her in an intervention, and did not answer it. If she looks at the 9 June edition of The Times Educational Supplement, she will see the headline "MPs defied over £40m bonus for GM schools".
If the hon. Lady reads the Public Accounts Committee report published on 19 January 1994, she will see that the Committee recommended that the Department for Education progressively withdrew from existing grant-maintained schools the excess funding of central services, with a view to that funding being removed completely within two years. An all-party report made that recommendation, which is being totally ignored by the Government. They say that they may rule out the double funding by 1999.
Mr. Robin Squire indicated dissent.
Mr. Jamieson: The Minister shakes his head, as if to say that the Government will not rule out the double funding at all.
A small primary school in Tower Hamlets has found that it receives £200,000 extra funding because it is grant-maintained. My point is that every pound extra received by a grant-maintained school is a pound that is not received by a LEA school. The hon. Lady made the point that grant-maintained schools have kept their class sizes as they were, while class sizes had increased in LEA schools. I am glad that she accepts that class sizes have increased in LEA schools, but that must be because funding is being withdrawn from the LEA schools and put into grant-maintained schools.
On capital, the hon. Lady may want to refer to evidence received by the Department for Education on the capital funding of grant-maintained schools. The figures clearly show that, two years ago, grant-maintained schools were receiving three times as much per pupil in capital spending as LEA schools. That extra funding is just a cheap political bribe. Schools and parents do not want to opt out. The hon. Lady failed to tell the House how few schools had opted out last year, or that the majority of ballots were now resulting in no votes. Some ballots in my county are producing a very substantial no vote.
My second objection to grant-maintained status was touched on by the hon. Lady, who said that grant-maintained schools had far more control over their own affairs. I have no problem with schools having internal control of the running of their day-to-day business. That is right and proper, and I have always said in the Chamber that I support the local management of schools. Such local management has given autonomy to individual schools.
A self-perpetuating coterie of governors that has formed in grant-maintained schools has the power of decision-making about the admissions policy of schools. We have discovered in parts of London and in other parts of the country that admissions policies arranged by governing bodies sometimes deny local children—who

303
live in what used to be the catchment area of a school—a place in that school. The decisions are being made solely by the governors of the school. It is not right that a small unelected group is able to make that decision.
Mr. Squire: I am trying not to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but this is an opportunity to correct two of the misstatements that he is making. First, 66 per cent. of ballots on grant-maintained status this year have recorded yes votes, so one of his statements has been shot down in flames. Secondly—as he well knows—every admissions policy that is proposed by grant-maintained schools must be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is simply not the case that grant-maintained schools can change their admission policies willy-nilly.
Mr. Jamieson: I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed my earlier point that admissions policies are in the hands of the governors, and can only be ratified by the Secretary of State for Education. Local people who have been elected to sit on councils have no say in the policy at all. The governing bodies make a decision that is rubber-stamped by the Secretary of State. In other words, we have a quasi-nationalised education admissions policy.
Mr. Spearing: These debates allow a constructive shooting match to take place. Does my hon. Friend agree that a fundamental flaw in the grant-maintained system is that schools are not seen as possessions of the community, area or town they serve, but only of the parents or potential parents of the day? Do not such schools reflect the divisive education structure that this country tried to get rid of in the middle of the last century, and reflect also the aspirations, social background and financial resources of different groups within society?
Mr. Jamieson: That is exactly my point. The school ceases to be the property of the local community, and becomes the property of an individual governing body that will serve its own interests. That is the total antithesis of the choice which the hon. Lady and so many Government Front-Bench Members talk about. What is happening in many grant-maintained schools is that the school is choosing the pupils rather than the pupils choosing the school.
I turn now to my third main objection. The hon. Lady is wrong to say that the money provided to the Funding Agency for Schools is coming out of LEA budgets. The money is moving in a circle, from the LEA to the Funding Agency for Schools—a quango in York—and back to the grant-maintained schools. As most of that money is raised locally, it should be accountable locally through the councils.
The money moving in the circle through the LEAs and the agency and back to the schools is producing another layer of bureaucracy and wasteful inefficiency into the system. The Funding Agency for Schools alone is costing £11 million to run. That £11 million is not going to schools to provide more books, teachers or services, but is providing jobs for people shuffling paper in York.
Those are my objections to grant-maintained schools. There is no upsurge of desire in this country for schools to become grant-maintained, and parents are now deciding to stay with LEAs. Later today, a report by the Education
304
Select Committee will be published which raises many important issues to do with the important role of LEAs in the running of schools.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Erewash mentioned LEAs only in a derisory manner. She attacked her own LEA, even though it is running the schools and the education system for children in her constituency. If she looks at that report, she will see that Members of Parliament have recognised, on a cross-party basis, that local authorities have a powerful role to play in running schools, and that they are needed to ensure accountability and the success of our schools.
The hon. Member for Erewash failed to say what would happen should a grant-maintained school start to spiral downwards and fail. That has manifestly happened to some of them, just as it has to certain local education authority schools. In the case of such schools, the LEA steps in to provide assistance. In the most extreme circumstances, it can send in an education association—that weapon has not yet been used by the Department for Education.
What happens when things go wrong in a grant-maintained school? Who will oversee the education of those children when the governors degenerate into a squabbling mass, like those at the school in Stratford? In such circumstances, the school is referred back to the Secretary of State for Education. There is no local accountability, and no local body able to provide assistance.
This useful debate, albeit a brief one, has enabled me to set out my views on grant-maintained schools and why I oppose them. My party will continue to advocate changes to them, which are designed to deliver fair funding and proper accountability.
10.40 am
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on securing this important debate. It has exposed the fallacy that somehow the Labour party has changed its mind on grant-maintained schools.
I wish that the Labour party could be consistent. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) served with me on the Committee considering the Education Reform Act 1988, which set up grant-maintained schools. The current shadow Home Secretary was then Opposition spokesman on education, and I was left in no doubt about his vehement opposition to grant-maintained schools.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was then the education spokesman for the Liberal party. His venom against such schools was plain for all to see, and was expressed in speeches that were officially recorded. I note that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is nodding his head, so I assume that that venom against grant-maintained schools is still apparent in the Liberal party.
I support the concept of grant-maintained schools, because it has offered diversity of choice in state education. Those who are wealthy are able to send their children to the private school of their choice. Before the introduction of grant-maintained schools, those without such wealth had to leave that choice to the local education authority, which directed where children should be sent. There was no choice in the state system, because it lay with the LEA.
My one great pleasure is that the grant-maintained system has introduced diversity of choice to the state education system. That should be embraced and

305
welcomed. The Labour party may argue that fewer schools are opting to become grant-maintained. I do not believe that the figures prove that, but should that be so, I am sure it is due to schools' uncertainty about the future.
Schools are unclear whether the Labour party will follow its leader, who has taken advantage of the grant-maintained system. I suppose he is one of those middle-class people about whom the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) used to talk so much. Certainly, if my wife was a leading barrister, I might be even be middle-class.
Although the grant-maintained system has delivered essential diversity of choice, it is high time we introduced a national funding formula for education, because far too much confusion is caused by the different amounts of money held by education authorities and their various expenditure. It has taken me some time to obtain a breakdown of the relevant figures, but they are revealing.
For example, according to its 1994–95 central budget, Staffordshire, which has a total pupil number of 159,000, spent £2,975,000 on management. Derbyshire, with 84,000 pupils, spent £3,787,000 on management. That is a great difference.
I recently tabled a question
"To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list in ascending order the difference between income and expenditure for school meal services for all counties over the last seven years."— [Official Report, 7 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 208.]
I was surprised by the answer from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Schools. It revealed that Derbyshire county council had spent £115 million on subsiding school meals, whereas Lancashire, the next closest on the table provided, had spent £94 million—a £20 million difference. Those differences become more apparent when one considers that Lincolnshire, a Conservative-controlled council, spent just £11 million in those seven years on subsidising school meals.
I do not mind that local education authorities should be able to decide to spend that money, but that expenditure should be open to scrutiny. If an authority is spending money on subsidising school meals, it is clear that it is not available to be spent on other education services. The expenditure may be simple and straightforward, but too many of the relevant figures are hidden, and the purpose of that expenditure is not easily identified.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will recall from a previous debate that, for 9 per cent. of children, the only hot meal they get in the course of a day is the subsidised school dinner provided by local education authorities. Is he suggesting that needy children should be deprived of that hot meal, which they would otherwise not get?
Mr. McLoughlin: No. I am not suggesting anything, I am simply revealing figures and facts—Lincolnshire spent £11 million on subsidising school meals, whereas Derbyshire spent £115 million. I accept that a comparison between Lincolnshire and Derbyshire is not a good one, but it is worth comparing Staffordshire and Derbyshire, which are roughly the same size.
In those seven years, Staffordshire spent £47 million on subsidising school meals, which is still £60 million short of that spent by Derbyshire. The hon. Member for
306
Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) must accept that a lot could be done with that £60 million. I accept that education authorities decide what they want to spend their money on. The county breakdown and the differentials revealed by my hon. Friend's answer were, however, extremely interesting.
The other great benefit of grant-maintained schools—I plead with the Opposition to think carefully about it—is that they have made LEAs act more responsibly, because there is now an alternative available to parents. When I entered the House in 1986, the sixth form of Ecclesbourne school, in my constituency, was under threat of closure, because the LEA wanted to close all sixth forms in the centre of Derby and replace them with a tertiary system of education.
The school launched a massive campaign to save its sixth form, which was supported by all the parents. The LEA's proposal was sent to the Secretary of State for consideration. After a very vigorous campaign, I am glad to say that the Secretary of State rejected the proposal to close the sixth form.
I attended a public meeting at Ecclesbourne school at which one governor said, "I believe that the school should keep its sixth form, but because I am a socialist—and the county council's socialist—I must do what the county council wants me to do". County councils and local education authorities can no longer impose their views upon schools quite so easily, because schools now have an alternative.
I turn to the suggestion that somehow grant-maintained schools are unaccountable. A sad but true fact is that the voter turnout at local government elections averages about 40 per cent. The voter turnout when a school ballots to become grant-maintained is usually more than 70 or 80 per cent. Parents who are involved in the school and in the community want to ensure that there is a good grant-maintained schools system in place for their children.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is democratic that parents can vote to take a school out of the local education system and into the grant-maintained system for ever? Under the present rules, there is no way that a school can ballot to re-enter the local education system. The hon. Gentleman is saying that parents who send their children to a primary feeder school will have no choice whatsoever about whether their children should attend a grant-maintained school. They have no option because that decision has been taken for them. Is that accountability?
Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We spent many long hours taking the legislation through Committee when my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was Secretary of State for Education. The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. If he had his way, parents would have no choice at all. They would be forced to send their children to LEA schools, and the local education authority would determine the admissions policy, irrespective of parents' wishes.
Parents now have a choice. If they do not wish to send their children to grant-maintained schools, they do not have to do so. Parents can be certain that grant-maintained schools will remain, and that we will continue to have the diversity and choice in the state education system that I have talked about and believe in passionately only by ensuring that the party in government supports the grant-maintained policy.

307
Unlike Labour Members, the Conservatives do not mouth one thing and then another because a senior party member chooses to take advantage of the grant-maintained system. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more, but I am conscious that time is short.
Mr. Steinberg: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would be honest with the House and with the country. The majority of parents, whether they send their children to grant-maintained or local education authority schools, have absolutely no choice in the matter. The majority of schools choose the children who attend those schools. Parents who live in certain catchment areas have no choice but to send their children to the nearest school. It is the schools and the local education authorities which allow parents to send their children to those schools. It is a misnomer to say that parents have any choice; they do not. Will the hon. Gentleman please be honest with the House and with the country?
Mr. McLoughlin: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that choice exists, he should take up the matter with the Leader of the Opposition, who has exercised that choice, as have a good many Members on the Labour Front Bench. The Labour party is displaying grand hypocrisy on the issue. I have asked questions about grant-maintained schools in the past.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: I will not give way, as time is short. The number of admissions to grant-maintained schools has increased. Schools that were threatened with closure by local education authorities have gone grant-maintained, and they have flourished. They are run by the local community, and they are part of the local community. They provide a diversity of choice in education.
The Labour party would offer a choice only to those people who could afford to go to the private system. The Government believe that every parent should be able to choose what kind of school their children will attend. There is a choice in the state system: between the local education authority schools and those that are independently grant-maintained but part of the state education system.
Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLoughlin: Time is short, or I would give way willingly—although the hon. Gentleman has a bad record for giving way when he is at the Dispatch Box.
That is why I am passionately committed to grant-maintained schools, the grant-maintained sector and the state education sector. The element of choice that we have introduced into the education system has also brought many of the loony local education authorities under control. Before we introduced the grant-maintained system, schools had no escape route; they had nowhere to go. Schools now have an alternative to being run by local education authorities; as a consequence, those authorities have become more responsible. All hon. Members should welcome that development.
10.56 am
Mr. Don Foster: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on securing the debate. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, I agreed entirely with one or two of her remarks, to which I shall return in a moment.
308
Of course, I disagreed entirely with a number of her comments—not least the paeans of praise that she heaped upon the grant-maintained schools sector. She seemed to suggest that the Government's grant-maintained policy has proved a tremendous success. However, anyone who has examined the figures will know only too well that it has not been a success—indeed, it is an ailing policy that has failed almost completely.
Towards the end of her remarks, the hon. Lady referred to the 1.3 million parents whose children attend grant-maintained schools. She failed to point out that fewer than 50 per cent. of those parents voted in favour of grant-maintained status. It is worth recording that only 500,000 people in this country voted for grant-maintained status, and that very few people are currently voting for grant-maintained status. The number of ballots for grant-maintained status has declined markedly, and the number of schools that opt out of the local education sector has also decreased significantly.
Ms Estelle Morris: Many parents did not vote to opt out in many local areas. In some schools that have been opted out for four or five years, none of the parents whose children currently attend the schools exercised their vote, because their children did not attend the schools at the time the ballot was taken. Is that not even more despicable than the figures cited by the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. She also draws attention to the welcome remarks of the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who pointed out that the grant-maintained system is not the system of democratic choice that the Government would have us believe.
It is perhaps worth recording the figures for opting out. From Easter 1994 to Easter this year, there have been only 48 secondary school ballots, and only 13 schools voted to go grant-maintained. That compares with 171 ballots in the previous year, when 107 schools voted to opt out. There has been a similar decline in the number of primary school ballots.
As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) said, the grant-maintained policy has failed, despite the many bribes that the Government have offered. The Government have promised to phase out double funding gradually, but it is interesting to note that, in the process, a number of grant-maintained schools will receive additional money this year for the first time. I suspect that many local education authority schools will be pleased with such phasing out, despite the various bribes in respect of capital funding.
Grant-maintained schools are a failed policy in terms of the number of people voting for it and its ability to lever up standards. The hon. Member for Erewash was unable to answer when I asked her whether, despite all the financial advantages that had been given to grant-maintained schools, there was any hard evidence that standards had been levered up. The Minister is now about to give us some figures.
Mr. Robin Squire: It would be invidious to run down a list of schools, but the hon. Gentleman will remember, as will the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who is about to speak from the Labour Front Bench, that the evidence from Baverstock school—the solid accounts of achievement and its turnaround from a

309
school that was failing in virtually every respect to what we now have—has been attributed by the head overwhelmingly to its grant-maintained status.
Mr. Foster: If the Minister can cite only one school, that is extremely worrying. We can swap school for school, and I could start talking about Stratford school, for example.
However, if we look at the base starting point for grant-maintained schools, taking into account the number of children with free school meals and the selective nature of many grant-maintained schools and we then look at the examination results, the SAT figures or anything else, we realise that there is no clear evidence that all that additional support—the uneven playing field provided for grant-maintained schools—has led to a levering up of standards.
The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) said—I have forgotten his precise words—that Liberal Democrats totally hated grant-maintained schools. When I nodded to him, he implied that I accepted what he said. I should like to put it clearly on record that we dislike not the schools, but their grant-maintained status and the two-tier education system which has grown up because some schools have that status.
Mr. McLoughlin: As we understand there is a coming together between the Liberal party and the Labour party, would part of that be an undertaking to abolish the system of grant-maintained schools?
Mr. Foster: I was about to answer that point. Having criticised the two-tier system that grant-maintained schools have introduced, it is important that I make it absolutely clear where my party stands.
We have a simple policy. We would bring grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges back into a light-touch strategic planning framework of the LEA, which would be responsible for the fair allocation of resources, establishing the pupil admission procedure, sorting out such issues as special educational needs, and determining, for example, whether a school needs to close or a new school needs to open. The LEA would also be responsible for issues relating to quality monitoring and levering up standards, and would have a role to play in the arbitration of disputes. Individual schools would decide which LEA services they wished to provide.
We believe that all schools in Britain should be given maximum freedom to make decisions that affect their own day-to-day running. Our approach does not pander to old-style corporatist, centralist, domineering local education authorities; it is a system that frees up individual schools within a local, democratically accountable, strategic planning framework.
Ms Estelle Morris: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party's policies would continue to allow some schools 100 per cent. delegated funding?
Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady uses 100 per cent., and her document uses 90 per cent. Those figures do not make sense without identifying the base line. We are saying that some money would be retained at the LEA level to fund the various functions that the LEA would carry out.
I agree with the hon. Member for Erewash about Labour party policy. At least the hon. Lady, the Minister and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire have a clear
310
policy. They would like the continuation of grant-maintained status, and they have introduced legislation to force every school to consider it on an annual basis; and, if possible, they will continue to make as many arrangements as possible to help grant-maintained schools to become established.
My party is also clear about where it stands. We would bring grant-maintained schools back into a light-touch LEA strategic planning framework. The hon. Member for Erewash was absolutely right to point out that the Labour party now has a totally fudged policy that satisfies nobody. Despite all the efforts of its spin doctors, the Labour party is unable to convince schools in the grant-maintained sector that it is now being nicer to them; nor can it convince Labour activists, many of them with roots in local government, that Labour has not gone soft on grant-maintained schools.
The big anomaly in the Labour party's proposal is that, having totally opposed grant-maintained status and undertaken to bring those schools into the local strategic framework, Labour now says that schools that opted out will be allowed to continue their special status as foundation schools. They will have a different governing body and composition, and they will be able to retain access to their own assets by way of a trust. That makes nonsense of the ability of local education authorities to plan properly and strategically.
Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Foster: I shall happily give way to hon. Member. I hope that, in the intervention that he is about to make, he will remind the House of what he said in the House on 9 December last year:
"One of the problems with GM schools is that they increasingly complicate the sort of strategic provision that needs to be made."—[Official Report, 9 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 542.]
Will not the Labour party's latest fudge proposal make that strategic planning almost impossible?
Mr. Kilfoyle: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not read the document in question. We made it absolutely clear that schools choose from the three categories that we have designated in our paper on the local democratic framework. The hon. Gentleman's final point concerned strategic planning and admissions policy. If he looks at appendix 3 of "Diversity and Excellence", he will see that it is carefully spelt out.
The hon. Gentleman made much play of underlining the clarity of the Government's view, particularly in terms of the 100 per cent. delegation that they would afford to grant-maintained schools, but he failed to address the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) on the implications of the Liberal Democrat proposal, which in theory would allow every school to opt for 100 per cent. delegation of the ASB.
Mr. Foster: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. I have just explained that, if the LEA is carrying out some central functions, funds need to be retained to pay for them. That is clearly set out in our document.
The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that his party is trying to put a precise, specific figure of 90 per cent. on it. That is nonsense, because the central services that are needed vary from one LEA to another. For example, the

311
costs of transport in a rural area differ from those in an urban area. The hon. Member cannot have it both ways, but that is what his document "Diversity and Excellence" tries to do.
The hon. Gentleman was as critical as I was when the Government brought out their document "Choice and Diversity". We used to jokingly call it, "Chaos and Confusion". I believe that the Labour party's document is "Chaos and Confusion—the sequel".
11.9 am
Ms Estelle Morris: The Opposition welcome the chance to debate what has often been called a Government flagship policy. This has been an interesting opportunity to try to shed some light on why that flagship policy has gone so badly wrong.
It was the former Secretary of State for Education who said, on Second Reading of the 1993 Education Bill, that he was setting
"in place a new framework for primary and secondary schools that will endure well into the next century."—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 627.]
He went on to predict that, by April of last year, there would be 1,500 grant-maintained schools. He could not have been more wrong. Seven years after GM status was introduced, only 5.6 per cent. of all schools have chosen to go that way. Only 16 schools in Wales have GM status, and 28 local authorities throughout England and Wales still have no GM schools at all. No one—not even the most optimistic Government supporter—can possibly claim that, numerically speaking, the policy has been a success.
The hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) has a cheek to come to this House and try to give us the impression that schools are still queuing up to opt out. Every prediction made by the Government has proved false; every target that they have set for GM opt-outs has been missed.
We could just dismiss GM status as a failed policy, had the consequences and costs for all schools and for all pupils not been so serious. In its first year of operation, £11 million was spent by the Funding Agency for Schools; 261 officials administer GM schools from York; 77 more officials help to administer GM schools from Sanctuary Buildings. Almost £1 million—£800,000 in fact—has been spent on the Grant-Maintained Schools Foundation.
All this amounts to millions of pounds spent, not on reducing class sizes or on putting more equipment and resources into schools, not on the £4 billion school buildings maintenance backlog, but on administering a bureaucracy that merely duplicates the work being done by local education authorities.
Wasteful though that is, what people find most offensive about the financial aspect of GM schools is the way in which schools that do not choose GM status are deliberately discriminated against. Why should not children attending schools whose governing bodies and parents have decided to stay in partnership with local authorities get the same funding? It is not just the £25 million that has been lost to locally maintained schools through double funding: it is the 2.7 times more spent on capital projects in GM schools which causes such harm.
It is all very well for the hon. Member for Erewash to say that schools which want the money can just opt out, whereupon they will be given it. The hon. Lady is parliamentary private secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
Mr. Robin Squire: As of this moment.
Ms Morris: Indeed. Still, I wonder what he would say if he knew that the hon. Lady wants every school in the country to opt out so as to get additional resources. That would mean that the national pot of money spent on education would have to grow—but it has never done that under this Government. As more GM schools have come into existence, the amount of extra money given to them has steadily decreased. If all schools opted out, they would, of course, not be funded at the enhanced rate given to the first opt-out schools.
Mr. McLoughlin: The fact is that the amount of money spent on education has substantially increased under this Government. The reductions took place between 1974 and 1979. The figures since then show a steady, consistent increase on the money spent on education.
Ms Morris: Why does no one believe the hon. Gentleman? Why do parents not believe him? Because their children are in classes with more than 30 pupils. Why do teachers not believe him? Because they are being asked to do their job without the necessary resources. The hon. Gentleman might believe what he says, but he and his colleagues are probably the last people left in the country who think that way.
What sort of message does the Minister think he is sending to children and parents when he seems to value one child, in financial terms, more than he does another? No one except the Government—not parents associations, not local authority associations, not, to their great credit, even GM schools themselves—continues to defend this sort of inequity of funding. As our Public Accounts Committee said, it is unacceptable.
Unacceptable though the financial arrangements for GM schools are, the greatest damage is the damage that has been done to the local partnerships in which schools operate. The whole GM notion was based on the belief that schools and parents shared Tory Ministers' dislike of locally elected education authorities. On Second Reading of the 1993 Education Bill, the then Under-Secretary of State found himself unable to make a single positive statement about local authorities. He showed no inkling of understanding of the good that local authorities can achieve.
What Conservative Ministers have never understood, but what parents and schools have always understood, is the fact that, to succeed, a school needs not just to compete but to co-operate. To succeed, it needs to share ideas. It needs to learn from others. To succeed, it needs quality information about its performance and its targets. It must pool its resources so that important areas such as special needs, music and sport can flourish.
Schools, in short, do not exist as separate competing units. They need strong, stable local partnerships, and good local education authorities can provide them.
Mrs. Angela Knight: As the hon. Lady is so obviously against GM schools and in favour of LEA schools, will she urge her leader to send his son to an LEA school instead of a GM one?
Ms Morris: I am not against GM schools: I am in favour of all schools that raise standards for their children. I am not here to criticise schools, teachers or pupils. I welcome high standards in every school, no matter what

313
its status. Parents base their decision about where to send their children on a number of aspects. The leader of my party would have sent his child to the school in question whether or not it had grant-maintained status.
The Government's whole approach has been divisive. It is no good Conservative Members such as the hon. Member for Erewash complaining about the alleged behaviour of some local councillors. I do not condone bad behaviour by councillors on either side of the political divide, but the Government have a lot of gall, given that Ministers have approached GM status in a way that meant that a divisive mess was bound to ensue. We warned the Government that their approach would lead to divisions and bitterness, but they took no notice.
The Government talk about choice, but they have failed to offer schools different but equally valued options. The Government have been so committed to the GM option that they have almost made enemies of those who did not follow in their wake.
Conservative Members of Parliament have campaigned hard on every opt-out ballot, so that they can come here and wear each new opt-out in their constituencies as a badge of pride. Time and again, they have stood up during education questions and asked Ministers whether they welcome the decision of a school in one of their constituencies to go grant-maintained. Certainly every Labour councillor has campaigned hard against GM status ballots, because not to do so would have threatened the status of other schools in their areas.
This is no way to run schools; but the legislation was framed in such a way that it was inevitable that these problems would follow. We have wasted valuable money, time and ideas talking about structures, when the real issue facing us is how to raise standards.
We must end the divisions and the turmoil of the past 15 years. Our task is to rebuild partnerships and restore trust. We can do that only if we move forward and stop looking back; if we listen and learn from what we hear; and if we seek change through consensus. That is what Labour does in its paper "Diversity and Excellence: a New Partnership for Schools".
It has been interesting today to see which side of the Tory divide Conservative Members put themselves on. Do they belong to the category who try to tell us that we have changed our minds on GM schools and will keep them? Or do they belong to that brand of Tory who tries to tell us that we, the Labour party, have it in for GM schools? Within three days, the Prime Minister has said one thing and the Secretary of State for Education another.
We shall offer schools a choice within a framework that strengthens crucial local partnerships. We shall ensure that funding is fair and open. Labour accountability will exist locally, to parents in the community, as well as nationally, to central Government. Parents will know that admission procedures will be fair, with no return to selection through the 11-plus. Above all, schools will know that they are responsible for managing themselves, and that local authorities are there to support them in raising standards.
A notion much favoured by Ministers is that local authorities control schools. That control vanished with the introduction of local management of schools. Schools control themselves, but local Labour education authorities
314
throughout the country are showing a new role for LEAs that involves raising and monitoring standards and supporting schools in their vital task of improving the performance of their pupils.
Labour will root all schools in that locally accountable and supportive partnership. It will offer them the choice of being community, foundation or aided schools. We shall preserve the best of the changes, which is independence for schools. But we shall restore local accountability, which has been so badly damaged.
A debate about a failing Government policy has been useful, but we, the Opposition, look forward to our agenda, which will focus on success.
11.21 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): In the time available to me, I shall try to cover as many points as possible. The House will understand that I do not have a significant amount of time.
I begin by echoing the congratulations that have come from both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on the splendid way in which she opened the debate. It was a typically rumbustious speech. She was backed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). My hon. Friends are a credit to their county. I listened with great interest to their contributions.
Inevitably, the debate has generated heat as well as light. That, perhaps, is scarcely surprising. Every one of our education reforms has aroused hostility within the Opposition parties. The grant-maintained initiative has probably ruffled more feathers than most others. The reason is simple. Opposition Members belatedly pay lip service to parental preference and to school diversity and autonomy, but they do not really believe in them. Yet putting these ideals into practice is precisely what self-government is all about.
Only six years ago, local authorities had a monopoly of state schooling. We do not need a PhD in economics to know that monopolies rarely serve the best interests of the consumer. The GM initiative broke that monopoly. It gave parents a high-quality alternative to local education authority schools within the state sector. It also gave parents a direct and decisive say in the future of their children's schools.
Five years ago, there were only 30 GM schools. There are now well over 1,000 in the primary, secondary and special sectors, and the number continues to grow. Incidentally, whenever a percentage is quoted by Opposition Members, they never tell us that, at secondary level, after only six years, one in five of all secondary school children is at a GM school. That is some progress.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Not in Bolsover.
Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position—he kindly joined us nine minutes ago—"Not in Bolsover." That is Bolsover's loss.
There is no mystery about the rapid growth of the GM sector. It has taken place because self-government is good for schools, pupils and parents. In other words, it works. Self-government gives a school control of its total budget, not only the portion that is delegated by the LEA. Some of the additional funding is used to buy services that were previously provided free by the LEA.

315
But GM schools have freedom to shop around and get better value for money. That means that most GM schools have money left over to pay for additional staff, books and equipment. These are important practical benefits of GM status, which pupils, teachers and parents can see and feel. But there is much more to self-government than that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said, self-government is about being in control of one's own destiny. It is about getting rid of dual controls and the back-seat driver. A self-governing school is free to preserve and develop its existing character. These freedoms, combined with total control of resources, give GM schools much greater responsibility to respond to the needs and aspirations of the communities that they serve. They do so without getting bogged down in the mire of LEA policies and procedures.
We know that GM schools are popular with parents. That echoes and enlarges what my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said in response to an intervention. For three successive years, GM comprehensive schools have, on average, achieved better GCSE results than their LEA counterpart comprehensives. We know that GM primary schools achieved better results than LEA primary schools in last year's key stage 1 tests. So the GM sector is flourishing as well as growing. It is a clear example of a successful initiative that has attracted interest throughout the world.
I believe that, in due course, all maintained schools will be run on GM lines—indeed, not only maintained schools. The Education Act 1993 extended opportunities to independent promoters to propose the establishment of new GM schools. I am delighted to say that we have given approval in principle today to the first of such proposals, from St. Anselm's Roman Catholic college for boys and Upton Hall Roman Catholic convent school for girls, both in Wirral. They will be the first independent schools to come in from the new route. I look forward to welcoming them to the GM sector.
I shall deal briefly with Labour's plans. We did not hear too much about them from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) when she summed up on behalf of the Opposition.
What is the Labour party's response to the success of GM? Anyone who read the press reports of a fortnight ago might well think that the Labour party is now supportive of the policy. The hon. Lady rightly confirms that, throughout the country, Labour councillors and Labour Members are opposing GM schools wherever there is a ballot, but she says that, in theory, they are supportive of GM schools. That is an interesting policy combination.
The detail behind the policy document tells a rather different story. Behind that public relations facade—the exciting talk about new relationships, partnership and trust—is a much duller reality. The Labour party proposes only three types of barely distinguishable state school. It assumes that most GM schools will become foundation schools. Some have seen this as a U-turn on the GM issue.
316
In fact, it is nothing of the kind. Foundation schools would hold their own premises and employ their own staff, but voluntary aided schools do that now, and they are not self-governing.
The essence of self-government is a school's ability to control its total budget, and to manage its own development without LEA interference. Foundation schools would have neither of those characteristics. All three categories of school proposed by Labour—the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) highlighted this—would have up to 10 per cent. of their budget held back by the LEA. All three would have LEA representatives on their governing bodies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash said, we can imagine the nature of one, if not both, of the councillors who would turn up on the governing bodies. At least one of them would be ideologically opposed to the schools' very existence.
All three types of school would have to negotiate their admission policies with the LEA. Again, all three would be subject to an LEA planning regime. So all three would, in slightly varying degrees, be LEA-controlled. Labour proposals for the GM sector boil down to the abolition of self-government.
Labour has invented the O-turn; an elaborate manoeuvre which leaves it facing in exactly the same direction as it has always faced. Labour's policy remains what it has always been: to return GM schools to LEA control. Although it is easy to accuse the Labour party of malice in this respect, its policy could even be the result of simple ignorance.
It is not too long ago that a Labour Member, whose name I shall protect, said during an informal discussion with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he could not possibly support GM schools, because at heart he did not agree with fee paying. Is that the level of knowledge of the Labour party? For those who have not followed, there is no fee paying in GM schools. I make that clear in case there any other hon. Member thinks there is.
There is insufficient time to reply to the very wise and detailed comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash on funding. I assure her that we will continue to look carefully at the national funding formula. She has heard me say before from the Dispatch Box that there are some problems in that respect. I assure her that we are considering the matter with the best will in the world.
The hon. Member for Bath spoke of a policy that had failed. He should ask the grant-maintained schools about it; he should visit them. Labour Members can contemplate visits only when armed with a cross and clove of garlic, but I would have hoped that Liberal Democrat Members might visit the schools. If they did, they would find that the schools, far from having failed, are popular and successful.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for having affirmed his party's continuing outright opposition—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We must now move to the next debate.

Opencast Mining
11.30 am
Mr. Bill Etherington: I should like to offer you my belated public congratulations on your being honoured, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know from our discussions in the Tea Room, I do not have a high regard for the honours system. If more people like you were honoured, I might begin to have a rather different attitude.
I was interested by the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Schools at the end of the last debate when he mentioned the O-turn. I have heard of the U-turn but now we have the O-turn. I regard Government policies as being more of a Q-turn; they go around in circles and have a let-out for themselves with a little squiggle. That is true of this debate.
Before I run away with myself, to which I am prone, I ask hon. Members to keep their contributions short, as I shall. That will give everyone with an interest in the subject a chance to say what they have to say. Unfortunately, we are not too good at that in the House. I have often sat long and patiently, wanting only a few minutes while people have rambled on for 25 minutes saying what could have been said in five. If that is a criticism of both sides of the House, so be it.
This is an important subject that causes great concern to all constituencies that have the continuing problem of opencast mining. I am fortunate, because although there is one opencast site in the local authority that covers my constituency, there is none in my constituency because the mining would be too deep for current technology. The Permian bed that covers the coal measures under my constituency makes it an impossible task.
You are well aware of the problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because your constituency has more than its share of such problems. It is interesting that when such matters are debated, we find the normal divide in British politics: those who have the problem on either side of the House want to do something about it; those who do not have the problem are often not very interested or are willing to advocate a process that makes other people's lives miserable. It is a case of not in my backyard.
There is considerable interest in the subject throughout the country. As one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), I appreciate that he has a great problem. I know what it is like. Luckily, in the village where I live we had a narrow escape a couple of years ago. There was not enough coal in a pit heap to make it viable and it was decided not to take the mineral beneath it before the site was landscaped. I was eternally grateful.
Next Thursday in the Jubilee Room, there will be a meeting of the Biddulph Action Group organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). Many things are coming together. That campaign is not from my constituency but from the miners parliamentary group, which is concerned about the issue. I know that many other mining Members who do not belong to the miners group have the problem, including some Conservative Members.
Opencast coal mining is absolutely unnecessary. We have it only because certain groups of people are doing very well financially from it. No benefits accrue to the population in general. If I was still burning coal, which
318
fortunately I am not, and went to a coal merchant and said, "I hear opencast coal is cheaper, can I have some?", I would not get a reduction. All coal is the same price for domestic consumers. The opencast market is a scandal and disgrace.
At one time in the north-east, both Northumberland and Durham county councils had sound policies of considering opencast output as a percentage of deep-mined output. It was rightly felt that, as deep mining capacity was reduced, so should opencast capacity be. Over the years, we have heard all sorts of arguments about the necessity for opencast coal, such as how it was needed to be blended with deep-mined coal. In the north-east that is no longer true because there are no deep mines left in County Durham: only one survives in Northumberland on a wing and a prayer. There is tremendous opencast mining output and no sign of it reducing.
I remind hon. Members who have studied the subject, and I see that there are some here, of the Flowers commission in the late 1970s, which recommended that opencast mining should be gradually phased down to—I use its term—a tick-over level. Some tick-over. It seems to me that it is going on at a fair speed and shows no sign of reduction.
At the time of the Flowers report, legislation from the Department of the Environment stated in effect that a need for coal would be a consideration when local authorities decided whether to grant planning permission for opencast mines. I know, for example, that at that time I appeared at no fewer than six hearings where applicants had appealed to the Department of the Environment after the local authority had decided to turn down their applications. On all six occasions the appeals were turned down. The late Nicholas Ridley later overturned one of them, but five out of six was not bad.
However, that was not the way in which the Government preferred to work because they changed the guidance and introduced mineral planning guidance 3, MPG3, one of the worse items of legislation ever. I call it legislation because, in effect, it is legislation. If local authorities do not abide by it, they face great cost disadvantages should they be unsuccessful against the applicant for a licence.
MPG3 stated that it would be assumed, without any sort of analysis, that opencast mining was a good thing. An application for a licence would be refused only if the local authority thought that there were pressing environmental reasons for doing so. Overnight, that changed the emphasis. The operator previously had had to prove a need for coal and the desirability of the site. Suddenly, the deal would go ahead and it was up to local authorities and anyone else who opposed such a move to prove environmental grounds.
The statistics after that new guideline was introduced show a quick change and that many more opencast appeals were successful. As a result, councils initially were reluctant to take operators on because they knew that they had little chance of success on appeal. They would not only have to bear the cost of the hearing but pay operators' damages for loss of trade—talk about one-sidedness; that is appalling.
Two years ago, we had the cataclysmic deep mine closure programme. We were told that regardless of price, there was no market for a vast amount of coal. I should have thought that if there was no market for coal, opencasting would be gradually phased out. That has not

319
been the case. What is happening is what we always believed would happen. Evidence has been given over many years to the effect that opencast coal would replace, not supplement or assist, deep-mined output. That is precisely what has happened.
I understand that MPG3 has been modified slightly, but it does not appear to have altered much. No consideration is given to need. Anyone can approach a local authority, say that he wants to mine coal and present his plans. The coal may never be disposed of—the firm could go bankrupt—but there is no procedure for monitoring.
We should like a return to pre-MPG3 times. I should have thought that, if there were a need for opencast coal, operators would not have too much difficulty in proving it. I know that previously, they had some difficulty, which is why they lost so many appeals. That showed that the system was working.
I do not speak a great deal on environmental matters because I am not an authority on them, but I know a little about markets. I know that for every employee in the opencast sector, five people would have been working in the deep-mined sector. Taking into account all the mining communities, the ratio would be about seven or eight to one. The coal costs the same but the difference is between employing one or eight people. That, it appears, is no longer the issue; the real issue now is why are deep mines continuing to be run down and closed with a subsequent reduction in manpower?
The situation will get worse because more gas and nuclear-powered stations will undoubtedly come on stream, despite what the Government say to the contrary. There will therefore be less demand for coal. Unless something is done, we shall end up with no deep mines, and the bulk of our coal will come from opencast sites, for as long as they last—I understand that we are now down to the final 20 or 25 years of potential supplies. Some might be pleased about that; it is only a pity that we had to lose so many deep mines and import coal to bring that about. In addition, we have lost an industry and the skills of tens of thousands of people. There are 3 million people unemployed, but the scandal continues.
I am now going to say something a little unusual. I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Coal Industry Bill when the industry was being denationalised, which was another disaster. Members of the Committee were heavily lobbied by the National Farmers Union, and I found that it had a fair case. It will want to know what is being said today so I shall make my remarks loud and clear. I am prepared to help the NFU as a decent and responsible Member of Parliament and I want it to reciprocate. When it has heard what I have to say on its behalf, I hope that it will seriously consider changing its attitude about access to the countryside so that when I and others go for a walk we do not face an obstacle course. Members of Parliament are reasonable and we try to help people; it is not unreasonable to ask the NFU to reciprocate.
One of the problems that farmers have, as they have made clear for a long time, is that the land which is returned to them is not satisfactory for agricultural purposes for a long time, if ever. They say that, following statutory reinstatement of the land, a period of five years is not the end of the matter and that some work might still need to be done afterwards.
Almost 15 years ago, there was an arrangement between farmers and landowners and what was then the National Coal Board. It was called a post-release
320
rehabilitation scheme. That sounds good—it reminds me of the miners' rehabilitation centres. "Rehabilitation" is an interesting word. Under the scheme, land would be examined after a given period, and any remedial work required would probably be done by the landowner if he or she so desired and paid for by the coal board. It appears, however, that that did not happen very often.
One has to ask why the land is not returned to its original condition. Is it because it might affect profit margins, or because it might make opencast mining less attractive? When all is said and done, deep mines, which could produce more cheaply than opencast sites, have been closed.
Wearmouth colliery in my constituency was heading towards producing coal for £1 a gigajoule. Coal was mined in a 7 ft high seam, the highest that had been worked for about 90 years. However, it was closed because it was said that there was no market for its coal, even at £1 per gigajoule.
I have done my bit for the NFU, and I hope that the Minister will consider the matter seriously.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to a farmer on his own side. He mentioned the need to reinstate land. Will he say a word or two about the apparent failure of opencast operators to deal with the problem of ground water from opencast sites? A substantial site at Blindwells in my constituency is about to stop work in October or November this year. We have been advised by the Coal Authority that the mining operators are not going to be required to continue pumping the water out of the site, which means that when the water table reaches its original level the surrounding areas will be severely affected by badly polluted ground water. What on earth can be done about that?
Mr. Etherington: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. He will be well aware that we tried to get something done about that when the Coal Industry Act 1994 was being passed. We were given all sorts of assurances but no specific legislation. The same is happening with the Environment Bill, which is currently going through its final stages. In other words, we are no further forward—it is all promises but no legislation. I am sure that until we have a change of Government things will remain the same because such legislation would mean interfering with commerce. We all want commerce to do well and we all want wealth to be created, but not to the exclusion of everything else.
Ms Joan Walley rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way. Before I call another hon. Member, I hope that the House will take note of the hon. Gentleman's generosity in leaving time for others. This is a short debate in which there is a great deal of interest. I hope that speeches will be kept short to enable as many hon. Members as possible to speak.
11.46 am
Mr. Richard Alexander: I must apologise to the House and the Minister because I might have to leave before the debate ends. I undertook another engagement before I knew that this debate was to be held. I shall, however, be here for most of it.

321
I join the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) in congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The honour has given great pleasure to your many friends of all parties.
That, however, is the only point on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. His thesis was that opencast coal was unnecessary. My thesis is to the contrary, but I believe that we must deal properly with its environmental aspects.
A few old Labour party workhorses were trotted out and exercised today. The Labour party was hostile to opencast mining because it was largely run by the private sector whereas the nice, benevolent British Coal looked after coal miners and provided safe jobs. I do not think that those arguments are relevant any more.
I regret that while we are—quite properly—talking about the environment, the Opposition seem thus far to be dressing up the environment to use it as an argument against opencast coal. That would be a disservice to a fine industry and those who work in it. We must spell out the fact that surface-mined coal is provided at a low and predictable cost whereas deep-mined coal is high cost and carries an even higher risk factor.
Ms Walley rose—
Mr. Alexander: If the hon. Lady wishes me to give way I shall do so, but it will extend the time that I take. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways.
Ms Walley: I shall be brief. How does the hon. Gentleman believe that the true and full cost of opencast coal mining can be measured? He talks about economic appraisal and opencast coal being cheaper, but has he taken into account the blight on property and, for example, the effect of dust on health? How does he ensure that the true cost is known?
Mr. Alexander: The hon. Lady makes an absolutely fair point. That is why the debate is relevant. Such equations must be considered, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give reassurances on those points when he replies.
If I may, I shall continue my thesis about the benefits of surface-mined coal, and point out to the House that surface-mined coal, as I am sure many Opposition Members are aware, can be blended with deep-mined coal, which has a higher moisture content. With that blend, it is more acceptable, more manageable. It reduces the high chlorine content that exists in many seams of deep-mined coal. It has one tenth of the average amount of chlorine of deep-mined coal. It is has a low ash content and a high calorific value, particularly in the north-east and in parts of Scotland. Those are all environmental considerations. Surface-mined coal is part of the overall equation that we are discussing. It is not helpful to the argument and to one's knowledge to rubbish it as an aspect of the mining industry before reaching a conclusion.
Ms Joan Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alexander: Just once more.
Ms Ruddock: It is an extremely simple question. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the sulphur content? Is it not true that opencast coal often has a much higher sulphur content than deep-mined coal?
Mr. Alexander: That may be so. I make no apology for the fact that I am listing the advantages of surface-mined coal. We should recognise that the properties of surface-mined coal improve the handling characteristics and the saleability of deep-mined coal. We now have acceptable blends for shipment abroad; we still export a lot of coal. If we make our deep-mined coal more acceptable to people who buy from us, we are helping the industry as a whole.
Sometimes, when deep-mined coal cannot be washed further, the addition of surface-mined coal will make it saleable. In Nottinghamshire, for example, each tonne of high-chlorine deep-mined coal needs to have about I tonne of opencast added to it to make it acceptable to purchasers. If the implications of the comments of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North were followed through, they would cast a grave burden on the acceptability and the saleability of the coal, which is Britain's coal and which we are trying to sell to people in this country and abroad. It will harm British industry and British jobs if we go down the hon. Gentleman's route.
We are still competing against imported coal. I shall not go into the arguments about how the imported coal is acquired, as those are yesterday's arguments, but the fact is that we are still in competition. There are certain commercial facts about opencast that cannot be denied, the first of which—this deals with the point made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley)—is that those who are involved in its extraction will say that it is far cheaper to extract coal from the surface rather than from deep mines. I should have thought that that logically follows and does not need a great deal of proof.
The second point is that we must produce coal to sell abroad. The third and vital point—I am astonished that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North did not concentrate on this—is that the coal industry and the surface-mined coal industry provide a great many jobs in various communities. Those are very important points. I have the honour, with the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), of representing a north Nottinghamshire seat, and jobs are important in coal mining areas. It is a dirty and a dangerous job, and we should accept that it has already suffered a great deal from contraction. Opencast is a key element in the objective of sustaining a large economically viable United Kingdom coal industry. It is a significant contributor to the bottom-line profits of the rest of the coal industry and hence the maintenance of jobs in it.
To my hon. Friend the Minister, I say, as do other colleagues here, that it is important that the new guidelines for MPG3 should work with the grain and ensure that coal from the surface is economically and environmentally acceptable. The environment is extremely important, and the environmental effect of opencasting on local communities is a matter of great responsibility for my hon. Friend and, indeed, for MPG3.
We must accept that the Coal Industry Act 1994 imposes such a duty on developers, which they accept. They in turn must ensure that they mitigate the worst effects of their operations on communities, and planning authorities must ensure that they do. Local people must accept that surface mining is about not just profits and shareholders but jobs in communities. There are many examples of former opencast coal mining operations being restored to great benefit in our communities. There is one not far from north Nottinghamshire, the Rother Valley

323
country park in south Yorkshire. There are excellent examples of environmental attraction once coal surface mining has been concluded.
The call for opencasting to be closed down because there is surplus of deep-mined coal elsewhere is shortsighted. It has merit in the short-term, but to close down a significant part of the coal industry cannot be a good long-term proposition. Competitive disadvantage, if my earlier thesis is followed, will certainly be brought about from short-term expediency. One cannot just turn on and off surface mining like a tap. It is a five-year programme, and that is why the environmental aspect of it is so important. We must remember that the employers, the major contractors, have invested £1,000 million in their surface mining activities. It is not a fringe activity. They employ 15,000 people, directly and indirectly, often in areas that have suffered drastically from coal mining closures.
Planners must give opencast a fair wind. It can do without the hostility of some hon. Members and some people outside. It must be allowed to produce low-cost indigenous coal, which will enable the industry to thrive and continue to export. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that more drastic constraints will put that at risk, as will the ideological opposition of some Opposition Members. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist going down that particular route.
11.58 am
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your knighthood, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on securing this debate on a subject which is so vital for my constituency.
Mine is not an ideological argument, but a purely practical argument about the horror that my constituents have to put up with. I have long campaigned against opencast mining, which has expanded with increasing alarm in my constituency, because of the horror that it brings. As well as being directly related to pit closures, which have destroyed our pit communities and led to high unemployment, it has had a dreadful impact on the environment in my constituency.
First, heavy lorries thunder through villages and local communities from the early hours of the morning, past residential properties and the main pedestrian walkways where parents are often taking small children to school. The increase in the number of heavy lorries is making conditions intolerable for residents and exacerbating the dangers that pedestrians have to endure all the time.
Secondly, there has been widespread damage to the landscape, which is visible to both commuters and visitors to the beautiful city of Durham from virtually every main approach as more and more opencast sites are agreed. Both tourism and local industry have been increasingly affected. The open countryside is being ravaged, conservation areas are being damaged and the dust and debris resulting from mining operations threaten the local flora and fauna.
Thirdly, there is the dust and nuisance that people have to endure. Residents are inevitably subject to dust and diesel pollution. Last year, residents of Bowburn in my constituency had to put up with opencast mining at the R J Budge (Mining) Ltd. site at Whitwell, which is approximately half a mile from their homes—less than that in some cases. There have been significantly greater dust deposits in their gardens, and many more cases of asthma, particularly among children.
324
There are no guarantees that the implementation of dust control measures can avoid the hazard. Moreover, there is no control over exhaust emissions from the plant. Dust pollution is far more than just a nuisance. In a recent answer to a parliamentary question from me, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health accepted that an independent advisory committee had confirmed research findings showing an association between opencast mining and the increase in asthma.
Mr. William O'Brien: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) may not still be present when I make my speech. My hon. Friend speaks of the effects on health, welfare and the environment in his constituency; will he now condemn the hon. Member for Newark for not taking those effects into consideration?
Mr. Steinberg: I said at the beginning of my speech that my reasons for objecting to opencast mining were not ideological, but motivated by a desire to protect my constituents from environmental damage. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) gave purely ideological reasons for supporting an industry which is making millions of pounds for certain people. When he speaks of ideology, he should look to himself rather than Opposition Members. Many thousands of people's health, as well as their everyday lives, are being dramatically affected.
Opencast mining is detrimental to the quality of life. It affects both the environment and the general morale of local communities. The effect on those communities is traumatic. Former mining villages in my constituency are only now recovering from the scars left by the industry. In recent years, the area has been subject to considerable environmental improvements, including the reclamation of former colliery sites and the creation of new industries, jobs and recreational facilities. The establishment of new mining operations in those areas is a dreadful retrograde step—and it could go on for 30 years.
As well as the new applications, there are the "while we are here" applications. For example, R J Budge started work on the Whitwell site on 1994. In January 1995 the firm applied for a variation to build an additional 20 m mound on the same site because there was not enough room to pile up all the overburden. By April, less than a year after coaling had started, RJB admitted that it had already extracted 100,000 tonnes from the site, although the permission granted on appeal was for only 250,000 over five years. RJB has also warned that it is seriously considering opencasting an area twice the size of the existing site, across the road from it, although the initial application stated that it was not viable. If the site is agreed it will be operational in my constituency for 30 years, which would be catastrophic.
R and A Young's original application and permission at Cocken Lodge, Leamside, was to extract 36,000 tonnes. It produced 90,000. The site grew and grew; permission was given for the extraction of a further 46,700 tonnes, but 60,000 were actually taken out. A further extension was granted to extract 324,000 tonnes, and then another 65,000. R and A Young later returned with another application, this time to opencast a further 670,000 tonnes. After appeals and High Court action, the site is now being mined by R J Budge, which is exactly what it wanted.
Opencasters cannot be trusted: that is the lesson that we must learn from today's debate. At this moment, there is a threat of another application at Park Hill and Old

325
Quarrington in my constituency. The strength of local opposition is enormous. At a public meeting about a month ago, hundreds of people expressed their determination that the application should be refused. The proposed work would constitute an unjustifiable intrusion into open and highly visible countryside; it would be a major cause of pollution, and would seriously damage amenities that local people have a right to expect.
There are 260 houses within 250 m of the proposed site. It is incredible that the firm should want to apply for a site so close to those houses. The applicants themselves accept that there would be an adverse impact on nearby residents, but they are going ahead with the application. Given the sheer numbers of residents affected, the pollution caused by dust, diesel, noise and traffic and the inevitable severe visual intrusion, allowing the application would constitute a huge departure from the county structure plan.
I am sure that the application will eventually go to appeal, but what will happen then? In a recent parliamentary answer, the Minister acknowledged that nationally, since 1985, a staggering 40 per cent. of all opencast sites which had been run on appeal against the wishes of the community had been in County Durham. The north-east bore an amazing 57 per cent. of all such planning consents approved on appeal. That is an appalling statistic, not just for the people of Durham but for those in the north-east generally.
The hon. Member for Newark constantly claimed that the industry brought many jobs into the area, but that claim is not substantiated. I am not aware that more than one job has been created by RJB on the most recently approved working site in my constituency for a so-called local—that is, someone living within 10 miles of the site.
On 15 November 1991 The Journal, a local newspaper, carried the headline, "Appeals inspectors 'swayed by misleading employment claims'—Opencast bosses fail to deliver promised work". It was reported that
"hundreds of jobs promised at controversial opencast coal sites have not been delivered",
including Stobswood where 500 jobs had been promised and 76 people were employed, Plenmeller where 120 jobs had been promised and 26 people employed, and Chester House where 160 jobs had been promised and 101 people employed. A British Coal official admitted that job predictions had not been met, but attributed that to technological advances. As I said, one cannot trust the opencasters. Moreover, potential and existing jobs are threatened by the new ugly opencast sites which have developed, particularly in my constituency.
In an amazing and shocking confession, the Government have acknowledged that they have blighted Durham with unwanted opencast sites; they have also been forced to accept the growing body of evidence of health risks associated with such sites. Those facts alone must force a rethink of the Government's disgraceful attitude to opencast sites, not just in my constituency but throughout the country.
12.9 pm
Mr. Spencer Batiste: I, too, congratulate you on your honour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which has brought much pleasure to all of us in west Yorkshire. It is also
326
appropriate that you should be in the Chair for this debate as over many years you have contributed so significantly to our debates in the House on mining, especially in relation to opencasting. Having said all that, I am bound to honour your admonition to be brief, so I shall not repeat things that I have said on previous occasions.
It is clear that there are some circumstances in which opencasting is acceptable and sensible, and others in which it is not. In my constituency, we have clear examples of both those positions. In the south of my constituency at St. Aidans, there is a huge site which was derelict, an eyesore and dangerous. Opencasting was the only practical way of solving that problem and of creating good countryside and a good environment for local people. It produced a great deal of community gain in terms of cash, as well as the long-term benefit that will come to the environment. In such a situation, opencasting makes sense.
Further north in my constituency, in the sensitive green belt area between the town of Garforth and the conurbation of Leeds, one finds a situation in which opencasting cannot make any sense. At Austhorpe, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), and at Garforth, communities are capable of attracting high-quality inward investment, both in commerce and in industry. There are established communities and a crucially sensitive area of environmental green belt. The problem that we face in such a region is that individual applications for opencasting are made and each case is considered on its own merits without any real strategic overview of what is right for the region.
My hon. Friend the Minister will rightly point out that mineral planning guidance No. 3 states that there should be local minerals plans which highlight where opencasting is appropriate and where it is not. Around the country, a number of local minerals plans make precisely that sort of judgment. That does not help us in Leeds, however, where no local minerals plan is in place and where the process of obtaining such a plan is inevitably some years away as the whole exercise is bound up with the unitary development plan inquiry, which will take years.
In that region, we faced an application from one company, H J Banks, for a site on the line of the A1-M1 link road. Inevitably, there will be sterilisation, so the company has made a very short-term application. Against the wishes of the local communities and of the Department of Transport, which feared that the site would delay the building of the road, the company received planning permission on a one-off basis. The moment it has that application and is into production, however, it comes forward with another application for another site nearby which will enable it to continue its mining even though that site has nothing to do with the line of the road or sterilisation and is on green fields. A further three, four or potentially five applications are known to be already on the table or in the pipeline for consideration. The problem that we face when we come to a planning inquiry is that each of those applications is considered in isolation and we do not have the protection of a local minerals plan.
MPG3 stresses the importance of the concept of sustainable development. The real core problem for constituencies such as mine is that it is unclear what sustainable development actually means. In Garforth, it must mean the attraction of modern high-quality investment which is coming on the back of the excellent

327
communications and the skilled work force. In that region, unemployment is not high. The region is expanding and attractive and many high-quality companies are seriously considering locating there. If sustainable development means anything, it must mean that, for that region, we should promote a planning environment which attracts and is helpful to that programme. We should not put in opencasting which, whatever safeguards are put in place, will produce some measure of dust. One company which has built a £20 million factory in my constituency says that opencasting causes problems for the purity of its product.
The real core of the problem that a constituency such as mine faces is that if one does not have a unitary development plan there is no opportunity for a strategic overview to be taken of what is right for that region.
Mr. John Gunnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Batiste: Perhaps I may finish this point; then of course I shall way to the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency suffers problems not dissimilar to those in my own.
Between Garforth and the Leeds conurbation, a number of opencast applications are coming forward which clearly do not fit into the pattern of development of that region. It must be right for a strategic overview to be taken. Such an approach cannot be taken within the time frame of these planning applications because the local minerals plan inquiry is caught up in the unitary development plan. It must therefore be right for the Minister and the Department to call the applications in and inject a strategic overview into the structure.
Mr. Gunnell: Because the hon. Gentleman represents a marginal seat, he was able to get the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit his opencast site. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the cumulative effects of application after application in the same region. Was his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking note of what he had to say about that, and would the Secretary of State be prepared to see the cumulative effect of sites in nearby constituencies which are not marginal and therefore not of such interest to him in the next election?
Mr. Batiste: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment came to my constituency to consider the situation and to discuss with local action groups and local representatives the issues that are involved. If I have been more successful in attracting Ministers to consider problems in my constituency than the hon. Gentleman has, that is perhaps just a fact of life, but—I say this without making party political mischief between us—the issue that the hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) faces in his constituency and that which I face in Elmet are not dissimilar. Both of us are exposed to a position in which there is no local minerals plan in place, a number of opencast applications are either on the table or in the pipeline, and some opencast mining is already under way.
What I am saying to my hon. Friend the Minister is specific not just to my constituency, but to the hon. Gentleman's as well; exactly the same issues would apply. When the Secretary of State was in my constituency, I specifically made the point that this issue affected the whole of the green belt around the south of Leeds, where sensitive green belt regions have been designed to maintain the separation of different communities, where
328
communities are able to attract good quality investment, and where opencasting is not suitable in terms of the sensible economic development of those regions.
I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, within the context of MPG3 and with all sensible economic planning criteria, in regions such as ours, a strategic judgment must be made as to whether applications should be granted. They should be based on a strategic overview of what is right for that region, rather than put forward one by one, whereby individual companies chip away at a local authority and its unwillingness to spend large sums of money fighting cases through inquiries.
In the situations that I have described, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear that, for that particular region, he will call in applications so that a strategic overview can be injected by the Government.
12.19 pm
Mr. William O'Brien: I should like to address local issues which could involve your part of Wakefield, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well as my constituency and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright). We have the same problems in relation to opencast mining. The problems relate not only to mining on derelict sites, which have been mentioned, but to planning applications. For instance, an inquiry is imminent on the Sharlston opencast site.
When we discussed mineral plans and extraction in Committee on the Environment Bill, where the Minister led for the Government, I spoke of problems to which I should like to refer again today to try to impress on the Minister the importance, when considering applications for opencast mining, of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) about the environment, health, noise and dust pollution as well as the nuisance of lights. The Minister must attend to those matters in relation to applications and appeals.
The Sharlston application is from a Mr. Banks and would involve opencast mining in a green belt area. I invite the Minister to view that rural area because it would be a crime to blight it with opencast mining, and the people responsible for the applications should be treated as criminals. It seems that the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) would defend such developments. Houses and communities are situated less than 200 m from the proposed site; if that is the kind of development that the hon. Gentleman thinks should go ahead in that environment, I have little sympathy for his constituents.
Mr. Alexander: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Brien: I am reluctant to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but as I have mentioned him I will certainly give way.
Mr. Alexander: Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman by giving him the positive assurance that that was not what I said. I argued that surface-mined coal should not be rubbish and that in considering planning applications the Minister should be extremely sensitive about the very implications that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman did not say that in his speech, but I accept his points.

329
I impress upon the Minister that it is a question not just of planning applications but of the problems which develop from them. In the Oulton area of my constituency there was opencast mining in the past. Because coal can now be mined at a greater depth, there is an application to carry out new opencast mining on that Oulton site. That is also a crime against the community. The Minister must take opencast mining seriously.
In Committee on the Environment Bill I said that we do not want rape of the countryside in Sharlston. People in that area are totally against the application. They take the view that the closure of the deep pit at Sharlston followed by an application for opencast mining creates problems and is an added insult to the people who lost their jobs in that area. The Minister must consider a number of issues.
I should like to develop other matters, but as a large number of hon. Members want to enter the debate I shall be brief. I ask the Minister to consider the Sharlston application because it could be used as a barometer, as an example of refusing planning applications for coal that is no longer needed. The problems for the environment from such a development can be envisaged. I invite the Minister to come to Sharlston, look at the site and let me have his observations about what he thinks is right or wrong about an application to develop opencast mining there.
12.24 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I also shall be brief. Opencast mining is clearly a controversial activity, but there is no reason, when debating it, for logic and truth to go out of the window. I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), who is no longer in her place, said that deep mining was an environmentally friendly way to extract coal while opencast mining was an environmentally damaging way to do it. That is patently absolute nonsense.
Ms Joan Ruddock: I have a duty to defend my hon. Friend, who is not here at the moment. She did not say what the hon. Gentleman attributes to her. She asked how the total costs of opencast mining could be evaluated, taking into account social and environmental costs. I do not remember her making any comparison with deep-mined coal.
Mr. Atkinson: We have to take the logic of the hon. Lady's remarks to their conclusion. If she takes into account the environmental costs of one form of mining, opencast mining, I assume that she must take into account the costs of deep mining. It is manifest nonsense to say that deep mining is environmentally friendly, as some hon. Members have hinted. Anybody who was brought up in the north-east of England, as I was, and who saw the smouldering pit heaps and the legacy of disease and injury that were caused by deep mining would not say that. We can argue that opencast mining has considerable advantages and that, when the work is finished, the land is generally restored to an extremely high standard. The risk of injuries, accidents and dangers to health of the people in the opencast industry is smaller than it is to those who work in deep mines.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) said that opencast coal was not necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander)
330
made some good points about that. It is manifest rubbish to say that such coal is not necessary. Opencast coal is needed to add to the coal from deep mines to make the deep mines viable. If the hon. Member for Sunderland, North wants to shut Blenkinsopp colliery in my constituency or Ellington colliery in Northumberland his proposal is the way to do it.
Mr. Etherington: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of talking rubbish. That is fine, because he is an expert on the subject. I do not mind such comments from him because they are obviously authoritative. If land is as well restored after opencasting as he says—he has many more farmers in his constituency than I have in mine—why does the National Farmers Union not agree with him?
Mr. Atkinson: I can say from first-hand experience that the land in my constituency that has been opencast and restored is in some cases better than it was originally.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Farmers will vote Labour next time.
Mr. Atkinson: Chance would be a fine thing. I do not think so.
Plenmellor, which is being used for opencast mining, was mined in the past. The land was potholed, had shafts and was dangerous. It will be restored to open moorland. We need opencast coal. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North spoke about sulphur. I suspect that she is wrong; I think that opencast coal has less sulphur than deep-mined coal. The advantage of opencast coal is that it can be mined completely clean and its calorific value can be determined exactly. Power stations do not blend coal themselves, but buy ready blended coal, so if it was not available here they would buy it from abroad.
It should be borne in mind that, for about every 100 tonnes of material that is mined underground, only 60 tonnes is coal. On average, there is 40 tonnes of spoil, which has to be tipped in the countryside.
I do not see how, if the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) took a walk down the Durham beaches, where colliery waste has been thrown for years, he could argue that properly controlled opencast mining is as environmentally damaging as existing deep mines.
Through MPG3, the Government have done a great deal to tidy up and strengthen the planning laws relating to opencast mining. For a start, they have removed the qualification of national interest, which was a great step forward. Before that, opposition to opencast applications could easily be overridden because of so-called national interest and objections to importing coal. The Government are putting in strict controls so that opencast coal mining happens only in areas where it is suitable or where it improves derelict land. That point has not been mentioned either.
The land surrounding opencast workings on the site of the old Orgreave colliery will be restored to a much better standard at no cost to the public purse. If the site had not been opencasted, the work would have cost the taxpayer £10 million or £15 million. There are environmental benefits of properly controlled opencast mining.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) since there is not a mineral development plan in his area. He should have one. Most of the country is covered by such plans. Indeed, most county councils or local planning authorities consider

331
whether opencasting is possible and where it can be carried out to benefit the mining industry without causing untold environmental damage that affects nearby residents. I congratulate the Government on their stance and on their new rules and regulations in MPG3.
12.31 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is very interesting to listen to some Tories complain about opencasting in their areas and about the fact that they are likely to get more opencast applications. With odd exceptions, most of them were there in 1992, shutting the 31 pits with the President of the Board of Trade—who is now, so I am told, Deputy Prime Minister. Most of them went into the Lobby to shut the 31 pits despite the fact that almost every Opposition Member who spoke on the issue said that it would result in more opencast applications in every coalfield in Britain. Now they are crying and whining and whingeing because what has happened is exactly what we forecast.
It is a scandal that the President of the Board of Trade is being promoted when he helped to shut the 31 pits and took part in that—I shall use my words carefully—very smelly deal with R J Budge. There is no doubt that when the President of the Board of Trade knocked that £100 million off R J Budge's contract, he knew that Mr. Budge would make a load of money out of opencasting. Every one of us who work and live in those areas know that an opencast application is a licence to print money. That is the reason for MPG3. This Tory Government wanted to assist their friends, many of whom put money into the Tory party, including Mr. Budge. It is a classic example of the Tory party liaising with others to line their own pockets in return for ensuring the closure of deep-mine pits.
It is an affront that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) was on about rubbish. The hon. Gentleman went on to tell us—I think that this is what he implied—that he wanted to opencast Ellington colliery. It is under the sea. I do not know whether they have some new equipment that I have not heard about.
Mr. Atkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Skinner: No. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that he wanted opencast instead of deep mines and he referred to Ellington colliery. I think that I can rest my case.
Mr. Atkinson rose—
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has had his chance. Sit down. I know that he voted for Major. Now he has his problems he should not land them on us.
We want to get back to the main question: the blight of the coalfield areas. We know only too well that if any opencast applications were made near Chequers, they would be turned down. The truth is that, with rare exceptions, most opencast applications are made in areas from which spring—in the main—Labour Members of Parliament, including the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. He knows about the subject as much as anybody else.
The Government do not really care. They are not bothered about the outcome. That is why there has been a host of applications recently—to line Mr. Budge's
332
pocket so that he can hand over some more money to the Tory party. That is all part of the scene. That is why we have to get back to what can be done.
I am not one of those people who say that, when I worked in a colliery, there were no environmental hazards. Of course there were, but they are now developing deep mines such as those at Selby and Asfordby which are not like the old-fashioned pits in Durham, Derbyshire and Lancashire. Although they are not environmental hazard free, they are very different from those that we knew and worked in.
In the run-up to the general election, knowing that the Tory Government are not going to do anything to help us, we have to impress on our Labour Front-Bench team the kind of policies that we need for the future. First, we have to tackle this opencast business and get back to what we used to have. I remember a policy of no more green-field sites. We also used to have a policy which was in line with the Flowers commission—allowing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, opencast mines only to tick over. That meant that they hardly mined anything at all.
In Government, Labour party energy policy should be to take the remaining pits back into public ownership and then control opencasting. Mr. Budge and his friends would no longer exist. That is the only way. We can play around with MPG3 as long as we like, but we have do something more dramatic.
I will finish on this point because many hon. Members want to speak: there has been an aura around Mr. Budge and Arkwright in my constituency. Everybody is saying that this wonderful new authority is shifting a village from one side of the street to the other, that it is all benevolent and that it wants to do it for the good of the community. I have to tell the House that it is the biggest con trick of all time.
R J Budge closed Arkwright colliery and the methane came pothering out into the village and nearly blew it up. The villagers banded together, with my help and that of others, to take British Coal on. They took it to court, issued writs, and were on the verge of making money out of British Coal when what did it do? It said: "We've got a wonderful idea. We'll opencast all of Arkwright, we'll shift your village and you'll all get a house apiece." It saved itself all that wonderful compensation.
The whole thing was a con trick from beginning to end. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North for giving me an opportunity to put that on the record. Those Arkwright people are really being shifted against their will. They had no option because they were frightened to death of the methane exuding from the old colliery. Now that we have had this debate, it is very important for our Front-Bench team to understand that we need dramatic answers. Pottering about with MPG3 and other such matters is important and I do not disregard it, but we have to take back control to ensure that we can be masters in our own house.
12.38 pm
Mr. Paddy Tipping: I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to the strong opinions of people who represent coalfield communities because there is no doubt that, over recent years, they have had a tough time. Coalfield communities aspire to a better future and that is what this debate is all about.

333
In principle, I am not against opencasting, with one big proviso: it has to lift the landscape, enhance the environment and clear up areas of contamination and dereliction. There are some good opencast schemes. I draw the Minister's attention to the Moorgreen site in Nottinghamshire—the site of a derelict colliery which has been opencasted and will be replanted forming part of the new Greenwood forest giving people access to a better future; the recreation of Sherwood forest. Opencasters are not interested in such sites because they are small and difficult. They want the big, new green-field sites.
One can contrast Moorgreen and Robinettes just to the south. Robinettes is a mature landscape—the landscape of Lawrence. It is the area where Lawrence was born, where he roamed and where, I suspect, he did other things as well. The Erewash canal runs through it and the village of Cossall lies within it. It is an important site, yet British Coal tried to destroy it. I am pleased that the local campaign group succeeded and that the county council turned down the plan.
I know that RJB (Mining) will come back with another application. The company will be more sophisticated in that it will change the name in the application. Instead of calling the site Robinettes, the company will call it Shortwood Farm, but it is the same application. The company will do that because it believes that it can make money not out of a small derelict site, but out of a big green-field site.
I point out to the Minister that the average cost of opencasting is 80p per gigajoule—that is what the opencaster is aiming at. I hope that the Minister realises what is happening now in the deep-mining industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the new pits. Coal is being produced at Selby at £1 a gigajoule, and at Asfordby and Welbeck the figure is £1.20. As a result of the restructuring and because many of the overheads have gone, costs are coming down. I tell the Minister straight that, within two to three years, the cost of deep-mined coal will be lower than the cost of opencast.
The real costs of opencast are far greater than the figures suggest. Opencasting destroys landscapes, it destroys the environment and it puts people's health at risk. We need, as we have said before, a more sophisticated way in which to establish the real costs of development. The real cost of opencasting is that it ravages the community. I am no apologist for the deep mining industry. It is bad, tough and rough, but it is getting better.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The problem is not just what happens when there is opencasting, but the threat of planning applications for opencasting which hang over the community for years.
Mr. Tipping: Opencasting blights the area before and afterwards. We must look for a real energy policy—an energy policy with the deep coal industry as its cornerstone. Unless we have such a policy, I despair about the future. The cost of a new deep coal face is about £30 million. It is clear that, in 1998 and beyond, the new private owners will go for opencasting rather than capital investment. We must get a grip of the situation and give people a new and better future. They have had a tough time and they deserve better.
12.42 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I want to deal with the two arguments put by the hon. Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and for Newark (Mr. Alexander). They argued that opencast mining was advantageous to the country and to the local community provided that high-quality restoration followed. I dispute that argument.
The Flowers report, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) referred, was produced in 1981. It spoke in terms of opencast being taken to tick-over level; opencast coal was not required in the amount that the hon. Member for Hexham suggested was required for technical reasons. The amount required for technical reasons is extremely small. If the hon. Gentleman had read the 1993 report produced by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, he would have seen that the evidence given to the Committee by the Coalfield Communities Campaign suggested that the amount required for technical reasons could be cut to less than 10 million tonnes. That suggestion was made when 60 million tonnes of coal was deep mined. The Minister will be aware that the Select Committee recommended that opencast mining production be cut to 10 million tonnes.
In 1994, opencast coal production had reached 16 million tonnes and the total amount of coal produced in the United Kingdom was 48 million tonnes. In other words, the proportion of opencast coal has increased to one third of the total produced in the United Kingdom.
On restoration, I invite the Minister to visit the Redbrook site in my constituency. It was used for opencast at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s. It was a long-term project. The site has been restored, but the land is blighted. It is now just pasture land. There is no arable farming, the woods have not been returned and the streams do not meander as they used to do. It takes up to 100 years after an opencast mine has ceased operation for land to return to the state that it was in before opencasting started.
Will the Minister confirm that, in a letter sent from his Department to RJB (Mining) just after privatisation, 110 opencast sites were identified in an area stretching from Derbyshire to the north-east? Will he confirm that figure? Will R J Budge be able to put in planning applications for sites that have been turned down before privatisation? If so, we in the mining communities can expect many more sites to be proposed for opencast mining.
I suggest to the Minister that there is now a need for insurance and bonding because some schemes may leave great holes with which the local authority will have to deal. R J Budge has already created such a problem at the Orgreave site, which was the subject of a debate in the House on 16 May. Several issues should be considered. I ask the Minister to ensure that he reviews opencast mining and to ensure that it is cut to tick-over level, as suggested in the Flowers report.
2.46 pm
Ms Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on obtaining this debate, which has been extremely interesting and important. No Labour Member underestimates the nation's need for energy or the inevitability of hard decisions, given that no conventional energy source is unpolluting.

335
Opencast mining, however, should be a last resort and not a first resort. The industry should be recognised for what it is—noisy, dirty and destructive—and its economic worth, in terms of jobs and national need, should be judged accordingly. It should be an industry that is developed only when it can clearly serve the community's interests and that means the interests of the whole community.
Instead, opencast has been developed as a further expression of the Government's privatisation programme and of their hatred of the National Union of Mineworkers. Of course there are circumstances in which opencast can be tolerated. In some areas, it has a long history and the local community may have found an accommodation. In other areas land with a legacy of dereliction may be appropriately mined as opencast as a prelude to clear-up and restoration. In too many areas, however, as this debate has shown, the effects of opencast on the local community have been appalling.
Much opencast activity could have been avoided. In most cases, the same quantity and type of coal could have been mined from deep mines. When the Tories came to office in 1979, total coal output was 137 million tonnes, of which only 14.5 million tonnes—just 10 per cent.—was from opencast. Today, the proportion from opencast is almost one third, albeit that total coal output is down to 48 million tonnes.
Deep-mined coal production has been massively reduced by direct Government intervention and they have set in train a parallel strategy to promote an increase in coal from opencast mining. They gave guidance to local planning authorities in which they made it clear that
"it would be against the national interest to refuse permission for coal extraction"
by opencast mining. That judgment was reinforced by a series of further measures that, rather than being a response to the changing needs of modern communities, led to opportunities for making private profit by a few of the Tory party's friends.
Opencast mining is one of the most environmentally destructive activities in the United Kingdom today. It has immediate effects on the surrounding neighbourhoods and long-term effects on the landscape. It is Labour's view that, in most circumstances, the damaging effects of opencast far outweigh the economic benefits, and nothing that has been said today will change our mind.
The immediate effects on communities have been graphically outlined by many of my hon. Friends, not least by my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). The nuisance of noise, blasting, excavation, vibration, dust and the intrusion of heavy lorries all blight local communities, let alone property values. The long-term effects are more difficult to evaluate. Opencast leads to the permanent loss of mature countryside, and although restoration can grass over an area, it cannot bring back the natural contours.
It would be wholly wrong to believe that such concerns are limited to the ranks of city-dwelling green groups, or even to members of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I was born and brought up in a south Wales valley. Yes, the miners were hard men, but they loved their countryside and knew every path and contour of the mountains. They loved nothing better than walking on the hillsides or digging their back gardens.
That is why opencast mining such as that found on the Selar Farm site near the village of Cwmgwrach in west Glamorgan is such an abomination. It splits the
336
community between those so desperate for work that they are prepared to make the compromise, and those desperate to defend the natural heritage. People should not have to make such choices.
Labour is committed to environmentally sustainable development. While recognising the need for jobs, Labour in government will operate a presumption against opencast mining, and permit it only where it would be to the benefit both of the local community and of the local environment. I hope that, in that aim, we might satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), because I believe that the green-field sites will eventually be excluded. Labour in government will reverse the process, although we shall do so within a comprehensive energy strategy that puts the needs of the nation, of local communities and of the environment into the same equation.
The Minister is the one who must answer questions today. Can he explain how the revised guidance will make any difference? What does he say about the Sharlston application described by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien)? Will the provisions in the Environment Bill, inadequate though they are, apply to opencast and the issue of polluting mine water? What is his answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) about Blind Wells?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) asked, will the Minister put on record his response to the idea of bonding? Surely if our holidays can be safeguarded we should be able to safeguard our communities. Surely we cannot allow R J Budge to continue to do what he did in Sheffield, where he put restoration into the hands of a separate company and then allowed that company to go bankrupt.
The Minister must answer those questions today, and we must learn to protect our environment and our communities from the destructive activity of opencast.
12.52 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I have had more invitations than a tourist bureau to tour the country, and I would certainly be interested to look at some of the sites. Indeed, I have already agreed to visit some areas.
We had one small interlude with a bit of dramatics—pantomime, perhaps—from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who reminds me of the three ugly sisters in one go. In general, though, there was a balanced debate in some areas with some Members, and there was acceptance on both sides—[Interruption] I must tell the hon. Member for Bolsover that his teeth are still slipping. Positive points were made on both sides and there was recognition, but not by all hon. Members, that there has to be a balance.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on initiating the debate and on allowing various Members to put various points. I shall read the report of the debate tomorrow, because I shall not be able to answer all the questions now. Indeed, I shall be able to do no more than touch on some of them.
I understand the environmental concerns that were raised clearly and emphatically by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Letters have come in too. The Government have understood those concerns and taken on board their importance. They have influenced the thinking

337
behind the new guidance published last July, which emphasises that development should be allowed only when it can be carried out in an environmentally acceptable way, or where there are overriding benefits, but it is not and should not be the intention to stop all opencast mining. That point has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) say that opencast can be done satisfactorily from an environmental point of view. The mess can be cleaned up and we can end up with an acceptable, if not environmentally improved, area afterwards. The aim of the guidance is to ensure that the extraction of coal can take place in accordance with the full and proper protection of the environment and within the principles of sustainable development.
The new guidance was not produced rashly. It was drawn up after extensive consultation with the industry, planners, environmental groups and local communities, and it responds to many of the concerns that were expressed. I recognise that some of what has been said, especially by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), was about areas that were mined before the publication of the new guidelines, and I hope that they will at least help in such cases in future.
The guidelines emphasise a development plan led approach, with tests of environmental acceptability for individual projects. We have taken a tougher approach to the assessment of factors such as noise, dust and visual impact, and there is an annex that addresses each one in turn. We are committed to monitoring the implementation of the guidance through the research programme.
We also recognise the conflicting views on the characteristics of the coal, and intend to undertake research, starting early next year, to examine whether opencast coal has advantageous or disadvantageous characteristics. Some of the arguments have, therefore, already been taken on board.
The development plan led approach ensures that decisions on land availability and use are debated fully and openly at local level. That must offer the greatest certainty for industry about where coal extraction is likely to be allowed. Similarly, communities where coal reserves exist will have a clearer idea about where such activities are likely to take place, and over what period. That in part answers some of the questions that have been asked.
The new approach, which responded to many of the concerns raised, has been generally well received. I understand that the industry is somewhat concerned, and is conscious of the restrictions, but I recognise that there are difficulties on the other side, too. We intend to enforce the restrictions.
338
Green belt policy has been mentioned. It is true that there is no bar on making planning applications for development in the green belt. Nor do we intend to introduce a presumption against mineral working in green belts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The simple fact is that minerals can be worked only where they are found, and such workings represent a temporary use of the land. Their extraction need not therefore be incompatible with green belt objectives, but applications for mineral working in green belts should be examined carefully, and development should be allowed only where the highest standards of operation and restoration can be achieved.
Nevertheless, MPG3 does not encourage applications for green-field sites but says that priority should be given to proposals involving the clearance of dereliction. If operators wish to work sensitive green-field sites, they will need to demonstrate that real benefits will accrue from their proposals.
Ms Ruddock rose—
Sir Paul Beresford: I shall not give way because I have only one and a half minutes left, and I want to touch on a few more questions.
There are some good examples, one of which was cited by the hon. Member for Sherwood. Any hon. Member who happens to know the Rother valley country park, near Sheffield, will know that it represents another example of considerable success.
The importance of development plans has been touched on. That is a key element in meeting the Government's objectives and in ensuring that development and growth are sustainable. In emphasising a planning-led approach, the Government were responding to the concerns expressed that the 1988 guidance was too centrally driven. We believe that a plan-led approach to the supply of land for coal and colliery spoil disposal will provide more certainty for the industry and for the communities in areas where coal reserves exist.
The plans should set out criteria against which individual proposals will be assessed. The guidance makes clear that the criteria should include consideration of employment and other economics effects of the proposals, any environmental improvements or other material planning benefits likely to result, the effect on landscape and local amenity, the effect on the local environment of transporting coal off the site, the cumulative effects of the proposals on an area, the avoidance of sterilisation of mineral resources and the avoidance of unplanned piecemeal working of deposits, which was a matter about which my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) complained. The Secretary of State has visited my hon. Friend's constituency, and I intend to do so as well. I may not have the stature of my right hon. Friend, but I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome me nevertheless.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

Military Training (Dartmoor)
1 pm
Mr. Anthony Steen: I am most grateful for an opportunity to discuss Dartmoor national park, a subject close to my heart and close to your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I raised the subject of Dartmoor in an Adjournment debate in February 1988. I have great a love for Dartmoor. I am a life member of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, and I pay tribute to the association's patron, Lady Sylvia Sayer, who has done more for Dartmoor and the environment than nearly any other person. I also want to recognise the work of my former research assistant Kate Ashbrook. She worked with me on the Dartmoor Commoners Bill, and is now chairman of the Ramblers Association and general secretary of the Open Spaces Society.
My request for a further debate has been prompted by the appalling accident on 18 June this year, when three young children were seriously injured near Great Mis Tor—some 1,700 ft up on the moor and about a mile north of Princetown—when a mortar bomb exploded.
The Worrall family was out enjoying an afternoon in the Dartmoor national park. They are letterbox enthusiasts, as so many of my constituents are. I myself am a letterbox enthusiast. In letterboxing, walkers hide boxes on the moor for fellow wanderers to discover. There are books about letterboxing which show where letterboxes may be placed. In the old days, there were five letterboxes in the most remote parts of the moor.
The idea was that, when one got to a remote letterbox, one left a postcard there. The next person who came to the letterbox would stamp the postcard and take the card back to a proper post box at the edge of the moor. Sometimes, one would not get a card for three to six months, such was the inaccessibility of the letterboxes.
There used to be five small post boxes in inaccessible parts of the moor. Today, there are some 3,000 letterboxes. It has become a huge sport, in which competition is fierce and enthusiasts are determined. Children and adults alike engage in a harmless but amusing pursuit, but it means that people rummage in nooks and crannies and upturn rocks and boulders to find their prize. It is an innocent pastime that occupies a good deal of leisure interest throughout the national park. Many thousands of people are now members of a society for letterboxing enthusiasts.
Unfortunately, in her enthusiasm to try to find a letterbox near Great Mis Tor, Jenny Worrall, aged eight, touched an unexploded mortar bomb and was badly injured. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Jenny—despite undergoing two operations to remove shrapnel, and having been in intensive care for some time—is now in a general ward in Plymouth, and is making great progress. Her brothers Gary, aged 10, and Ricky, aged 9, have each made a good recovery from their shrapnel wounds.
Apparently, five people have been killed on Dartmoor by mortar shells since 1951, and two civilian injuries have been caused by military activity on the moor as well. The Dartmoor national park was created in 1951 as one of 10 national parks formed principally to provide urban dwellers with open spaces in which to roam, explore and
340
escape from it all. The parks were designed to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area, and promote its enjoyment by the public.
The parks are some of the most guarded areas in Britain, and are protected from intrusion by development, noise or nuisance. The question must be asked—how can the military's use of such a national park for live firing with ammunition be consistent and compatible with the purposes for which the park was established?
There are three principal ranges in the Dartmoor national park—Okehampton, Merrivale and Willsworthy. I remember visiting the Willsworthy range with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, where we saw what was being done there. It is true that the number of days on which live firing takes place is reducing. The data that I have received for 1994 are particularly interesting. While the permitted number of days for firing at Okehampton was 112, the range was actually used on only 50 days. On Merrivale range, the permitted use was 173 days, but only 73 days were used. On Willsworthy, 232 days were permitted, but only 108 were used.
It is clear that the actual use of the ranges is about 50 per cent. less. than the permitted use. If that is a general picture, and if similar spare capacity exists across the Ministry of Defence's estates, there must be scope for priority release of training areas on Dartmoor. Surely we must review the need for so many training sites and the cost of those sites if each is under-used to that degree.
In 1993, the Public Accounts Committee highlighted the shortcomings in the management of available Army training land. There was widespread dismay in 1991 when the licence periods for Okehampton and Merrivale were renewed by the Duchy of Cornwall for 21 years, as opposed to the usual seven years. It was as if the Duchy felt that it had no interest in the fact that the national park should be protected from a further extension of military use.
Agricultural set-aside could provide alternative opportunities and locations for military live firing. What is the point of laying off more and more agricultural land from agricultural use if that land is not used for something beneficial? Why should we pound Dartmoor with more and more live fire? Why should there be military training in the wildest and most beautiful countryside in the nation? Why are 13,340 hectares-7 per cent. of the total area of the Dartmoor national park—designated for military use and live firing?
As more people explore the moor, the more likely it is that there will be a recurrence of the tragic accident of 18 June. Dartmoor attracts 8 million visitors a year, and we know that 357,338 people visited the eight information centres in the national park between 1993 and 1994.
Some people believe that, as Dartmoor has been used for military training since 1870—some 80 years before the national park was set up—and that live firing also took place before the national park was established, live firing should take precedence. They believe that it is not relevant that the Dartmoor Preservation Association was formed 13 years after military training started in 1870, and has been opposing live firing ever since.
The conflict is not so much about military manoeuvres and dry training—proper uses of a national park—but firing live ammunition. The conflict between military requirements and public access and environmental considerations has been a matter of continuous controversy. It was investigated in the Nugent report, and in the Sharp report, which noted:

341
"military training and a national park are discordant, incongruous and inconsistent".
It has also been considered in the Edwards report.
I recognise the need to defend the realm and to train our military. I greatly respect the work done in my constituency by the Britannia royal naval college at Dartmouth, HMS Cambridge at Wembury and the marines in Bickleigh. Their manoeuvres involve dry training, firing blanks and physical endurance tests. They do not involve firing live ammunition.
It is interesting to note that the cessation of the cold war seems to have increased the need for live firing in this country. The British Army used to train extensively in Germany, as well as in the United Kingdom. Now that the troops are back from Germany, they are pounding around our national parks in increasing numbers.
Part of the Luneburg training area in northern Germany is a national park. The public outcry was so immense throughout Germany at a national park being used for live firing that the German Government were forced to find an alternative site for that type of training. Live firing no longer occurs on the Luneburg training area.
The House may be interested to learn that no other European country permits live firing on any area within a national park. When the Minister replies, I hope that he will explain why Britain is the only country in the European Union that allows its national parks to be used for live firing.
While the national park authority pursues its principle towards the ultimate withdrawal of military use and reductions in the restrictions imposed upon public access, another accident is waiting to happen. That is inevitable, and the military know it. Perhaps the Dartmoor national park should be renamed the Dartmoor military park.
It is not good enough to say that there have not been many accidents. There are unexploded mortars on many parts of the moor, and more and more are being discharged every week, so it is inevitable that another accident is waiting to happen, especially when that national park provides open access to the public to enjoy the countryside.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that signs are posted to warn people not to pick up items, or they may be blown up. Dartmoor is a national park for the public's enjoyment, not a place of danger where people should guard against everything they do.
I call on the Government to review the necessity for live firing and military training in our national parks. They should carry out a full investigation into whether, as a result of the alternative land use policy that the Government have rightly pursued, new areas of land that were formerly used for agriculture could now be better used for live firing and military training. That is the only way in which another terrible accident can be avoided.
What is required of the British Government? They should follow the lead set by the German Government and find another site, unless live firing could be confined to a specific area of Dartmoor which would pose no danger to the public. Without that commitment, people will continue to stumble across unexploded ammunition, particularly if they are letterboxing and looking in nooks and crevices for the boxes.
342
Safety procedures could be made more rigorous, but I doubt whether they would solve the problem. Dartmoor should be used to the full, but the more it is used for hunting, hang-gliding, orienteering, or other leisure pursuits, the more likely it is that another accident will happen, however careful the military are.
I pay tribute to the meticulous way in which the military decide where and how they fire, but I fear that, when one is dealing with dangerous explosives, people will inevitably stumble across an unexploded bomb. Any accident is one too many.
I am not suggesting that more rules and regulations should be introduced, or that we should have more registers and more bureaucracy. I do not think that that will help. Better signs might be useful, but not more pieces of paper. That would be nothing but an administrative expense. What is required is to use land other than national parks for military firing, and there is other land available.
The tragic accident of 18 June need not have happened. I hope that the Minister will realise that one of the best jobs he could do, as long as he remains in his post, is to find alternative land, so that live firing—not the military—can be confined to certain areas.
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this matter.
1.15 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) on raising this important matter. I should like to begin by expressing my deep regret over the unfortunate accident that occurred during the afternoon of Sunday 18 June on the Dartmoor training area. I obviously wish Jenny and Gary Worral a full and speedy recovery, and I am glad to hear that they are making good progress.
As I told my hon. Friend last night, I have trained as a soldier so much on Dartmoor that I am confident that I could find my way from A to B without a map. The unfortunate incident occurred close to Great Mis Tor, part of the moor with which I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are familiar.
It appears that, during a visit to the national park, a family from Ashburton had been engaged, as my hon. Friend said, in the pursuit of letterboxing. While the family had paused for a rest, one of the children apparently picked up a metal object, which subsequently exploded, causing serious stomach and spleen injuries to the girl, aged eight, and shrapnel injuries to one of the two boys who was with her. Our early investigations have revealed that the munition involved was a 2 in mortar round, which was manufactured in March 1942.
As my hon. Friend knows, a military board of inquiry has already been established to investigate the matter, and the full circumstances surrounding the case will not be clear until the board has concluded its investigations.
National parks have accommodated many uses since their creation. They are indeed living, working landscapes. My Department employs about 50 people at Dartmoor and contributes considerably to the local community. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to bear that in mind when weighing his remarks. I believe

343
that that should be taken into account when formulating policy for the national parks, and that we should recognise their entirely legitimate uses.
Of course, a balance rightly must be struck between those legitimate uses and the understandable wish of the public to enjoy the peace and tranquillity which those parks offer. Although military training may not conform to the general perception of quiet enjoyment, it is often forgotten that it is that very military presence which has helped to preserve and secure the exceptionally beautiful and varied landscape which attracts so many visitors to the national parks.
On the issue of military training generally, and the use of military parks in particular, my hon. Friend will know that the draw-down of forces from Germany and the introduction of new weapon systems are placing significant demands on our training areas. Some must be used more intensively, and others developed to provide new infrastructure. While use of training land will be maximised, we are of course conscious that this needs to be balanced against the interests of conservation.
It is an often forgotten fact that the Army has had a presence in the national parks since long before they were designated as such. At Otterburn, for example, the military training area was established in 1911, some 45 years before it was designated as a national park. As my hon. Friend rightly said, there has been a military presence on Dartmoor since the early 19th century, again many years before the national park was created.
The military presence in those areas has done a great deal to enhance and conserve the landscape and the natural environment. Salisbury plain is a superb example of an area where the long history of military training has helped to preserve one of the most important archaeological sites in Europe and one of the finest examples of chalk downland in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Steen: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Soames: If I my hon. Friend will allow me, I must press on.
My hon. Friend mentioned the need for safety in the national parks. It has, of course, long been the policy of my Department to provide the greatest possible degree of safe public access to the defence estate. With that in mind, the Department has reached agreements with the landowners and the Dartmoor national park authority to stop military training on Dartmoor every weekend throughout the year, and to permit unrestricted public access.
Mr. Steen: It is not the miliary use of Dartmoor—everyone understands and accepts that we must have a location in the south-west where military training can go on—but the live firing that concerns me.
Mr. Soames: If my hon. Friend will try to contain himself, I hope to come to that point.
As I have said, the Department has reached extensive agreements to ensure public access. I should like to make it quite plain to the House that we have no intention of altering our policy on public access. We shall continue to encourage it wherever it is consistent with essential operational, security and safety requirements, and with the interests of conservation and of our landlords and tenants.
344
On Dartmoor, the arrangements for managing military training and public access are monitored and guided by the Dartmoor steering group. That is a non-departmental public body which was established in 1978, following a recommendation in the report by Lady Sharpe on military use of the Dartmoor national park. The steering group is made up of representatives from my Department, the Dartmoor national park authority, Devon county council, English Nature, English Heritage, the Countryside Commission and the owner, the Duchy of Cornwall.
The group's principal aim is to reconcile the requirements of military training, conservation and public access on Dartmoor. At present, it meets annually under an independent chairman, Sir Anthony Barrowclough QC, who is appointed jointly by the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence. Sir Anthony has been extremely successful in enhancing public access and conservation, while at the same time advising on the balance between the military presence and the interests of the national park, the Duchy and, not least, the general public. We are not complacent. despite of his excellent work. As my hon. Friend said, Dartmoor training area has been used for military training for many hundreds of years, and it was used extensively for live firing by British and American forces in preparation for D-day.
The very regrettable incident which occurred recently highlights the fact that not only is there a danger as far as live firing areas on our ranges are concerned, but also some small risk remains in those parts of our training areas which were used as live firing areas in the past—for example, during the second world war. Buried munitions can and do work their way to the surface, and there is always a slight risk, even after clearance, that ordnance may appear on the surface. As my hon. Friend may know, when a blind is fired these days, the most extensive efforts are made to locate it.
At Dartmoor, my officials and local range staff do all they can to alert members of the public to the dangers, and there are a number of measures currently in place with which my hon. Friend is familiar. The live firing areas are clearly defined and marked, and there are warning boards on all main public access routes into them. Periodic sweeps of the training areas are also carried out in order to clear unexploded devices.
However, despite those efforts, there remains the possibility that some ordnance could rise to the surface and remain undetected, even after a full search has been made. That is the case not only on Dartmoor but also, regrettably, throughout the United Kingdom wherever there are likely to be munitions—some of which could have remained undisturbed, and possibly unstable, for 100 years or more.
I am therefore concerned that we do all that we possibly can to draw the potential risks of unexploded ordnance devices to the attention of as many visitors to our training areas as possible. In that respect, my noble Friend Lord Henley, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, has recently written to the chairmen of nine of the national parks to seek their help in warning members of the public who visit those areas of the dangers which may exist in those parts of the parks used as military training areas.
On the issue of military use of national parks more generally, I can say absolutely that the military training areas which are found in national parks provide essential facilities for military training which could not be dispensed with and could not be found elsewhere. Military

345
use of national parks accounts for only about 3 per cent. of their 3 million acres, and live firing amounts to about 2 per cent. of the total acreage.
We carry out live firing and dry training in six national parks: Dartmoor, Northumberland, the Pembrokeshire coast, the Peak District, Snowdonia and the Yorkshire dales. Like the public, the military use national parks for adventure training, orienteering and hill walking.
My hon. Friend asked me to address the question of live firing. It is important that he realises that we will continue to introduce simulation wherever possible. My hon. Friend may not be aware that a new tactical engagement simulation system has been an amazing success. It is extremely expensive, but a number of full sets of equipment have been ordered. The Chief of the General Staff and I watched it being used on Salisbury plain last week. It is truly remarkable, and I believe that my hon. Friend should be encouraged about its use in the future. However, I must emphasise that nothing can supplement or replace live firing.
Having said that, my hon. Friend will be interested to learn that national park designations—with all the constraints they bring for current and future military use—apply to some 30 per cent. of the Army's training estate, which, as he said, is extremely busy. Taking full note of its responsibilities as far as the use of national parks is concerned, my Department has issued a declaration of commitment to the national parks.
It is my firm intention that we will abide by that declaration and formally consult the various national park authorities and the Countryside Commission over any proposal to extend or significantly intensify military activity within a national park. In addition, my Department has signed similar understandings with English Nature and Scottish Natural Heritage, and we will shortly be doing so with the Countryside Council for Wales. We will also continue with the policy of releasing any land that becomes surplus to defence requirements.
My hon. Friend knows that conservation plays a very important part in our strategy for use and management of the land which we occupy within the national parks. My officials maintain regular close liaison with the national park authorities through the conservation groups that are established on military training areas.
Mr. David Jamieson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Soames: No.
I assure my hon. Friend that we fully understand his strong feelings about the matter, but our national parks are not the same as national parks abroad. National parks abroad are designated solely for the purpose of recreation. Our national parks have always been—it is one of their glories—living, working landscapes.
My hon. Friend knows Dartmoor very well, and I know the Yorkshire dales particularly well. The dales simply would not exist in their present form unless they had been farmed. It is a living, working landscape, and the military are very much a part of it. I know that my hon. Friend would want no less.
I take on board my hon. Friend's points, but I am afraid that I do not agree with his argument as to why we should end live firing. I believe that he is right to point out that there is a danger on Dartmoor of people picking up items which they should be very wary of handling. We will continue to do everything we can to draw the public's attention to those matters.
It is my wish that the public should have as much access as possible in order to enjoy the defence estate. While I believe that there is a great deal for them to enjoy, it is also my firm wish that they be safe—I know that that is my hon. Friend's primary concern also. Unfortunately, the only way that my Department can guarantee that absolutely is by prohibiting access, which is a move in the opposite direction to the path that we are determined to follow.
In light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the action we are taking to encourage safe public access and to educate the public about military training is the best way forward. While I regret the recent incident very much, I hope that people will continue to come and enjoy all that the defence estate has to offer. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing an extremely important debate at—bearing in mind the background against which it was raised—a very apposite moment.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend's concern for the safety of all who use the parks. I also beg the general public to pay the closest attention to the extensive safety markings and signs that exist in all the national parks where live firing takes place to prevent and enhance their own safety. I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter, and I hope that he will be reassured by what I said.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We now move to the next topic.

Disability Living Allowance
1.30 pm
Mr. Eric Clarke: First, I should make it clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) will be helping me in the debate. The Minister and I have agreed that he should share the time.
I am grateful for this Adjournment debate, which gives me the opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister and of the House the injustice to the parents and carers of severely handicapped children under five years of age, and perhaps to do something to rectify the anomaly that the mobility component of the disability living allowance is denied to those parents and carers.
I wrote to the Ministry and received a reply from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, Ian Magee, who kindly pointed out that, regardless of the compassionate case that I had presented to him, section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 states:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to the mobility component of a disability living allowance for any period in which he is over the age of 5".
His letter also pointed out that appeals to tribunals and adjudication officers are to no avail as they must adhere to that clause. I ask the Minister to alter section 73 of the legislation.
I should like to quote as an example the case of my constituent, Rebecca Kennedy, of 17 Attlee crescent. Mayfield, Dalkeith. Today is the 50th anniversary of the election of the Attlee Government, so I hope it is a good omen for the case. Rebecca is 19 months old. Her mother has given me a list of what is wrong with her and I shall read it out.
"Rebecca has got brain damage and cerebral palsy—she has both ataxic cerebral palsy and spastic cerebral palsy. She has epilepsy—myoclonic seizures and petit mal seizures. She is microcephalic, which means her head will not grow to the normal size. She has abnormal swallow, which means she cannot eat and requires suction. She is blind. She has only 1 per cent. vision in her right eye and her left eye does not work properly. Rebecca cannot roll, sit, stand, let alone walk. She cannot use any part of her body. All she can do is lie on her back."
I should add that she is a beautiful young child.
Transport is a problem. Her mother writes:
"To get a bus, I have to take a snug seat wheelchair, a tray for the suction machine, the suction machine itself, all her tubes, a bag carrying nappies, food plus her drugs. The seat of the wheelchair is very large and heavy. You cannot fold it down as it is hard backed for her spine. To fold the frame down you have to take the tray off and the frame is extremely heavy. There is no possible way I could use a bus, even with two adults helping."
She then challenges anyone to come along for a demonstration. The most important part is as follows:
"Rebecca requires 24-hour care. You cannot leave her for a second as she could choke to death on her own saliva. She takes lots of muscle spasms due to her cerebral palsy. In the future, she will be getting an operation which will mean a tube shall be coming out of her belly to feed her through."
That is heart rending and no one has challenged those facts or her condition.
The argument that children under five are not mobile and can be carried physically does not apply to Rebecca. There are many other children in similar predicaments.
Mr. Alfred Morris: The compelling case that my hon. Friend is making for a change in the rules can be of help to disabled people generally. It would be enormously helpful, as he says, to
348
disabled children, but others too could benefit. My hon. Friend has long shared my concern and that of other right hon. and hon. Members that many people who have Alzheimer's disease are excluded from applying for the allowance because of the very restrictive criteria used. Is he aware that the Alzheimer's Disease Society now estimates that as many as 17,000 people with the disease who are under the age of 65 are being excluded because of those very restrictive criteria?
Mr. Clarke: I have had correspondence with the Alzheimer's Disease Society and there are practical examples in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend knows, we have been trying to form an organisation to look after people in that anomalous position.
I am sure that Rebecca's predicament is repeated throughout the country. Her case should be heard on its merits and should not be written off because she is under five. Rebecca will never be independently mobile and the whole Kennedy family have rallied round to offer her mother and father financial and physical help. The local community of Mayfield has contributed towards the very expensive walker that is needed for a child such as Rebecca. A normal walker that helps children start walking is nowhere near as expensive. Rebecca's grandparents, uncles and the rest of her family have rallied round, as has the local community, and I am proud to represent them. The family have an old car and its upkeep and running costs are a severe burden on the domestic budget.
I understand that lifting the five-year policy will cost the Government money, but if children such as Rebecca were cared for not by their families but by the state, the cost to the country would escalate. I am in no way threatening the Minister. The Kennedys would never contemplate that option as their love and dedication are far too great, but keeping children such as Rebecca in an institution would be more costly than the sums of money that would accumulate if they received an allowance. The figure has been roughly estimated as £30 million. That is not a large amount when one takes into account the budget of the DSS.
I hope that the Minister will override the Treasury. I am aware that the dead hand of the Treasury locks on to every detail of Government spending and that, for some reason, it claws money back, usually not from the fat cats but from the people who most need it.
I ask the Minister to give carer families justice, and to make that justice effective. The Kennedys and others like them need help now. If we wait until Rebecca is five years old—she will not qualify for another three years—her family, who deserve better, will have to carry a heavy burden of increased costs. Of course communities are sympathetic to such cases—no one who knows about the disabilities of this little girl and the burden on her family could be otherwise—but sympathy is not enough. The Kennedys of this world who have dedicated their whole lives to the care of disabled children need help, guidance and financial backing.
My trade union background has taught me to be short, concise and to the point, and I intend to be so. I only wish that many other people in this place were the same. I urge the Minister to drop the five-year qualifying rule in section 73 and to allow those cases to be examined and then to qualify for the mobility component of the disability living allowance. That would give the people caring for such children a morale boost. Even more importantly, it would be a way of showing that the

349
community and the country believe that justice should be delivered to the people who dedicate their lives to the children like Rebecca whom they love so dearly.
1.40 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) for initiating this debate. I think that the House was impressed by the lucid and sincere way in which he invited us to discuss this case and other relevant matters.
The case raised by my hon. Friend is, as he knows, not unique. I have a number of similar problems in my constituency, as, I am sure, do other right hon. and hon. Members. Like my hon. Friend, I want to pay tribute to the dedication of parents such as those whom he has described—there are many of them—and to their commitment, which is simply colossal. To care for a child with multiple disabilities is hard enough for any parent. For those—I have met some of them—who are themselves disabled, it is doubly difficult. For those who cannot take employment because of the demands of their parental responsibilities, the willingness of the wider community to provide the necessary support is vital to their day-to-day lives.
I know that solutions do not come easily, but our minds are set on seeking to achieve genuine community care. That is why I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend pay tribute to his community. When a child of three or four cannot walk because of a disability, that causes quite enough stress for his or her parents. When moving the child requires more physical effort than a single adult can muster, the stress is clearly redoubled. Such parents know that mobility problems will be with their children for life—for the whole of their lives. So their inability to obtain mobility support is a further source of stress and strain in an already difficult situation.
The Prime Minister has signalled his recognition of the fact that children under the age of five can and should benefit from nursery education. Of course we welcome that. This is therefore surely a good opportunity to review the cut-off at five years of age for access to mobility support—that was the kernel of my hon. Friend's case.
I should be interested to hear from the Minister what new thinking the Government have done on this matter. I imagine that he will not dispute that it can become clear long before the age of five—as in the case mentioned by my hon. Friend—that a child will never be capable of independent mobility. Hence the needs of the family and others must be taken into account in any forthcoming review. I certainly hope that a review is under way.
I am sure that the Minister will not dispute, either, that the purpose of the mobility element of the disability living allowance is to promote independent mobility for those facing long-term disability, or that there can be clear benefits from providing such support at an early age. We have heard of the constant care required in some of these cases, and of the difficulties experienced when moving children with severe disabilities. The issue is the independence of carers as well as of their children. We should try to alleviate, wherever we can, the burdens carried by those who choose to do the caring.
Many voluntary organisations and professional bodies are involved too—Mencap and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation to name but two. My right
350
hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) will confirm that the organisations dealing with the 19-plus groups also have a stake in this matter. I visited some of them only last week in Rochdale and Oldham, and I expect to visit more of them before the end of this week. I know that I shall witness there more problems similar to those that we have been discussing today.
Not for a second do I want to make a party point, but the Minister knows that Lord Brian Rix of Mencap and many others draw to our attention time after time in the all-party group on disability—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe has played a noble role in it, as have Conservative Members and Members from the smaller parties—problems of the sort identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian. There are no doubts about their views of those problems.
Parents, especially young parents, are greatly shocked to find, sometimes overnight, that the child whom they were expecting to provide the greatest joy of their lives has severe disabilities that mean that a great deal of caring and understanding on the part of everyone concerned will be needed.
We are not charging towards the Government demanding a reply today, but we do seriously invite them to hold a review—and to involve others in it. We can learn a great deal, not just from the national organisations that I have mentioned, but from local groups. I thought it wonderful that my hon. Friend paid tribute to such groups. He was talking about a 19-month-old child; that suggests to me that people quickly rallied round to meet the family's needs.
I hope that the Minister will respond to my hon. Friend's excellent speech in the spirit in which the debate has been held. I hope that he will consider the case sympathetically, because it was a sensibly made and compassionate one. That is only what I would expect from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) not only on selecting an important general issue but on directing our attention to a particularly sad and tragic case in his constituency. He promised to be short, concise and to the point, and he most admirably was.
We cannot listen to an account of the predicament of Rebecca Kennedy without being moved by it. Her position is obviously a most difficult one. Her family are coping admirably in very difficult circumstances, and any appeal for more help for them is bound to stir our hearts. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that discretion cannot be exercised in this case because of the terms of the statute—that is the basic point. He has therefore come to the House to invite the Government to consider altering the law. I entirely accept that that is a proper way of putting the argument.
We are talking about—I shall briefly put the matter in context—the entitlement to the mobility component of disability living allowance. The allowance was introduced in 1992 for people disabled before the age of 65 and, for them, it replaces the help formerly available through attendance allowance and mobility allowance. People who need frequent help in connection with bodily functions, and who would previously have received attendance allowance,

351
now receive the care component of DLA at either the middle or higher rate. People who are physically disabled and, as a result, are unable to walk, or virtually unable to walk, who would previously have been entitled to mobility allowance, now receive the mobility component of DLA at the higher rate. New lower rates of both components were introduced to extend help to people who, though disabled, could not previously qualify for the old benefits. Disability living allowance is tax free, non-contributory and non-income related, and is intended to provide help with the extra costs associated with disability.
It is important to understand the principles that at least traditionally have been understood to lie behind these matters. Disability living allowance is not a form of compensation for disability but a personal benefit based on the effect of a disability rather than on the fact that someone has a particular disability or condition. What matters is whether the condition gives rise to care and mobility needs and, if so, how those needs affect the day-to-day life of the disabled person. An award of DLA can trigger eligibility to other benefits—for example, someone who is caring for a disabled person receiving DLA may be entitled to invalid care allowance, as I understand that Mrs. Kennedy is. An award of DLA can also provide access to one of the premiums payable with the income-related benefits such as income support or housing benefit.
As the hon. Member for Midlothian said, the purpose of the mobility component, because it is directed to the effects and dealing with what has to be done to ameliorate those effects, rather than with the condition itself, is to help people to be independently mobile. That point was taken up by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). That, of course, assumes that it would not be right to pay benefit to anyone whose mobility could not be improved. To take an extreme case as an example, someone who is in a coma will never be independently mobile.
Two statutory tests may be relevant. One of them, which we have heard about in detail, is section 73(1) of the Social Security (Contributions and Benefits) Act 1992. That is the age restriction. The second test is section 73(8), which states:
"A person shall not be entitled to the mobility component for a period unless during most of that period his condition will be such as permits him from time to time to benefit from enhanced facilities for locomotion."
The classic example of someone who would not be so entitled is my example of someone whose condition is so severe that he is in a coma. I understand that very few cases are refused on that particular head.
The second matter, and the most important one, is the position of children under five years of age. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Midlothian appreciates—I saw the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in his place earlier; he has now left the Chamber but he stood in my place in 1975 to advance the argument that I am about to put to the House, but I understand that he has changed his views since—that we are talking about a restriction that goes back all the way to 1975–76.
Children under five were never eligible for mobility allowance which, as I have explained, was the predecessor benefit. That goes back to the introduction of mobility allowance in 1976. It has been argued throughout—that argument has been advanced in the House on several occasions—that the rule should be changed. However, the
352
general view of Governments of all descriptions since that period, nearly 20 years ago, has been that it is best to retain the exclusion.
Research conducted in the mid-1980s by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the incidence and prevalence of disability concluded that mobility allowance was well targeted on people who were severely disabled. That is why, when we introduced DLA, we decided to base eligibility on the higher rate mobility component, largely on the old mobility allowance conditions of entitlement. The OPCS findings also informed the creation of a new lower rate of the mobility component to help people who were able to walk but needed supervision to make use of the facility out of doors, extending help with mobility needs for the first time to people with a mental impairment rather than a physical disability.
The principle that underpins DLA is that awards are intended, in general terms, to be based on the effect that disability has on the care and mobility needs of an individual and not on the disability itself. There is a distinction in the case of children. I appreciate that we can argue about how great the distinction is. I appreciate also that we can argue whether it should apply to three, four or five-year-olds. How much is there an amount of additional care and supervision that the disabled child needs beyond what a child of normal health would require?
We recognise that some young babies need substantially more care than able-bodied children. That is why there is no age limit comparable to the one that we are discussing when it comes to the care component of DLA. We do not accept as a general proposition, however, that the position is quite the same for the mobility component. It is the Government's view that it is not so convincing to talk of a three or four-year-old as being independently mobile. I appreciate the problems, of course, when I hear about the difficulties of getting poor Rebecca Kennedy on to a bus and lifting a particularly heavy snug seat, or whatever it is called, which is part of the wheelchair. I understand that there is a real problem. As a general proposition, however, we say that the mobility component is all about making people independently mobile. That is the great success of it for the older person.
We say that the position of children is different. I recognise that there are cases where it may be—
Mr. Eric Clarke: I understand what the Minister is saying. I am a father of three children and I understand that there is involved a normal upbringing, including going shopping with them. They are mobile, or partially mobile. Shopping outings are part of learning, of meeting other people and being in the community. The same can be said of meeting relations and making journeys to visit them. Why should a person who is disabled stay at home? That is really what the Minister is suggesting should happen.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right. There is an element of degree of mobility. We are saying that, classically, the mobility component is directed towards independent mobility. As the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps with remembrance of his own children, young children of three or four years of age learn to walk about, and the amount of supervision that is required diminishes as they become older. As I have said, it is a matter of degree. At the end, the difficulty for the Government is that we have competing priorities. However heart-rending is the case which the hon. Gentleman moved us with, we

353
say that when taking the principle of independent mobility, disabled children under five, given the traditional way of looking at these matters, must be at the lower rather than the higher end of the priority list.
I cannot put it any more firmly than that. There will always be difficult decisions in social security matters when it comes to drawing a line. Undoubtedly, the drawing of lines creates hard cases. It is our view, however—this has been a conventional view of Governments, as I have said, for 20 years—that the proper dividing line, if we have to draw one, is the age of five years in this instance for the mobility component of DLA. That is comparable with school age, when normally children become less dependent on their parents. Before the age of five, it is normal for children to be unable to go about without their parents' help.
Much careful consideration was given to this issue. It was the subject of much debate during the passage of the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working
354
Allowance Bill, which went through Parliament not that long ago. We do not believe that extending the mobility component to the under-fives can be the principal or leading-head claim on the list of priorities for benefit expenditure when there is so much pressure on resources and so many competing priorities. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that that would be expensive. He correctly quoted a figure of £30 million a year, which would indeed be the cost of extending the limit from the age of five to two. Although I appreciate that, as he said, it is perhaps not that big a sum when cast in the wider budget of the Department, it is nevertheless a considerable sum.
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he has moved our hearts on the issue, but I am afraid that the Government have to take the view that, on competing priorities for social security expenditure, we are not presently minded to alter the law, and it would require statute to do what the hon. Gentleman wants.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move to the next topic.

Catherine Laylle
2 pm
Sir Nicholas Scott: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the case of Catherine Laylle, who holds dual British and French nationality and whose case has been raised in the press on more than one occasion in recent months. The importance of her case is underlined by the presence today of a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken an interest in her case and who, I understand, may wish to intervene, albeit briefly, in this short debate. I will therefore seek to abbreviate my remarks on what is at once a complicated and a highly emotional case.
At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the Lord Chancellor for seeing me and my constituent on this matter and for dealing courteously with my written representations. Alas, despite many efforts, no way has yet been found of satisfying what I believe to be the legitimate grievances of my constituent.
I shall paint in some background to the case. Catherine was 29 years old when he she met her husband, Peter Volkmann, a German citizen. She had a well-paid job in the City of London and he was studying medicine while doing his military service. They married in 1984 and lived in her Kensington flat while he studied and she worked. Their son Alexander was born in the following year.
After a while, Peter Volkmann abandoned his studies, found a job with a German company in London and then transferred his employment to Germany. Ms Laylle left her career in the City and went with her husband to Germany where a second son, Constatin, was borne. Alas, by 1992 the marriage was in difficulty and the couple agreed to separate. An agreement was then drawn up, and verified by a German notary, which provided that Catherine should return to London to live with the children and that Alexander and Constatin should spend much of their holidays with their father.
The arrangement went well until last summer when, four days before the children were due to be returned to Catherine, she received a letter from her husband saying that the children would not be coming back to London. My constituent was understandably devastated by that appalling breach of faith and the negation of a mutual agreement. Her pleas were dismissed by her husband with, I understand, abusive language and much disdain. She therefore took action to make the children wards of court and obtained a High Court order for their return under the terms of article 3 of the Hague convention. That decision was subsequently endorsed by the German court in Verden.
Alas, Catherine's joy was to be short-lived. During the half-hour that she allowed her husband to say goodbye to the boys, the children were abducted by members, I understand, of Peter Volkmann's family. The court order, I am told, empowered the court bailiff, with police support and physical force if necessary, to ensure the return of children to their mother but no one knew the whereabouts of the children.
The bailiff became unavailable and her husband's lawyer likewise. It transpired that her husband gone to Celle, a town nearby with a higher court where he had lodged an ex parte appeal. That court ruled that he could
356
keep the children until the case could be heard. A month later, at a hearing which neither took evidence from Catherine nor interviewed her or her witnesses, the court ruled that the boys should stay in Germany.
It is now a year since my constituent effectively lost her sons. Some would say that she had had her sons stolen from her. She has spent all her savings on legal fees and visits to Germany. She has had much sympathy but little action to redress the situation. Not surprisingly, she is in a state of considerable despair. She feels that a process designed to alienate her children from her has been followed. Her visiting rights have been tightly circumscribed—she gets three hours a month in Germany, under supervision. The current situation is little short of outrageous. Germany and the United Kingdom are senior partners in the European Union. The provincial German court has, in effect, closed its doors to the pleas of my constituent when all she wants is justice.
Since the Celle ruling, Catherine has had access to her sons only under the supervision of German social workers and such access is limited to a few hours each month in her husband's home. On one visit, I understand, her children were removed as she arrived, put into a car and driven away by her husband. That underlines that the situation is nothing short of outrageous.
There are, however, perhaps two openings of which I hope advantage will be taken. First, I understand that the European Commission of Human Rights will be examining her case in its next session, which it will hold very shortly. Catherine is compiling and submitting evidence under three separate articles of the convention. However, as we all know, a considerable period may elapse before any decisions are forthcoming. Meanwhile, she is actively deprived of her undoubted rights of access to her sons.
There is perhaps a second chink of light in this sad case. I understand that at the meeting of European Union Justice Ministers last week, the question of a pattern of law in this area was raised and consideration may be given to the need for fresh legislation. It is my understanding that the French Justice Minister, Jacques Toubon, threw his weight behind the idea. I hope that I can be reassured by my hon. Friend that our Ministers will take the same robust approach.
I would be grateful if my hon. Friend would clarify to me and the House the role of the child abduction unit and say what success it may have had in the case so far. We all know that legislation, especially European legislation, could take a very long time to be put into effect. Catherine is looking for early action by the British and German authorities and I believe that she deserves it.
In conclusion, it is now seven months since Catherine last saw her children. She thought that she would have three hours with them this month but has now been told that their father is taking them on holiday to an undisclosed destination. She will not abandon her sons. She is a fighter and loves her children too much. She believes, rightly in my view, that she is the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. She has fought long and hard for her rights. The French Government are giving her support. I hope that she can count on the help and support of our Government, too. I trust that the Government will find they have the fullest co-operation of the German authorities as well.
2.7 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I rise with the permission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) to take part in this short debate about a vital matter.
I wish to raise only one point. My involvement is as a result of a personal approach by Ms Laylle. I wish to draw attention to the fact that both Britain and Germany are signatories to the Hague convention, which in article 1(a) states that it exists
"to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State".
There seems to be no question that, under British law, the children were wrongfully detained. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he can advise about why the German Government and judiciary are not adhering to the Hague convention to allow international law to take its proper course.
2.9 pm
Miss Kate Hoey rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Lady may speak on the understanding that she has the permission of the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and the Minister.
Miss Hoey: I shall be brief. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) on raising this important issue of human rights. I am speaking as someone who has also had some involvement with the case and as the Secretary of the all-party group on child abduction which has worked very hard with Reunite, the organisation that co-ordinates work to help mothers and fathers in similar positions.
In this case, we are dealing with a European country, one which, like us, is supposedly part of the great new European movement which is meant to bring people together. However, the way in which the German Government, the German courts and, indeed, individuals in the German provincial town in question have behaved makes me despair about any future co-operation within the European Union. What has happened is disgraceful.
The Hague convention has been blatantly broken by the German Government. One can imagine what would have happened if it had been the other way around. If the British Government or British courts had behaved in the same way, there would have been a great uproar and much lobbying by the German Government.
I want to ask the Minister exactly what has been done. What pressure has been brought to bear? How high up the political agenda is this case in the discussions about European unity and a single currency? If we cannot help someone like Catherine Laylle get her children back, the road to European union and co-operation with Germany might as well be abandoned now.
2.11 pm
Mr. William Cash rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, the hon. Gentleman may speak with the same restrictions.
Mr. Cash: I speak with the permission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and the
358
Minister. I have known Catherine Laylle for many months now and I have been deeply disturbed about the case since the beginning. I agree with my right hon. Friend.
Justice is to be found, as they say, in the interstices of procedure. The procedures that have been followed and my knowledge of the way in which the case has been conducted in Germany has filled me with a sense of despair. I cannot believe that someone like Catherine Laylle could be so effectively abandoned by the process of justice in Germany. I have made representations to the German ambassador, to other representatives of the German Government in the United Kingdom and to other members of Chancellor Kohl's private office. I have begged them to consider the case.
In the interests of a coherent and sensible Europe, it cannot be right that such situations should prevail. There is no doubt that the matter can and should be resolved in the interests of the children and of Catherine Laylle. I plead with the Minister to consider every conceivable means that can be employed—be it through the Foreign Office or any other channel—to redress this absolutely unforgivable injustice.
2.12 pm
Sir John Stanley: I, too, am an officer of the all-party group on child abduction. Ms Laylle has been to see me and given me certain papers. I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) for allowing me to participate briefly in the debate.
I shall make just two points. First, Ms Laylle is partly of British citizenship; her two children are partly of British citizenship and are also wards of court in Britain. Against that nationality and wardship background, it is indefensible that so far it is the German courts which have reserved to themselves sole and exclusive rights of jurisdiction.
Under the terms of the Hague convention, it is the Lord Chancellor's Department that is the designated "Central Authority" through which the British Government discharges their duty under that convention. I draw the House's attention to the duty outlined in article 7(f), which states that it is incumbent on the "Central Authority"—the Lord Chancellor's Department—to
"take all appropriate measures … to initiate or facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child and, in a proper case, to make arrangements for organising or securing the effective exercise of rights of access".
I hope that the Minister will explain why the duty clearly placed on his Department under the Hague convention does not yet appear to have been discharged. I hope that he will assure me that it will be discharged in future.
Secondly, in a reply given to me on 26 June the Home Office said:
"Where a child is successfully abducted to a country which is a signatory to the Hague convention, an extradition warrant may be issued."—[Official Report, 26 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 494.]
It is evident in this case that Ms Laylle's two sons have been successfully abducted to Germany and Germany is a signatory to the Hague convention, so the issue for the Home Office is why extradition warrants have not so far been issued. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why no extradition procedures have so far been initiated and to tell us whether they will be in future.
2.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) for raising the issue and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his line of argument. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) for his contribution, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley).
Towards the end of his comments, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea said that the French Government were giving Ms Laylle support. I must make it clear that, within the proper constitutional limits which define judicial and executive boundaries, the Government have also done and are doing as much as they can.
For the benefit of the House, I shall outline the role which the Lord Chancellor's Department and other Departments play in relation to child custody cases before foreign courts. I shall then deal with the specific case that my right hon. Friend has raised. It might be convenient for the House if I say that the case has thus far been dealt with entirely within the strictures of the Hague convention. However, the House should know that within the Hague convention there is a limited discretion not to return children in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is when the children themselves have made their views known.
Questions relating to child abduction and custody are governed by the Hague and European conventions of 1980 on this subject. The Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 enabled the United Kingdom to ratify both conventions. The purpose of the conventions is to prevent international child abduction and to promote the exercise of rights of contact with children.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister said that, under the Hague convention, if the children expressed a particular view, that view had to be taken into consideration. Is he saying that if children are kept with one parent for a period of time that does not have a bearing on their eventual view? Children are ultimately fairly malleable and therefore speed is of the essence. Something should have been done earlier. Does he agree that that fact should have a huge bearing on his comments?
Mr. Taylor: As one who practised as a family lawyer for many years, I have to tell my hon. Friend that hardly any two cases are the same. I have no reason to doubt that the German judicial authorities were able sensitively to seek the views of the boys whose ages—[Interruption.] I hear comments from behind me, but I suspect that the House would like me to continue with my remarks.
I was referring to the purpose of the Hague convention in preventing international child abduction, and the promotion of the exercise of rights of contact with children. The Hague convention does that by requiring a contracting state to return children who have been wrongly removed from another contracting state in breach of rights of custody. The European convention does so by the mutual recognition and enforcement of orders made in contracting states.
In each contracting state there is an administrative body known as the "Central Authority", which is responsible for administering the work of the conventions. In England
360
and Wales, the "Central Authority" is the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the work is carried out by its child abduction unit, which is part of the official solicitor's office. The unit does all that it can to help in achieving the objects of the convention, which are, essentially, to safeguard and promote the interests of children on an international basis. In doing that, it sends and receives applications for the return of children, or the recognition and enforcement of custody orders. It communicates with parents, lawyers and other central authorities and instructs solicitors to act on behalf of applicants in other countries wanting to take proceedings in England and Wales.
It is not, however, the unit's role to intervene in private law custody disputes that are being contested in foreign courts. Those are matters to be resolved through the courts concerned.
I should at this point mention the part that is played by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In general terms, the consular department is responsible for the protection of British nationals overseas. In the area of child abduction, a variety of types of practical assistance can be offered, including providing details of local lawyers who correspond in English and who can provide background information on the family law system in the relevant country; approaching the local authorities for help in tracing the child, where appropriate; drawing the local authorities' attention to any English court orders that exist, and encouraging the speedy resolution of any legal proceedings; and providing informal help with matters such as the translation of documents and finding cheap accommodation.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me for going into detail about the Government's responsibilities in such matters, but I consider that a clear understanding of the extent and limits of those responsibilities is vital in looking at the unfortunate situation that his constituent, Ms Laylle, is in.
As my right hon. Friend has explained, his constituent and her husband, who is of German nationality, separated in February 1992. Their sons, aged 8 and 10, have British, French and German nationality. Ms Laylle and her husband entered into a separation agreement with the assistance of a German lawyer, which included the provisions that "parental custody" of their two sons should be entrusted to Ms Laylle, that she and the children should live in London, and that the father should have generous contact with the children. That arrangement was a written agreement between the father and mother and not a judicial order giving custody to Ms Laylle. The children left England on 6 July 1994 to spend the summer holidays with their father.
On 22 August, the father wrote to Ms Laylle to say that both boys had said that they wanted to live and go to school in Germany rather than England, and that he had applied for the right to keep them.
On 26 August, Ms Laylle applied to the child abduction unit for the return of the children under the Hague convention on the basis that they had been wrongfully retained away from their habitual residence in breach of her rights of custody. She also applied to the high court on an ex parte basis for a wardship order, and that was granted on 30 August. The application under the Hague convention and the wardship order were transmitted to the German central authority, and were referred to the family court at Verden, which considered the matter on

361
20 September. The court ordered that the children be returned, but the father successfully appealed to the higher regional court. Ms Laylle engaged lawyers in Germany to represent her.
It is important at this point for me to emphasise that proceedings under the Hague convention do not determine custody issues but are intended to restore children to the jurisdiction of their habitual residence so that decisions about their future can be made there. This reflects a generally accepted principle of private international law that decisions about the future care and welfare of children are best made in the country with which they have the closest connection. However, the convention acknowledges that there may be circumstances in which children should not be returned, and therefore gives courts a limited discretion to refuse to make a return order.
One of the reasons for refusing a return order is that the child concerned objects to be returned and has reached an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his or her views. It was on that ground, after talking to the children, that the higher regional court upheld the father's appeal against the return order made by the family court in Verden. Ms Laylle has complained that she was not allowed to give evidence or speak at that hearing or present her own psychological evidence in respect of the children. It is generally accepted that proceedings under the Hague convention are summary in nature, and oral evidence is discouraged. In this instance, the only grounds of the father's appeal were the wishes of the children, and for that reason the main concern was to discover the children's wishes.
The issue of custody then came before the family court at Verden on 23 February this year. The decision of the court, given on 30 March, was that the children should be placed in the "temporary" custody of their father, and that Ms Laylle should be allowed limited contact with them: specifically, there was to be no contact for a period of three months, following which supervised contact at the father's home was ordered, initially for three hours a month, and from October 1995 for one day a month. Ms Laylle was represented by her two German lawyers at the hearing on 23 February and received assistance from the British consulate in attending the hearing. I understand that the wardship proceedings in this country were discharged on Ms Laylle's application on 4 April.
During the period leading up to the hearing on 23 February, the child abduction unit provided Ms Laylle with as much assistance as it was able within the limitations of its statutory role. Following the court's decision on 30 March, a further meeting took place between the unit's solicitor and Ms Laylle, at which it was explained that there was no basis on which the Government could intervene on the general grounds that German proceedings relating to children are intrinsically unjust or improper.
362
The procedure in such cases in Germany is substantially similar to our own. In family proceedings in Germany, both parents can be professionally represented, and the judge, who is independent of the Government, can call on the services of the local youth court to provide a report on the children and see them. In making a decision, he or she has, like a British judge, wide discretion in weighing up all the circumstances of the case. However, the unit's solicitor undertook to write to Ms Laylle's lawyers in this country and in Germany to ask whether in their view the order was unusual or represented the sort of order that a German court might make in a case such a this; whether there were any grounds for appeal on the basis that the judge was plainly wrong or wrongly exercised her discretion; and whether there was any material irregularity in the proceedings, which could form the foundation of a formal complaint or an application to set aside the judgment.
A separate point which had by this stage arisen was that divorce proceedings had been instituted both in this country by Ms Laylle and in Germany by her husband. It appears that the proceedings begun by Ms Laylle were first in time. However, I understand that Ms Laylle's husband has applied for a stay of the English proceedings, and that a jurisdictional dispute exists about the competence of the family court at Verden to entertain the divorce proceedings in Germany. This is a matter that must properly be resolved under German law; it would not be appropriate for the British Government to intervene in the process.
It is understood that there are grounds for appeals against the court's decisions on custody and contact, and that appeals have in fact already been lodged against both decisions. It is also understood that the decisions made about the children to date are of an essentially temporary nature pending the final resolution of the divorce proceedings, and that the appeals against those decisions will be based on evidential matters before the court and not on any fundamental defect of procedure or denial of process.
I also understand that Ms Laylle has a case against Germany pending before the European Commission of Human Rights in respect of her situation. Naturally I am unable to comment on these proceedings, and we must await the outcome.
Thus, while I sympathise with the difficulties in which Ms Laylle finds herself, I do not consider that there is any more substantive assistance that the British Government can provide. It is particularly important to recognise that the children have British, French and German nationality. The matters at issue are the subject of appeal under the German legal system, and the outcome of those appeals must be awaited. As I have said, there is no basis in procedural terms, in what is essentially a private law dispute, on which the British Government could properly intervene.
It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December]

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the middle east peace process. [30893]
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for peace in the middle east. [30899]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): There are encouraging signs of progress between Israel and Syria, most recently during talks in Washington between their chiefs of staff. We hope that the Israelis and Palestinians will soon agree on arrangements to hold elections in the Palestinian territories and redeploy Israeli forces. I hope that that will happen by the new target date, 25 July, agreed by Mr. Peres and Mr. Arafat. We and our European Union partners are preparing to co-ordinate international observation of the elections and to provide 300 EU observers. Negotiations between Israel and Jordan on a series of agreements to follow up their peace treaty are on track.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. May I also thank him for the skill, dedication and charm with which he has undertaken his duties for a number of years? It must be a matter of great satisfaction to him that he leaves the world a safer and freer place than it was in 1989.
    In view of the territorial concessions made by Israel, and as several of her neighbours have received an official royal visit, is it not high time that there was an official royal visit to the state of Israel?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will not exaggerate.
    My hon. Friend has raised an important point. There are currently no plans for a state visit to Israel, but there is no bar to such a visit in principle. His Royal Highness Prince Philip was there last year, and we warmly welcomed the President of Israel when he was here on VE day.
    Mr. Burden: I welcome yesterday's announcement that a date has been agreed for confirmation of arrangements for self-rule between Israel and the Palestinians, but does the Foreign Secretary share my concern—which, I believe, is shared by many—about Israel's apparently ambiguous attitude to peace negotiations? It appears constantly to demand more concessions from those whose lands it occupies, while at the same time jeopardising the peace process by its attitude to settlement building and the building of facts on the ground in Jerusalem.
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the help that the international community wishes to give the peace negotiations could be aided by our making it clear to Israel that we expect all parties to abide by all United Nations resolutions concerning the middle east?
    Mr. Hurd: No one doubts that the process is difficult, but both Israel and the Palestinians have set their hand to
    364
    it, and it is important that it should not lose impetus. The next step is to proceed with the redeployment of Israeli forces and the holding of Palestinian elections. It will be followed by a series of further steps that will have to end with a resolution of the question of Jerusalem.
    Sir David Madel: May I ask about the economic policy aspect of the peace process? What kind of projects will the British Government support to help the Palestinians?
    Mr. Hurd: There are a good many projects and our aid totals £83 million for the four years 1994–97. The projects include technical assistance to the police, involving vehicles and communications, training of nurses in Gaza—I have seen for myself how important that is—hydrology training and improving health care in Jericho.
    Mr. Murphy: I am sure that the Secretary of State will welcome, as all hon. Members will, yesterday's resumption of peace talks between the Israelis and the PLO, but does he agree with a recent commentator that unless this country and its allies provide proper and tangible aid to Gaza and the west bank, the lack of jobs and the lack of cash in those regions will provide Hamas with its best recruiting sergeant?
    Mr. Hurd: We are doing that. We were among the first to do so, even when Mr. Arafat and the PLO had no proper accounting procedures in place. We pressed them on that. Eventually, they got procedures in place and we started to pay and to help the police. With our European partners, we have been among the first to give precisely that practical help for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman stated.

    European Monetary Union
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what study his Department has made into the economics of EMU; and what assessment he has made of the strength of argument in favour of the formation of a single currency. [30895]
    Mr. Hurd: The economics of economic and monetary union are a matter on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer advises the Cabinet. It is not possible to assess fully today the pros and cons of a single currency that might be introduced in 1999. I am encouraged by signs that elsewhere in Europe an increasingly hard-headed debate about the implications of a single currency is under way.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: May I begin by offering my right hon. Friend my sincere best wishes for his future retirement and extend a warm welcome to the Back Benches? I know he will make a huge contribution from here as he has on the Front Bench. Furthermore, as there is such inconsistency about the economic rationale for going into a single currency, does he agree that this country should not endeavour to do so unless a massive, overwhelming economic rationale exists in favour of it?
    Mr. Skinner: Go on, it is your last turn—tell him.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is trying to excite me.
    I have always found my hon. Friend a most courteous and constructive critic and I am grateful to him for that. I cannot add very much to what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have said on this subject. The Prime Minister has shown over and again his wariness—

    365
    that is the phrase that he rightly uses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Weariness"] No, W-A-R-I. My right hon. Friend has shown not only his wariness on the substance of this question, but his firm belief that Britain should be part of the preparation. That is why, over and again, he has made clear his view that we should retain the freedom that he gained for us at Maastricht. Of course, a single currency would be an important step. It would have important political and constitutional implications and we would have to weigh the economic arguments to which my hon. Friend refers. The whole point of the case from the Conservative Benches is that that weighing of the economic advantages and disadvantages cannot be done at this time.
    Mr. Winnick: Should we not learn from the experience of what some people—certainly myself—would say was the nightmare of having been in the exchange rate mechanism, when conventional wisdom argued that we should go in and we saw what happened? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there is a distinction to be made between the xenophobia that may be found among his own Back Benchers and those of us who believe, as he has just said, that a genuine constitutional issue is involved: a single currency would undoubtedly take away this country's right to determine interest rates and other issues, which should be in the competence of the Government and the House of Commons? There is bound, therefore, to be concern about the possibility of a single currency.
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member can address that point to his Front-Bench team. Of course, this is an important issue and it has political, constitutional and economic aspects. We do not believe that the pros and cons can be fully assessed in 1995.
    Mr. Garel-Jones: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when historians look back at his period of office in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and specifically Britain's position on economic and monetary union, they will see that during that time not only did we begin to tidy up what I suppose one might call the excesses of the Single European Act but the foundations were laid of a European Union of nations, in which Britain will feel comfortable, and at the centre of which it will find its place?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His personal example has encouraged me to follow him into an active and eager life on the Back Benches. As he has raised this point, may I take the opportunity to thank and congratulate any of the present Foreign Office Ministers of State who may be promoted or moved during the afternoon.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Nevertheless, the tone of the Foreign Secretary's reply suggests that he would agree that opposition to a single currency in a single market derives more from theology about sovereignty than economic common sense. Does he recognise that if the Government continue to pay too much attention to all these crazy Europhobes, sterling could well be left with about as much room for manoeuvre as the Luxembourg franc?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position. Thanks to the Prime Minister's efforts at Maastricht, we are in a remarkably advantageous position. That is seen clearly—all too clearly perhaps—by our partners on the continent. We are able to take a full part in preparing this project without being committed to joining it. It is not often in life that we can have our cake and eat it, and the hon. Gentleman should rejoice.
    Mr. Dykes: What is wrong with a single currency in a true single market?
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that anything is wrong with a single currency in a true single market. I believe that a single market can exist without a single currency and it follows that the merits—the pros and cons—of a single currency need to be carefully weighed when and if the choice comes before us.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I offer my good wishes to the Foreign Secretary for his retirement and the appreciation of the House that he is answering questions today in what appears to be overtime in his post?
    As this will be the right hon. Gentleman's last opportunity at the Dispatch Box, may I tempt him to show the same robustness as he showed last week when he described the views on the single currency of the challenger to the Prime Minister as a "Right wing extremist agenda"? Was he at all surprised that well over a third of Conservative Back-Benchers voted for that right-wing extremist agenda? Did that fact confirm him in his good sense in opting for retirement rather than continuing to pretend that any Conservative can represent Britain in Europe when half his party wants to be rid of Europe and three quarters of Britain wants to be rid of his party?
    Mr. Hurd: I lost the hon. Gentleman in the last bit. I was trying to find a way of paying him a compliment as the third shadow Foreign Secretary with whom I have had the honour to match. They have all had their pluses and minuses, but I have found the hon. Gentleman courteous. Normal courtesies between us have been performed—and perhaps from time to time exceeded.
    The extremist agenda turned out not to be quite so rigorous and extreme as I had expected, and I think that that is good. There was a thoroughly cool-tempered contest for the leadership of my party. I think that we all feel the better for it, particularly those of us who backed the winner.

    Argentina
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Argentina. [30897]
    Mr. Hurd: Our co-operation with Argentina has developed rapidly since we restored relations in 1990. Trade and investment are growing fast. Our exports have risen by 165 per cent. since 1991, and we have made agreements on visa abolition, air services, judicial co-operation against drug trafficking, investment promotion and fisheries.
    We disagree over the Falklands and South Georgia. Argentina continues to assert her claim to sovereignty, and we remain firmly opposed to any discussion on sovereignty. The Falkland islanders want to remain British and we will continue to uphold their right of self-determination.
    Following his recent election victory, President Menem will be inaugurated for a second four-year term next Saturday. We wish him well and look forward to strengthening our relations further on this basis.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not President Menem to be commended for his initial courage in deciding to put the matter of the islands and the dispute between our two countries to one

    367
    side under, as he said, an umbrella? Have we returned to the level of trade and investment enjoyed with Argentina before that dispute? What specific measures are we taking to strengthen further trade with that country, which is very much based on good will?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall send my hon. Friend the comparative figures. We are certainly building up our trade fast and rebuilding those assets and investments in Argentina which, in fact, we had to sell to win two world wars. The British position in Argentina is being rebuilt fast. That certainly owes something to the policies of President Menem, as my hon. Friend said, and a good deal to the energy of British business men, including those working in the newly privatised utilities. We and Her Majesty's ambassador in Buenos Aires are doing our utmost to encourage that energy.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Would I be correct in assuming that relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Argentines are considerably warmer than relations between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold)? I entirely support the rights of the Falkland islanders to remain British, but would it not be appropriate to encourage a limited amount of tourism between Argentina and the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that that is something which the islanders have to work out for themselves. I have often told the Argentine Foreign Minister that I am not prepared to start leaning on the islanders about the question of contacts with Argentina. There has been some movement, an example of which is the small but very sensitive matter of Argentine next of kin visiting newly discovered war graves on Pebble island. It has been agreed that they will be able to stay the night there. Such movement may occur, but really it is something that islanders have to work out for themselves.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I pay my warm, personal tribute to my right hon. Friend's unfailing courtesy and professionalism, which is of the old, classical school, if I may say so?
    Will my right hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that a Cabinet Minister attends the inauguration of President Menem—not least as an expression of good will—to maintain the momentum for the crucial oil and natural gas talks around the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—another invariably courteous critic. I would have liked, and I think that we would all have liked, a Cabinet Minister to attend President Menem's inauguration. That was in hand, but certain rearrangements have made it difficult to carry through. I am glad that Lady Trumpington will be going. She has proved herself a doughty and highly successful representative of this country on many such occasions.
    Mr. Trimble: Is it realistic to work to strengthen relations with Argentina while it continues to seek to advance its territorial claim? Are we not in danger of repeating the mistake made before 1982 of making the Argentines think that our relations with them are more important than the Falkland Islands and thus encouraging an invasion? Should we not make it clear to Argentina that there cannot be strengthening of relations and developing of trade unless it adopts a more realistic attitude?
    Mr. Hurd: No, we have taken a different course, and with the full approval of the islanders. The islanders need
    368
    the agreements that we have struck with Argentina about fish and we are now seeking—we have not found it yet—a way of agreeing with Argentina on the exploitation of oil. Both those things are very much in the interests of the islanders if they can be achieved.
    The policy that we have been following—I think that it has been very successful—is to say to the Argentines frequently and very clearly: "We do not agree about sovereignty. We are not prepared to discuss sovereignty, but if you are willing to put that aside, we will be perfectly willing to develop trade, investment and other contacts." The visit of the Duke of York last year and the visit of the president of the Argentine Senate this year are illustrations of the good working of this policy.

    European Policy
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to present new proposals for European Union developments in the Spanish presidency period which begins on 1 July. [30900]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): May I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to add my comments with respect to the last appearance at the Dispatch Box of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary? I express my personal sadness at that. It has been a great privilege and, indeed, an education to serve under him and I look forward to his continuing to keep me in line from the Back Benches.
    We shall continue to press for developments that will increase the competitiveness of European industries, create jobs and secure a better return from the application of Community resources.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary which, I am sure, will be greeted with acclaim in all parts of the House.
    As we are back at the heart of Europe after yesterday's dramatic events, does my hon. Friend agree that we can now set aside the corrosive British disease of "pas trop de zèle"—excuse me for using the French words, Madam Speaker—which should be translated, in the words of the headmaster of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's old school, as, "I distrust enthusiasm of any kind"? Does my hon. Friend agree that we can now switch to Ministers appearing to sound enthusiastic about Europe, as they do about other Government policies?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend and I sometimes see the same coin from opposite sides. There is no lack of enthusiasm among Ministers for the Europe that we want to create—a Europe of free markets, a Europe of free movement and a Europe of nation states.
    Mr. Watson: We are now in the Spanish presidency and the Minister will be aware that one of the outstanding issues relating to Spain is the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement. Will he give an undertaking that the Government will include in those discussions firm statements to the Moroccan Government that they must give way on the outstanding referendum on Western Sahara before any accommodation will be given to them in terms of renewal of the fisheries agreement?
    Mr. Davis: These matters are not linked, but we will certainly not do anything to prejudice the question of Western Sahara.

    United Nations Resolutions (Iraq)
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment has he made of Iraq's compliance with United Nations resolutions.[30901]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Iraq has consistently failed to comply with its international obligations as set out in the relevant UN resolutions. We particularly look to Iraq to fulfil the requirements relating to weapons of mass destruction, to account for the Kuwaitis detained after the Gulf war and to respect the human rights of all Iraqis.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it is outrageous that four years after the ending of the Gulf war the Iraqis are still holding 625 missing Kuwaitis and prisoners of war? More than that, does he agree that the Iraqis are still prevaricating, weaving and dodging whenever there is an opportunity to try to get them to discuss this important issue? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Iraqis failed to turn up to a key meeting on the Kuwait border on 18 June? Will he ensure that the Government make strong representations on the matter when the coalition Governments supporting the Gulf states meet the Iraqis in Geneva on this issue?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point which troubles us greatly. There are 609 files on missing Kuwaitis; 168 have been the subject of discussion and in 70 cases Iraq has prevented an intermediate result. I very much regret that the most recent planned meeting did not take place. The International Committee of the Red Cross has invited the parties to a tripartite commission meeting in Geneva. I very much hope that all the parties attend.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not within the knowledge of the Foreign Office that Russian, French, German and Italian, not to mention Greek, business men are busy in Baghdad putting together contract after contract? Is it not a pity that as most of the Iraqi decision makers were educated at British universities, we are not rethinking this whole area of policy?
    Mr. Hogg: I know that the hon. Gentleman, understandably, is deeply concerned about the plight of the Iraqis. But he will forgive me if I point out that under United Nations Security Council resolution 986, Saddam Hussein was given the opportunity to export oil to the value of $2 billion every 120 days, so long as he used the proceeds for humanitarian purposes—although the operation would have been subject to various constraints. He chose not to do so, and that is the primary reason why we see the privation in Iraq now.

    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards the achievement of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. [30902]
    Mr. David Davis: Good progress is being made in the negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty, especially in areas such as scope and verification. Much remains to be done, but we remain committed to work for the conclusion of a treaty before the end of 1996.
    Mr. Cohen: Should not the Government have an opinion on the French nuclear tests—one of opposition?
    370
    Are the above-ground non-nuclear experiments, lasers and computer simulations proper safeguards, as the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said yesterday, that will enable Britain to give a commitment not to resume tests? If so why, in another place on 20 June, did Lord Henley, on behalf of the Government, refuse to rule out the use of the Nevada test site for further British tests? Do the Government suspect France and other nuclear states of trying to kill at birth the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is showing his Labour-CND roots, I am afraid. We recognise and understand the concern that the French decision has caused in some countries, but the decision is one for the French. It is not for us to comment on French requirements and how they decide to meet them. Our principal objective is the early conclusion of an indefinite comprehensive test ban treaty, and the French commitment to that has been reaffirmed by President Chirac. Our policy on testing remains unchanged. We are actively working for a comprehensive test ban treaty, and we have said that we shall not seek to test while the United States moratorium remains in force.
    Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the growing risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, the nuclear deterrent is more important today than ever? Does he further agree that for a nuclear deterrent to work, and to be seen to work, it has to be tested? What scope is there for the United States, the United Kingdom and the French to join forces to develop credible simulation tests, therefore avoiding the need for explosions? Will my hon. Friend confirm that following the introduction of Trident, and bearing in mind the foreseen abandonment and scrapping of the free-fall bomb, we shall have fewer nuclear warheads in our armoury than before?
    Mr. Davis: I start by confirming the latter point. My hon. Friend is right; since 1970 there has been about a 59 per cent. reduction in explosive power, and reductions in warheads too. As for the need for a deterrent, my hon. Friend is right to say that the world is still a dangerous place, and the first concern of any British Government must be to maintain the security of the British nation. Everything that we do concerning a comprehensive test ban treaty, and our attitude to testing in general, takes that into account and works with it as our primary objective.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the Minister accept that the condemnation that the French Government have rightly received from nations friendly to us such as Australia and New Zealand is mirrored by criticism from the French socialist party and from most people in France? Does he also accept that a comprehensive test ban treaty is the price that the nuclear powers must pay for an extension of the non-proliferation treaty? That was the bargain that we undertook. Does the Minister seriously believe that the world, especially the non-nuclear powers, will accept that there is a basis for trust when France has announced plans to test, China has tested and even the United States now talks about resuming a testing programme?
    Mr. Davis: I am afraid the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is not the only one showing his Labour-CND origins. I repeat that our principal objective is the early conclusion of an indefinite comprehensive test ban treaty

    371
    and, as I have also said, the French commitment to that has been reaffirmed by President Chirac. That is the most important point, and that is what we put at the top of our agenda.

    Angola
    Mr. Lester: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current position in Angola. [30903]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): During a recent visit to Angola, my right hon and noble Friend Baroness Chalker was assured by both parties of their commitment to a successful outcome to the peace process.
    Mr. Lester: May I preface my question by giving my personal thanks to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on behalf of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am the longest-serving Conservative member? I am very grateful for the relationship that we have had in terms of the work that the Committee has sought to do for the House.
    Does not the case of Angola need to be carefully analysed? The UN operation during the original election was relatively underfunded and underworked and the consequences of that included a breakdown of the proposals, the loss of many hundreds of lives and a greater cost of trying to put together a destroyed and war-ravaged country.
    Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is right that there are many lessons to be learnt from what has happened in Angola. I am glad to say that the May meeting between President Dos Santos and Dr. Savimbi has given fresh impetus to the peace process. There is still much to be done, but the prospects for peace are brighter now than at any time since the elections in 1992. The House should remember that the United Kingdom is doing much to support the peace process. In particular, since May we have provided some 645 troops from a UK logistics battalion, who are doing excellent work in helping UN forces to deploy in Angola.
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister agree that if the peace process is to succeed after many years of the most devastating war there is an urgent need for an international programme of reconstruction? Has the UN set a date for its conference on reconstruction? If not, what steps are the Government taking to bring about that conference?
    Mr. Baldry: We have provided about £30 million in emergency aid since June 1993, and we are encouraging longer-term development work through the Angola development fund which is dealing with long-term reconstruction. We are trying simultaneously to help the UN troops and, through the Angola development fund, to help in the longer-term reconstruction.

    Thailand
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on UK relations with Thailand, including trade and investment. [30904]
    Mr. Baldry: Relations are excellent. Trade and investment are thriving. Our visible exports to Thailand last year were up 14 per cent. at £746 million. We are the leading European investor and the fifth largest overall. Contacts between our countries are extensive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) visited Thailand at the end of May to underline the progress in bilateral relations and to mark the reopening of a British consulate in Chiang Mai.
    Mr. Heald: Given the huge potential for trade and investment in all quadrangle countries, but particularly Thailand, will my hon. Friend give more details on the purposes of reopening the trade consulate at Chiang Mai and the objectives of that consulate? Does he feel that there is now adequate trade representation in that region?
    Mr. Baldry: Helping British companies to win business overseas is the Foreign Office's single largest activity overseas. The Chiang Mai consulate will reopen as a trade-focused mission, and forms part of a worldwide strengthening of our commercial effort. The decision to reopen that post is a reflection of our growing commercial interests in Thailand, which have more than quadrupled in the past decade. Visible exports are now worth nearly £750 million a year, and it is for that reason that we have opened the new trade office which, it is hoped, will expand business into northern Thailand, a region of great economic potential.

    War Victims (Compensation)
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Japanese counterpart on the compensation of war victims. [30905]
    Mr. Hurd: I discussed the position of the former British prisoners of war and civilian internees with my Japanese counterpart when we met in Halifax on 16 June.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met a group of former prisoners of war and internees on 21 June. He emphasised the Government's deep respect and sympathy for those who suffered as prisoners of the Japanese. We will continue contacts with the Japanese Government to try to resolve this long-standing problem.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not perverse and unacceptable for one of the richest countries in the world—a country with an immense tradition and cultural heritage—to equivocate on an apology to those people who were so gravely abused during the second world war and to duck and weave on the question of compensation for war victims? Why do not the British Government really lay themselves on the line in discussions with their counterparts in the Japanese Government?
    Mr. Hurd: On the legal point, the hon. Gentleman knows the position. In 1951, both the Labour and Conservative Governments settled that question, so far as the law is concerned, in the San Francisco treaty of that year. So far as Governments are concerned, we are not talking about a legal case, although there is a case brought by former prisoners of war in the Japanese courts.
    When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Japan in 1993, the Japanese Prime Minister expressed deep remorse as well as apologies for the fact that J panese past actions had inflicted deep wounds on many people, including the former prisoners.

    373
    We have made it clear often to the Japanese Government that this issue is not disappearing and that the feelings aroused here are strong and go beyond those who suffered. We have discussed with them various ways of tackling that and we shall continue to do so. I made it clear to the Japanese Foreign Minister that the measures so far taken by Japan, and the efforts that the Japanese have made, are not sufficient to allay the anxieties and resentments here.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I join in all the tributes that have rightly been paid to my right hon. Friend on his outstanding service not only to the Government but to the Foreign Office over the years in which he has held the high and important office of Secretary of State.
    My right hon. Friend's response to the question has been full and sympathetic, but am I right in suggesting that if the Japanese would go so far as to apologise, as the German people and the German Government have done, that would go a long way to meet the concerns expressed? Like many others who have met representatives of the Far East Prisoners of War Association and the Burma Star Association, I believe most fervently that the agreement made in 1951 was inadequate and that there is an excellent case for compensation for those people who were so badly abused.
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the beginning of his question, although there is an element of exaggeration in what has been said about my five and a half years at the Foreign Office. I am particularly glad that such remarks should come from those who have been among my sternest critics at moments during that period.
    I sympathise with what my hon. Friend has said. We both know individuals who suffered at the hands of the Japanese. I have a friend in Witney who is one of the leaders of that group of former prisoners and internees. The matter is on that is discussed over and over again in Japan, where it is a matter of high controversy in a way that it is not in Germany. The recent Diet resolution, which was very controversial, was a general statement repeating the expression of deep remorse.

    Inter-Parliamentary Union
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy in respect of the special Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement. [30906]
    Mr. Hurd: We support the special meeting of the IPU planned in New York to mark the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Will he ensure that the topic of co-operation between the IPU and the UN is put on the agenda of the General Assembly of the UN? Will the Government support such an initiative? Will the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to see that the matter is discussed at the General Assembly as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hurd: I think that it will be. We support close co-operation between the UN and the IPU. A resolution
    374
    has been submitted by Senegal for the next session and we are looking to see whether it is sensible from our point of view.
    Mr. Rathbone: First, I add my own compliments to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, particularly on his honesty; I say that as the only Member of the House, I believe, to have bought a second-hand car from him. What is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the future membership of the UN Security Council, and will that be pursued through IPU circles?
    Mr. Hurd: The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is yes.
    I remember the car to which my hon. Friend referred: I believe that it was an open-roof Sunbeam Rapier. It had to be taken to Long Island for repairs rather too often in its life, but I am glad that it served my hon. Friend well.

    Departmental Commercial Services
    Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether his Department's commercial services could be geared more towards small and medium-sized enterprises. [30907]
    Mr. Baldry: The chargeable services provided by our overseas posts are specifically targeted at small and medium-sized companies. They are designed to help those companies export successfully.
    Mrs. Knight: As small companies require special assistance when exporting, can my hon. Friend tell the House what steps his Department is taking to advertise its services through the relevant trade associations and business links in Britain?
    Mr. Baldry: We provide small businesses with information and advice that it would be difficult for them to obtain elsewhere. At least 60 per cent. of companies which take part in outward missions are small and medium-sized enterprises. The business links network will have 70 export development counsellors to offer advice, smaller companies will receive export vouchers which they can exchange for export services and the network of 200 business links will help to raise awareness still further, so much has been done to help small and medium-sized businesses export.
    Mr. Pike: Can the Minister assure the House that in dealing with the newly emerging democracies in eastern Europe we take into account not only the advantages for Britain, but also what we can do to help to stabilise those countries' economies and democracies, which is crucial if they are not to move backwards?
    Mr. Baldry: I think that British business appreciates that it is important to establish long-term partnerships in every emerging market. It is in the interests of British business as well as of the countries concerned to ensure that there is maximum stability in order to make those long-term partnerships successful and profitable.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the use of the know-how fund in appropriate countries may assist small and medium-sized companies in their export operations and that it is important to use the know-how

    375
    fund not only for design and development but also for the full implementation of schemes if we are to see them develop properly?
    Mr. Baldry: The know-how fund has been, and continues to be, extremely successful. I know of no scheme under the know-how fund that has been criticised. The fund has managed to achieve a range of projects and schemes throughout eastern Europe and it is now being copied by many other countries who wish that they had thought of it before we did.

    Council of Europe
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had regarding the future composition of the Council of Europe. [30908]
    Mr. David Davis: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary most recently discussed the future composition of the Council of Europe on 15 February 1995 in London with Mr. Tarschys, the Secretary-General.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I take a slightly different approach to the question. Is the Minister aware that the British parliamentary delegation to the Assembly of the Council of Europe is the same delegation as attends the Assembly of the Western European Union? In view of the heavy workload of the Council of Europe and the increasing workload and importance of the Assembly of the Western European Union, will the Government give some attention to either splitting the British parliamentary delegation or having two separate and distinct delegations to those parliamentary assemblies?
    Mr. Davis: I know that the hon. Gentleman has put a great deal of work into both those organisations, as well as into the Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee of the Council of Europe and the Technical Aerospace Committee of the WEU. I have not considered the matter and I do not hold out any great hopes to the hon. Gentleman at this point, but I will examine his proposals.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Now that the Council of Europe has accepted that the three Caucasian states are European, is my hon. Friend disturbed by today's reports that the elections currently taking place in Armenia may not prove to be free and fair? Is the Minister observing those elections and will he continue to urge restraint on both Armenia and Azerbaijan not to go to war again on Nagorny Karabakh if they are really serious about wanting to join the Council of Europe?
    Mr. Davis: There are international observers attending the elections. However, the countries' admission to the Council of Europe will fall under article 3 of the Council, which means that they must meet the various freedom and democracy requirements.

    UN Conflict Prevention Activities
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to improving Britain's contribution to United Nations conflict prevention activities, with particular reference to the rapid reaction force in Bosnia. [30909]
    Mr. Hurd: We have taken the lead in trying to strengthen the United Nations in preventive diplomacy and conflict prevention. Last September, I made some specific proposals for the UN to give more effective help to regional preventive diplomacy in Africa, and in 1993, with the French, outlined proposals to help enhance UN capability in that respect. We strongly support UN work to prevent conflict in Macedonia and Burundi.
    Where preventive diplomacy has failed, we are also working to improve UN response to conflict. Britons are serving in six UN peacekeeping operations. We have made proposals for improving the planning and management of those operations and have seconded British experts to New York to help implement them.
    In Bosnia, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have played a leading role in deploying additional troops to form the rapid reaction force to which he refers. The force will increase the effectiveness of UNPROFOR in its peacekeeping activities. It is not there to impose a solution. The priority remains to bring the parties to a negotiated settlement.
    Mr. Home Robertson: I welcome the deployment of a stronger United Nations force to Bosnia, and particularly the participation of rapid reaction units from Britain. As the situation in Sarajevo is worse than ever, with the three-year siege continuing, the return to indiscriminate shelling and sniping and the closure of the air bridge and all road access, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government and other members of the United Nations intend that the new rapid reaction force should be able to protect humanitarian aid convoys to the city of Sarajevo and other isolated communities in Bosnia?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman does not exaggerate the seriousness of the conflict. I received a sombre report this morning from Mr. Carl Bildt, the new European negotiator, who is working very hard on the military agenda, to make it possible for UNPROFOR to function effectively on the ground with the minimum of consent from all concerned, including the Bosnian Serbs, and on the contact group agenda towards a negotiated settlement.
    The arrival of new units and the reinforcement of units in the UN force will make it somewhat easier for UN commanders to take the action to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, the hon. Gentleman recognises that they do not transform the strategic position; they increase the choices in a tactical situation for the UN command.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: May I thank my right hon. Friend for all he personally has done to try and bring peace to that troubled part of the world? Does he agree, however, that it is important that President Milosevic should use his best endeavours to persuade the Bosnian Serbs to lift the siege of Sarajevo; Is he confident that President Milosevic is doing all that he can?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes. I believe that President Milosevic realised some time ago that the only future for his country, Serbia, lies in a negotiated peace and that he must use what influences are at his disposal to bring the Bosnian Serbs to the same conclusion. Neither he nor we nor anyone else has yet succeeded in that, but it is in his interests and intentions to continue.
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that we welcome the reassurances that no undertakings

    377
    were given to the Bosnian Serbs in return for the release of the hostages? Does he therefore share our concern at the repeated failure of the UN to respond to the escalating breaches of the UN mandate by the Bosnian Serbs? Can he confirm that only one sixth of the aid required is getting through to Sarajevo and that cases of starvation are now being reported from Bihac? Does he agree that, having shown the necessary resolve to secure the release of the hostages, the UN must show same resolve to protect and feed civilians in towns that the UN itself has declared safe areas?
    Mr. Hurd: Small amounts of aid are getting through to Sarajevo and the enclaves, but they are too small. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right that the humanitarian position has deteriorated. The choices before the UN commanders are not enviable. They now have a greater range of troops and equipment, which will increase quite substantially during the coming month, but it does not transform the basic position: they have to judge—and we cannot do so on their behalf—what is possible without making the position worse. I hope and believe that they will able to make further progress, partly as a result of Mr. Bildt's efforts, which were extremely vigorous, and partly through the reinforcements that they have received.
    Mr. Jenkin: I join the tributes already paid to my right hon. Friend, particularly for his unfailing courtesy towards those who have not always sought to make life easier for him.
    Is there not a lesson to be drawn from the involvement in Bosnia—that whatever contribution we make to the UN, these operations would be easier if they were premised on the unequivocal support of all the major NATO powers before we embarked on them?
    Mr. Hurd: I believe that it is right that NATO should be involved to the extent that it is involved in the enforcement of sanctions and in providing the possibility of air strikes. I have always been anxious—I think that the House has appreciated this—that we should not, in Bosnia or Yugoslavia, build up a situation in which the NATO powers are on one side and the Russians on the other. That would be a bad outlook. We have avoided it with the contact group, which includes Russia.
    If, however, my hon. Friend is saying that there needs to be absolu olidarity between the main western allies, all the members of the European Union and all the members of NATO, he is entirely right. At the moment, the policy that the international community—to use the shorthand phrase—is pursuing in Bosnia has that solid support.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's priorities for the 1996 intergovernmental conference of the European Union. [30910]
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out our priorities for the IGC at Leiden last September and in this House on 1 March. As the Minister of State said earlier, we want a European Union which is open, flexible, free trading, efficient and responsive to popular concerns.
    Mr. Berry: I note that the Secretary of State did not say that it is a Government priority to secure measures to tackle
    378
    unemployment in Europe. With 20 million people unemployed in Europe, does he not feel that now is the time for more serious action to deal with that rather than simply abolishing the Department of Employment? What measures will the right hon. Gentleman seek to put forward at the IGC to tackle unemployment, and what effect will they have?
    Mr. Hurd: There was a good discussion on jobs at the summit in Cannes a week ago. President Chirac put them at the top of the list for the summit. What clearly emerged from the discussion was the fact that jobs are created through free trade—one of the objectives that I have just mentioned—through deregulation, and through flexible labour markets. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in a strong position because we are in the lead on all those matters.
    Sir Peter Hordern: In the forthcoming discussions about the IGC, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the agenda for it comprises the extension of the European Union to take in the Visegrad countries and the necessary reform of the common agricultural policy? Beyond that, will he do his best, from whatever position he occupies, to see that the IGC is a low-key affair? We do not want another Maastricht treaty, however skilfully and well my right hon. Friend managed to defeat the arguments of the Euro-sceptics on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Hurd: I entirely share my right hon. Friend's last wish and I think that we can avoid that. What is taking shape in the reflections group, which my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) attends, is not a huge further radicalisation of the European Union or a huge new concept that will pull up everything by the roots and start something entirely afresh. It is, however, a little more than a 3,000-mile service—for the reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) gives.
    We have to look ahead to the expansion eastwards, and to some extent southwards—to Cyprus and Malta—of the European Union. One aspect that we have to consider to that end is the changes that will be needed in the common agricultural policy and in the structural funds. No one in their right mind would suppose that we could expand eastwards, which is certainly necessary, while conserving the CAP in its present form as the whole thing would go bust.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On behalf of my party I, too, pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary for the work that he has carried out during his period of office and wish him a happy retirement.
    In the context of the IGC and the future of the European institutions, will the Government be pushing for a review or appraisal of the work of the Committee of the Regions, which was set up under Maastricht, to look at the effectiveness of that committee as it is currently constituted, and to see whether the United Kingdom Government can make the work of the representatives on it much more effective by giving them better support?
    Mr. Hurd: That illustrates the difficulties of the exercise. The committee has only just started its work. It is far too soon in practice to review how it is going. High hopes are placed on it in Wales, Catalonia and other places, but it is too soon to make an assessment. That is one of the reasons why 1996, as in the treaty, for the review conference is too soon. However, we have to make

    379
    the best of the treaty. No doubt the Committee of the Regions will be reviewed, but I am sure that it is too soon to reach a conclusion.
    Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is right to concentrate on the thematic approach to the conference and not to get into too much detail about the precise agenda and the exact stance that we might wish to take? Does he further agree, as a diplomat who has rendered so much distinguished service to this country, that we should bear in mind that although it was once said that a week was a long time in politics, a day is a pretty long time too?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that in the coming months the House will seize many opportunities to talk about these issues and to prise out of the Government our approach, and we shall be forthcoming in response.
    It is worth repeating the timetable. The reflections group, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry sits, has just begun its work. The intergovernmental conference will not start, I believe, until the spring—I do not think that the Italians will be in a rush to start it—and it is likely to last a considerable time, so there will be plenty of time for reflection and debate.
    Ms Quin: The Government are being urged by some of their friends to bring about a substantial return of powers from the European Union to national Governments during the process that the Foreign Secretary has outlined. Given the right hon. Gentleman's extensive contacts with his European counterparts over the years, does he think that such a substantial repatriation of powers is either possible or desirable?
    Mr. Hurd: We are still looking at this. There is quite an appetite for greater clarity and a worry about what in the jargon is called creeping competence—that gradually without changes in the treaty the borderline will slide. That is a worry which goes beyond this country. However, we are still examining exactly what proposals might be sensible.

    Middle East
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [30912]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is probably the last Foreign Office question that I shall have the privilege of answering in the presence of my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary, with whom I have had the privilege of working for seven years at both the Home Office and the Foreign Office. It has been a great privilege and I much regret that my right hon. Friend will no longer be representing Britain's interests abroad. I know that that
    380
    is the view of my ministerial colleagues, too, and I believe it to be the view also of the service that my right hon. Friend has led with such distinction for so long.
    In answer to the main question, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall).
    Mr. Townsend: First, I acknowledge the rapid rapport that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have been able to strike up with Arab leaders during their time at the Foreign Office. Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall, however, that the basis of the middle east peace process was supposed to be land for peace? Does he agree that dividing the west bank into zones A, B and C is hardly likely to help the peace process? Is it not time that he told the Israeli Government, in his last few moments, perhaps, that this is a good moment to withdraw altogether from the occupied territory?
    Mr. Hogg: I think that on these occasions one should not be more royalist than the King. I also believe that we need strongly to support the negotiations that are afoot. I hope that it will be possible for the Israelis and Palestinians to meet their newest deadline of 25 July for a conclusion to the present negotiations.
    Mr. Janner: May I take the same opportunity to thank the Foreign Secretary for many courtesies over many years? He has been a friend and sparring partner for nearly a lifetime. If we have to have a Tory Foreign Secretary, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is leaving his post.
    At the same time, I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I am sure that he will have the support of almost all Opposition Members for the Government's efforts to make constructive approaches to both sides to help the peace process forward rather than trying to find ways to destroy good will.
    Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am glad that this Question Time has ended on such a harmonious note.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I, too, wish my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary well and I thank him for his support of the British Atlantic Group of Young Politicians and the Future of Europe Trust over the past five years.
    Can my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister confirm that the Israelis are now dealing with Mr. Arafat, which is a remarkable achievement? It must be made clear to the Israelis that they will never have peace unless they give up a good many of their settlements in the area known as Palestine.
    Mr. Hogg: It is clearly a good thing that the Israeli Government are dealing directly with Mr. Arafat and have been doing so for many months. That is a tribute to Mr. Arafat for his courage and to Prime Minister Rabin for his.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that, at a time when unemployment by the Government's figures is just under 2.5 million and, in reality, probably a million more, the Government are proposing to scrap the Department of Employment. Is it in order for any Government to take such a step without first consulting the House or at least having the courtesy to make a statement to the House? Have you received any request for such a statement?
Secondly, I have honour to be the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Hon. Members may say," Ah", but we all recognise why they propose to dispose of the Department; they do not like it. Does there not have to be a change in Standing Orders to achieve that? If so, Madam Speaker, have you had any notification of such a request? Is it not clear that the betrayal of unemployed people by removing the only Department of State that is concerned with jobs will not he forgiven by anyone who is unemployed or likely to become unemployed under this regime?
Madam Speaker: The matter that concerns me is the hon. and learned Gentleman's point about whether there needs to be a change in Standing Orders. If what the hon. Gentleman suspects is correct, there must be a change in Standing Orders.
To answer his other points, I have not been informed that a Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter. As the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House know, changes in departmental and ministerial affairs are not a matter for me. He might care to seek to catch my eye at a time when either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House is at the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As a new boy, may I ask whether you could explain whether there is any hope, if a Ministry is abolished, that the Select Committee covering it will be abolished, too?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a moment ago.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: There is a matter that concerns you, Madam Speaker, in that the existence of Departments results in questions being put to the responsible Ministers. As you know, Members of Parliament are required to table a fortnight beforehand oral questions to the Department of Employment, the Department of Trade and Industry or other Ministries that may be affected by the reshuffle. In view of that, I ask you to make further inquiries, so that the House and Back-Bench Members of Parliament who table questions know whether it is in order to table Employment questions.
Finally, it is pretty clear that the new Deputy Prime Minister has shut the pits, shut most of the shipyards and is now shutting down the Government.
Madam Speaker: That is hardly a point of order for me.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. For the past seven years, we have enjoyed a one-and-a-half hour Consolidated Fund debate in July on Britain's relations with Latin America. Under
382
the new arrangements, a number of hon. Members of all parties applied for such a debate this July. We could do so only by applying for one of the Wednesday morning debates, for which, we have been advised by your office, we were unsuccessful. What steps can we take to ensure that, in July, the House debates this important part of the world as usual, because such debates are for the interest of the people of Latin America?
Madam Speaker: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is a matter for the Leader of the House at business questions tomorrow, if the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to catch my eye.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the reallocation of the responsibilities of Ministers of the Crown and the action that needs to be taken by the House in the form of a motion or resolution, is it not a fact that such a formal reallocation, which involves the responsibility for answering questions and presenting estimates, expenditure, votes and related matters, cannot take place unless and until a relevant resolution is carried in the House? Is it not also the case that, until that time, the Secretary of State named is responsible until the House decides otherwise?
Madam Speaker: Ministers and Government Departments make their own arrangements, but I am as concerned as the hon. Gentleman about this matter. I shall certainly make all inquiries to satisfy myself.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from the Leader of the Opposition to move a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence in the Government? Is the Leader of the Opposition capable of making a decision, or is he indecisive on this matter?
Madam Speaker: That would not be the procedure. Such a request would be made through the usual channels.
Ms Angela Eagle: I note that we are scheduled to have Employment Questions next Tuesday. Indeed, a list has already been drawn up. Can you give any guidance, Madam Speaker, as to what will happen? The Department of Energy has already been subsumed into the Department of Trade and Industry, and if the Department of Employment is to be so subsumed, how are we to ask reasonable questions about the plight of many millions of people in this country?
Madam Speaker: As I attempted to explain in response to the original point of order on that matter, I am not responsible for departmental and ministerial changes. However, I understand the House's concern, and I shall attempt to find out what the position is as soon as I am able to do so.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Having been for many years one of the elder statesmen, and not normally needing such a prop as this stick, I had hoped to catch your eye a little earlier. For many, many, many years now, your predecessors have always made a point of asking me to ask some small question during Foreign Affairs questions.
I was very eager this afternoon just to say—I was not going to be difficult—that those of us who have the greatest expectations of British Foreign Secretaries of whatever party have not too much to be dissatisfied with

383
in the right hon. Gentleman, who has just disappeared for the last time from the Chamber as Foreign Secretary. We wish him well; we respect his manner of going, which is the honourable sort of thing that we would have expected him to do; and we much regret his departure.
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments, but, as Speaker, I have never prompted any hon. Member to ask questions on a particular day. Far be it from me to do so—I have sufficient competition at Question Time without prompting hon Members.

Peace and Freedom Day
3.39 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the discontinuation of the May day bank holiday and to establish a Peace and Freedom day bank holiday on the Monday nearest to Victory in Europe day, 8 May.
Eight weeks ago, the entire nation commemorated the final collapse of the Third Reich and celebrated the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe. The events that took place over that splendid weekend in May were astonishingly successful in bringing back the excitement and relief that was originally felt following six of the longest and toughest years in our country's history.
To those of us who were born too late to have played a part in the war, VE day gave us an opportunity to give thanks to those who offered their lives in defence of freedom. Younger generations, perhaps for the first time, became aware of the magnificent achievement of this country as Europe's last bastion against Nazidom, wholly alone for nearly two years after the fall of France, until Germany invaded Russia, and America joined us after Pearl harbour.
Throughout all the events during the VE day celebrations, the portrayal of our royal family was for ever present, and rightly so, because of its tremendous inspiration to all our people throughout the entire war. Equally dominating was the portrayal of Winston Churchill as the one man above all others who symbolised as well as led our country's resistance, from our darkest days to our finest hours.
It was inevitable that, after the celebrations were over, it was said that VE day would never again be commemorated and remembered in such a way; that, as those who took part in the war depart, so will all memories of their achievements dim, and for future generations will be merely the stuff of history books.
The purpose of my Bill therefore is to ensure that the significance and achievements of VE day will never be forgotten. The establishment of a clearly designated bank holiday in our calendar to commemorate the triumph of peace and freedom over tyranny, and its importance to Europe and the world, will remind this country annually and permanently of the crucial part that Britain played.
Many hon. Members, including you yourself, Madam Speaker, will recall a previous attempt to introduce such a bank holiday eight years ago, on 24 March 1987, by our former colleague, Stefan Terlezki. He called it the Winston Churchill National day. The House voted for it by 160 to 80, and there was every reason to believe that it could have been passed into law but for the general election three months later.
To reintroduce Stefan's Bill was precisely what I had in mind today, inspired by the events of two months ago, when so many of us in the House came together in Westminster Hall with our families to participate in the historic, unique and, above all, British ceremony as both Houses presented their humble addresses to Her Majesty.
But on further thought, I do not think that Winston Churchill would have wanted such a day solely to commemorate his name. As he himself so nobly and modestly said:

385
"It fell to me in those days to express the sentiments and resolves of the British nation in that supreme crisis of its life. That was to me an honour far beyond any dreams or ambitions I had ever nursed, and it is one that cannot be taken away."
Churchill's personal reputation and his "walk with destiny", as he put it, first as the prophet and then as the leader against Hitler, will always be bound up with the general reputation of that war as the crusade against evil that it was, in which patriotism was not enough. Such a day to commemorate peace and freedom in Europe would always be associated with Winston Churchill, just as his portrayal and presence dominated the 50th anniversary events just two months ago.
My proposal for the actual date of the bank holiday to be the Monday closest to VE day, 8 May, is also symbolic in other appropriate ways: it is close to the day when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister, 10 May 1940, when the nation faced a very bleak future indeed; and it is close to the same day a year later when this very Chamber, the greatest symbol of freedom and democracy, was destroyed by German bombs.
It is also the day before Europe day, 9 May, which is celebrated throughout the European Union to mark the day in 1950 when Robert Schuman called on the people of Europe to rally together for a common cause, in which cultural diversity is respected and solidarity proclaimed.
Having, I hope, persuaded the House to support the establishment of such a bank holiday permanently to commemorate VE day, I should now explain why I propose that it should replace the May day bank holiday the previous week. I should stress to Opposition Members that I have no great prejudice against a bank holiday to commemorate Labour day. Indeed, as a Roman Catholic I am encouraged to celebrate it myself as St Joseph the Worker's day—the day of St Joseph the carpenter, the stepfather of Jesus. I consider it rather unfortunate, however, that in recent years May day has become too associated with the massive demonstration of the communist war machine in Red square, overlooked by Soviet leaders on the Kremlin wall.
Certainly the origin of May day is no part of British history—or European history, for that matter. As our former colleague Dave Nellist reminded the House when speaking against Stefan Terlezki's Bill, the original May day was 1 May 1886, when 350,000 workers downed tools in more than 11,000 establishments in America in a demand for an eight-hour day, which led to the first general strike in American history. Workers and police died in the violence that followed. Since then, 1 May has evolved into an international expression of workers' solidarity, and a bank holiday to commemorate it was introduced in 1978 by the Labour Government.
I suggest that a peace and freedom day bank holiday to replace the May day bank holiday would epitomise all the rights and freedoms, including the freedom of trade unions, that the liberation of Europe and the re-establishment of democracy and the rule of law in western Europe has guaranteed and protected—thanks largely to British leadership and British courage. Indeed, only recently the Council of Europe's social charter—which, along with the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights, was a consequence of victory in Europe—has been extended to include new categories of rights for workers.
386
Finally, there are good practical arguments in favour of a bank holiday a week later than May day. It would be welcomed by industry, especially the tourist industry, as being that much further away from the Easter bank holiday weekend. It would apply equally in Scotland: we know from early-day motion 871 of the problems that this year's VE day holiday—which was not a bank holiday in Scotland—imposed on that country.
For all those good reasons, I ask the leave of the House to bring in my Bill, as a permanent reminder to the people of this country—and generations to come—of the successful outcome of the finest chapter in our British history, and the part played by our royal family, Winston Churchill as leader of a coalition Government, all the people of Britain, our allies and the Commonwealth in the restoration of peace and freedom to Europe and the world 50 years ago.
3.42 pm
Mr. Mike Watson: I oppose the motion—which I have only just spotted on the Order Paper—not simply because May day happens to be the day on which I was born, but for much more serious reasons.
Despite the jingoism that we have heard from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), this is a vengeful and petty proposal, designed as a further attack on organised labour by Conservative Members. I am sure that no Opposition Member would oppose the establishment of a special holiday to commemorate VE day, and I am sure that a holiday to commemorate VJ day would be equally justified; but that is not the point of the proposal.
Over the past 15 or 16 years, Conservative Members have lost no opportunity to attack organised labour in any form. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) recently pointed out that, for some bizarre reasons that may eventually become clear, the Department of Employment is to be abolished.
The May day holiday, however, is a fine tradition. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East said, it resulted from an industrial dispute in, I believe, San Francisco in 1888, but it goes back far further than that. I understand that it goes back far further in English traditions, with which, for obvious reasons, I am not particularly familiar. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have washed his face more carefully in the morning dew on May day before thinking up this ill-considered proposal.
Not only Opposition Members oppose the idea. The hon. Gentleman failed to mention that, when the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), as Secretary of State for Employment, suggested abolishing May day, the CBI was against the proposal, because it saw no need for change. Apparently, employers' organisations believe that there is no need for any change. We know that some of this country's worst employers sit on the Conservative Benches. That may partly explain why such proposals continually come forward.
The May day tradition goes back hundreds of years. In this country, it goes back about 100 years as a proud labour movement tradition in many regions. I and many other hon. Members participate in May day rallies and parades, which are family and fun days. They recall the labour movement's history but, equally, they look forward as well. They are enjoyed by thousands of people. To suggest that that should be taken away is, at best, mean-minded and, at worst, insulting to the people who enjoy it.

387
May day is a day of working-class tradition in many communities, even those where heavy industries that had developed in the past 100 years have virtually ceased to exist. On that day, people still proudly parade their banners and remember their forefathers and foremothers.
It is important to make the point that the Bill is not just about May day. Its proposal that we should have a specific peace and freedom day in place of May day is equally insulting to the millions of people who took part in world wars in this century. Who fought hardest of all to achieve peace and freedom in the 1914–18 and 1939–45 wars? For obvious reasons, many people who fought in those wars have proud traditions in the labour movement and were happy to commemorate VE and VJ days as much as they commemorate May day.
If the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East really wishes us to have a VE day holiday, let us consider the possibility of creating an additional holiday. Before he falls off his seat by suggesting that that would cost industry millions of pounds and would be unworkable, let us compare the holidays in the UK with those in other European Union member countries. Let us start by comparing the holidays of the UK. The hon. Gentleman's constituents in Bournemouth have nine public holidays a year, My constituents in Scotland have 10, and the constituents of Northern Ireland Members have 11. Already, therefore, the public holidays position needs to be addressed.
Throughout the European Union, nine member countries have more public holidays than we do, and only two have fewer public holidays: the Netherlands and Denmark. Those are the only two European countries that do not have May day as a public holiday. Plenty of scope exists, therefore, for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to introduce a VE day, and, as I said, a VJ day, holiday and still to remain in a position that is not out line with the majority of European Union member countries by retaining the May day holiday.
The Bill is a thinly veiled attack on this country's organised labour, and its proud traditions going back many years. Opposition Members will not tolerate it, and I suggest that, when the Bill goes to the vote, the House will not tolerate it either.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 79, Noes 155.

Division No. 198]

[3.52 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Colvin, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Congdon, David

Alton, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Day, Stephen

Booth, Hartley

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evennett, David

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Foster, Don (Bath)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Gorst, Sir John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Budgen, Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butterfill, John

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Cash, William

Harris, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Harvey, Nick

388

Hawkins, Nick

Sims, Roger

Hawksley, Warren

Spring, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Steen, Anthony

Jenkin, Bernard

Stern, Michael

Jessel, Toby

Sweeney, Walter

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Thomason, Roy

Kirkwood, Archy

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Lynne, Ms Liz

Thurham, Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Tredinnick, David

Moate, Sir Roger

Tyler, Paul

Viggers, Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wallace, James

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Waterson, Nigel

Pawsey, James

Wilkinson, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Rathbone, Tim

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Riddick, Graham

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Lady Olga Maitland and

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. Michael Fabricant.

NOES

Ainger, Nick

Gerrard, Neil

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Ashton, Joe

Godsiff, Roger

Barnes, Harry

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bayley, Hugh

Graham, Thomas

Beggs, Roy

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Grocott, Bruce

Bermingham, Gerald

Gunnell, John

Berry, Roger

Hall, Mike

Betts, Clive

Harman, Ms Harriet

Blunkett, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Bradley, Keith

Hinchliffe, David

Burden, Richard

Home Robertson, John

Byers, Stephen

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hoon, Geoffrey

Canavan, Dennis

Howarth, George Knowsley North)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hoyle, Doug

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hutton, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ingram, Adam

Coffey, Ann

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cohen, Harry

Janner, Greville

Connarty, Michael

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Corston, Jean

Keen, Alan

Cummings, John

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Khabra, Piara S

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Lewis, Terry

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Denham, John

Litherland, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Livingstone, Ken

Dixon, Don

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Donohoe, Brian H

Llwyd, Elfyn

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Loyden, Eddie

Eagle, Ms Angela

McAllion, John

Eastham, Ken

McAvoy, Thomas

Etherington, Bill

McCartney, Robert

Fisher, Mark

McFall, John

Flynn, Paul

McKelvey, William

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McMaster, Gordon

Gapes, Mike

MacShane, Denis

Garrett, John

Marek, Dr John

389

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Rowlands, Ted

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Salmond, Alex

Maxton, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Meale, Alan

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Simpson, Alan

Milburn, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morley, Elliot

Spearing, Nigel

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Spellar, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Steinberg, Gerry

Mowlam, Marjorie

Straw, Jack

Mudie, George

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mullin, Chris

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Murphy, Paul

Timms, Stephen

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Tipping, Paddy

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Touhig, Don

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Trimble, David

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dennis

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Vaz, Keith

Parry, Robert

Watson, Mike

Pickthall, Colin

Wicks, Malcolm

Pike, Peter L

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wilson, Brian

Purchase, Ken

Wise, Audrey

Randall, Stuart

Wright, Dr Tony

Reid, Dr John

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Mr. Tony Banks and

Rooker, Jeff

Mr. David Winnick.

Question Accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day
  Pensions Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
New clause 6

  PROTECTIVE COSTS ORDERS
  'Where an application is made to a Court and —

  (1) the Court is satisfied that there has been, in relation to the scheme, a prima facie breach of trust by trustees, and

  (2) the application has been supported by scheme members under prescribed conditions,

  the court may grant an order requiring the scheme trustees to pay the reasonable costs of scheme members in obtaining legal advice in order to pursue claims on behalf of the scheme.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. Adam Ingram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Before I begin my comments on new clause 6, may I say that, although the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is in his place, which is good to see, I understand that congratulations are due on his recent elevation to the post of Secretary of State for Wales? I only hope that the decision was not taken on the back of battles with the Celtic fringes while debating this Bill over the past few weeks.
  I give the right hon. Gentleman a word of advice: understanding the Scottish accent will not stand him in good stead when he goes to Wales. The Welsh accent is entirely different. Gaelic may be somewhat similar to Welsh, but the right hon. Gentleman will have a hard task speaking to the Welsh in that language. I wish him every success in his new appointment, although he will hold his post for a very short time.
  The new clause is straightforward in its intention. It seeks to give maximum protection to scheme members in circumstances where they are required to initiate a court action against trustees of their pension scheme when they consider that there has been a prima facie breach of trust by the trustees. The purpose of the new clause is to lay down a level playing field between trustees and scheme members in matters that require determination by a court.
  The new clause is based on experience of recent judgments, which, although they have clarified the law substantially, still leave areas of uncertainty. There can be no dispute that the cost of legal actions against trustees for breach of trust can be extremely high, because of the length of such cases and the need for different sub-categories of beneficiaries to be separately represented.
  Where scheme members, either individually or collectively, possibly and unusually with the support of their trade union, decide to take a case against their trustees or their employers, or jointly against them, for breach of trust, they face the prospect of open-ended and indeterminate costs. That is a major deterrent, especially if all costs are to be met by them if the case is found against the plaintiffs.

  391
  Trustees against whom the case is being brought do not face the same hazard, for the simple reason that their costs will be met by the trust fund. Trustees, therefore, have the added facility and encouragement to drag out cases, making them extremely expensive and creating a greater disincentive to scheme members to take action in the first place.
  The most recent example of court action, on which the current law rests in relation to such matters, is the Melton Medes case. The case involved action being taken by beneficiaries against their employers, their pension fund trustees and others, in which they made serious allegations concerning the administration of the scheme.
  The beneficiaries originally had the financial support of their trade union, the GPMU—the Graphical, Paper and Media Union—which paid out £250,000 in legal costs at the commencement of the case and as it developed. Understandably, however, the union decided that it could pay no more, because the case was open-ended. That left the beneficiaries unable to fund the case to its conclusion.
  An application was therefore made to the court for a pre-emptive costs order. In the court's consideration, Justice Vinelott found in the plaintiffs' favour. As a result of the unprecedented nature of that judgment, the matter was then transferred to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.
  Last August, the Court of Appeal upheld Justice Vinelott's judgment by declaring:
  "What distinguishes the shareholder and pension fund member on the one hand from the ordinary trust beneficiary on the other is that the former have both given consideration for their interests. They are not just recipients of the settlor's bounty which he, for better or worse, has entrusted to the control of trustees of his choice. The relationship between the parties is a commercial one and the pension fund members are entitled to be satisfied that the fund is being properly administered. Even in a non-contributory scheme, the employer's payments are not bounty. They are part of the consideration for the services of the employee."
  At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Hoffman, in his judgment, laid down some criteria to be used in future cases. They include the provision that the discretion can be considered in pension scheme cases only where the plaintiff members are suing on behalf of the trust estate. Another provision stated that the fact that the employer's residuary interest on a winding-up of the fund might be reduced by the cost of reasonable and bona fide proceedings coming out of the fund could not be conclusive against the making of an order, and that this was to be a factor in the exercise of a court's discretion. A further provision was that, if the plaintiffs were impecunious, unless the litigation was funded, serious claims would never be investigated.
  Clearly that decision set an important precedent. It established the right of scheme members and beneficiaries with a legitimate grievance to obtain a protective costs order out of a pension fund to enable them to litigate at the expense of the fund, irrespective of the eventual outcome of the case.
  However, the principles on which Lord Justice Hoffman made his judgment were narrow. It is important that the judgment had not been confirmed by the Law Lords, because the case was settled before the House of Lords had the opportunity to give further consideration to that new departure in law.
  392
  Others who have considered the judgment have confirmed that the principles set out by Lord Justice Hoffman were indeed narrow. In the "Occupational Pensions Law Reports", pensions lawyer and expert John Mesher stated:
  "there is little guidance on which to predict how the discretion will or will not be exercised in the future, since the factors identified in it will be common to most cases where pension scheme members bring claims against the trustees or the employers."
  New clause 6 sets out to replace the broad statutory right available to beneficiaries, which is subject to interpretation by the judiciary, who may not always find in favour of the beneficiaries, with a properly defined right in law.
  The Government may argue—indeed, they have argued when the matter has been considered elsewhere—that the appropriate mechanism for dealing with matters of dispute is the newly established pensions ombudsman, who has been in place for about four or five years. It is accepted that the ombudsman may be able to resolve certain disputes, but he will not be successful in all cases, and recourse to the law will therefore still be required.
  When the matter was considered earlier in the Bill's progress, Opposition amendments sought to place the financial responsibility on the new regulatory authority, saying that that body had a duty to fund such cases in the interests of natural justice. The Government did not accept that approach.
  The Government's first argument was that there was a pensions ombudsman in place to take on such matters, and that it was therefore unlikely that there would be such disputes requiring clarification. It was clear that the Government accepted that cases could still end up in court, but they were not prepared to find a mechanism to assist the beneficiaries to fund any case that they might be forced to take.
  Under the regulatory authority provisions, that chance is denied them, and I am not aware of any other mechanism available to them. Clearly, if access to justice is not to be denied, the only way forward is through the mechanisms laid down in new clause 6, allowing trust funds to be used in pursuance of such matters.
  I accept the arguments advanced during our earlier considerations that litigation should be avoided if possible, but I hope that the Minister will accept that that will not always be possible. The likelihood is that recourse to the law will be required in some cases to clear up matters of doubt and to ensure that the scheme beneficiaries are properly protected against possible wrongdoing or maladministration of their scheme.
  I accept that such cases may be rare, but they may easily end up in a court of law, so it is important that beneficiaries should not be disadvantaged relative to the powers that rest with trustees, who can draw upon trust funds to protect their interests. On that basis, I commend the new clause to the House.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Clearly it is right that the interests of scheme members should be protected. If members have reason to challenge the actions of the trustees because they believe that there has been a breach of trust, effective and straightforward methods of redress should be available. New clause 6 proposes one way of meeting that concern, by indemnifying members against their legal costs.

  393
  I make no bones about it—I shall be asking the House to reject the new clause, for two reasons. The first reason is that it gives the courts a power that they already have. That is a fundamental objection. The second reason is that there are other ways which are more effective than legal action by which scheme members may pursue their concerns. I suggest to the House that new clause 6 is unnecessary.
  I shall first go through the other and more effective ways, which the House will consider important. The first avenue open to members who have concerns about their pension scheme will be the dispute procedures which trustees will be required to implement under the provisions in clause 49. Any member who has a grievance will be able to pursue it first with the scheme administrator and—if he remains dissatisfied—with the trustees or managers. It is right that scheme members should be able to ask the trustees to account for the decisions they make, and it is in the interests of both the schemes and the members that, if possible, disputes should be resolved by the schemes themselves.
  If the member remains concerned after using the new dispute procedures, he will as now be able to take the matter to the occupational pensions advisory service and the pensions ombudsman. The member can be told how to get in touch with those bodies in the scheme documentation, and I have a couple of scheme documentations here—these are visual aids and props—to show precisely how the important bodies are drawn to the attention of members of pension schemes.
  The Pension Law Review Committee recognised that any redress system should be effective and should have the full confidence of those using it. It should also be easily accessible and cost-effective. All those attributes are provided by the occupational pensions advisory service and by the pensions ombudsman. The occupational pensions advisory service offers free and independent advice to any scheme member who has a problem with his pension scheme.
  The Pension Law Review Committee has recognised the worthwhile work carried out by the occupational pensions advisory service, and the Government remain committed to providing financial support for that valuable service. There may have been some confusion about what has been said about the powers of the ombudsman and the occupational pensions regulatory authority to seek the direction of the courts, as those directions would be funded by the levy and the funding of litigation costs.
  I should now cover the services of the pensions ombudsman which are also available to scheme members free of charge. This was the subject of some considerable discussion in Committee, particularly in relation to my role as a Chancery barrister. The pensions ombudsman was set up in 1991 to provide scheme members with an easily accessible and cost-effective way of resolving disputes with pension schemes. He has wide-ranging and flexible powers, which allow him to deal with the sometimes complicated disputes that arise in pensions cases.
  The ombudsman may consider complaints about injustice caused by maladministration and disputes of fact or law. I make it clear that that includes complaints and disputes involving trust law as well as breaches of statute. The ombudsman has the same power as the courts in requiring information and the examination of witnesses,
  394
  and I should emphasise that his determinations—unlike those of other ombudsmen—are final and binding on the parties to a dispute, subject only to an appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Effectively, his determinations have the same force as court rulings.
  The Pension Law Review Committee recognised the expertise and experience of the ombudsman in pursuing a variety of complex cases. Indeed, it recommended that his jurisdiction should be extended and should be available for the resolution of a wider range of pension disputes.
  It would be productive at this stage to refer to the report of the Pension Law Review Committee. Paragraph 4.13.42 states:
  "We have also considered whether to recommend that a tribunal be set up in place of the Pensions Ombudsman but we have not been persuaded by arguments in favour of a change of this sort. Whilst a tribunal is less formal than a court, creating a tribunal for pension disputes would still involve some of the elements that lay people find daunting: oral evidence, and an adversarial procedure, in which the protagonists confront each other and ask questions whilst the tribunal listens to the evidence, as opposed to the inquisitorial approach used by the Ombudsman, who investigates the facts and then decides on the basis of them. The Ombudsman's office has only been in place for a short time, during which it has established a good working relationship with OPAS and has investigated a number of cases in considerable detail and with great persistence. We therefore prefer to see changes implemented not by replacing the Ombudsman with a Pensions Tribunal but by introducing a series of rather smaller changes in the operation of existing institutions."
  Although the new clause does not suggest that the ombudsman should be replaced by a pensions tribunal, it is instructive to listen to what the Goode committee considers to be the successes of the ombudsman.
  Mr. Ingram: I accept that conclusion of the Goode committee, but it is worth while putting on record why it reached it. It received representations from the Council on Tribunals, which advised the committee that nothing less than an expert, properly constituted independent tribunal with a legal chairman would be apt for the purpose.
  I hope that the Minister is not trying to suggest that the Goode committee recommendation represents the only judgment on the matter, and that therefore any other suggestions were unimportant, especially when a responsible body such as the Council on Tribunals has made such a strong recommendation that contradicts the conclusion reached by that committee.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I would not for a moment suggest that there are no arguments in favour of a tribunal. The Goode committee heard those arguments, and considered them carefully. It then published a report that is not small, and came to the conclusion that I have just read out.
  At the moment, the ombudsman's jurisdiction is restricted to cases referred to him by individual members of pension schemes, but, as the Pension Law Review Committee recommended, in future he will also be able to handle complaints and disputes between employers and trustees and between the trustees of different schemes. Again, that will include cases involving breaches of trust law.
  The Council on Tribunals has been fully consulted on the provisions relating to the ombudsman's jurisdiction. Although it might, understandably, want a tribunal to be created, I understand that it does not currently raise any objections to the ombudsman's jurisdiction and the extension of it under the Bill.

  395
  We recognise that it may not be appropriate for the ombudsman to investigate all pension scheme disputes. Certain matters will be specifically excluded from his jurisdiction, because the Occupation Pensions Regulatory Authority will have enforcement powers that are more likely to be effective in securing compliance with the legislation in certain matters.
  My noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish explained in another place that we intend to make regulations which will exclude from the ombudsman's jurisdiction cases involving payment from surplus to an employer; failure to meet the minimum funding requirement; failure to comply with audit requirements; and the procedures for the appointment of member-nominated trustees and the scheme actuary. Concerns that scheme members may have about such matters will fall exclusively to the regulatory authority, which will have a wide range of powers to ensure compliance with statutory obligations.
  I recognise that court action is expensive. It is also time-consuming, and it may be daunting for members of pension schemes. Through the occupational pensions advisory service, the pensions ombudsman and the introduction of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, we have provided the means for scheme members to seek effective redress for their grievances without the need for lengthy and costly litigation. Effective means of redress, other than court action, is therefore available to scheme members.
  However, we certainly do not want to deny members access to the courts if that is what they want, and assistance is available for those members who decide to go to the courts. New clause 6 would allow members to apply to have the costs of legal advice met by the scheme trustees where the members are pursuing a case involving a breach of trust.
  As I said, the courts already have that power. In the Melton Medes case, to which the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) referred, a number of scheme members brought an action against the trustees of their pension scheme. The members applied successfully for a protective cost order allowing their costs to be met from the scheme, regardless of the outcome of the case.
  The hon. Member for East Kilbride read out parts of that judgment. However, I suspect that he may have read out those parts of the judgment that were modified by the conclusions reached by Lord Justice Hoffman. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman may have read out the historical position rather than the current position. If I am wrong about that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct me immediately.
  Perhaps it would be best if I were to read the summary in the "All England Law Reports", which states:
  "An action by a member of a pension fund to compel the trustees or others to account to the fund was analogous to a derivative action by a minority shareholder on behalf of a company in that pension funds were a special form of trust and the analogy between them and the company/shareholder relationship was much stronger than ordinary trusts and, in both cases, a person who had given consideration for a limited interest in a fund (whether a pension fund or the company's assets) was alleging injury to the fund as a whole and seeking restitution on behalf of the fund. Since a minority shareholder was entitled to a pre-emptive costs order indemnifying him out of the assets against his costs and any costs he might be ordered to pay to the other party, the court could also make a similar order in favour of a pension fund member pursuant to s 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1981."
  396
  I do not believe that that finding is as restrictive as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The Court of Appeal made that ruling, and I understand that it will not be appealed further. Therefore, I suggest that new clause 6 is unnecessary.
  Mr. Ingram: Does the Minister agree that the matter is not being pursued further in a higher court because a settlement was reached in the case, and therefore the reference to the Law Lords was withdrawn? If the case had gone to a higher court, a different decision might have been reached. I said that there was some doubt and uncertainty arising from the judgment and I based my argument on that point.
  I have visual aids as well, and I could read out the whole judgment if that is what the Minister wants. However, I think that we should make some progress on the matter. I stand by my earlier remarks about the uncertainties that can prevail. We are still in a grey area, because the judgment was not considered in a higher court of law.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman could read out the whole judgment, because I think I am the only person who has it. I have not spoken to the parties in the case, and I do not know what motivated them to come to a settlement after the finding of the Court of Appeal. However, until that judgment is overturned in the House of Lords—whether in this case or in another case—it remains the law of the land.
  I believe that new clause 6 is unnecessary, because it provides a power that the courts already have and that they have exercised. It extends to scheme members the principle known as the Beddoes principle, under which trustees can apply to the court for an order indemnifying them from the trust fund against the costs of legal action taken on behalf of a scheme.
  I have described a wide range of measures that provide scheme members with various means of challenging the actions of the scheme trustees. Schemes will have to provide dispute resolution procedures and they have access to an excellent means of redress through the free services of the occupational pensions advisory scheme, the ombudsman and the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.
  Following the Melton Medes case, it is clear that they can apply to the courts for protective costs orders if they prefer to take their case to the courts. I am therefore unable to accept that the new clause would serve any useful purpose. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press it to a division, because it would not improve the Bill.
  Question put and negatived.

New clause 4

  INVESTMENT POWERS: DUTIES OF TRUSTEES
  '(1) Trustees or managers of a scheme shall, in relation to investments held by the scheme —

  (a) make available to scheme members a statement of policy on the exercise of shareholder voting,

  (b) maintain records of shareholder voting,

  (c) permit the inspection by a scheme member of the voting records described in subsection (b), within 21 days of the date of a written request to trustees, and

  (d) provide to a scheme member within 21 days of the date of a written request a copy of all or part of the shareholder voting record.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendments Nos. 36 and 38 to 50.
  Amendment No. 13, in clause 47, page 30, line 21, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
  Mr. Dewar: This is a debate on quite an important issue by any standards; in fact, I am not clear why I used the word "quite"—perhaps it is innate moderation. It is an extremely important issue which generated a great deal of anger as certain events in industry and commerce were deeply resented by a wide cross-section of the public, and indeed, of informed and technical opinion.
  The new clause addresses the issue of corporate governance. A great deal has been said about that in recent times, but it should be brought before the House during our consideration of the Pensions Bill. As anyone who has examined the facts and figures will recognise, pension funds hold a special place because of their growing financial muscle, which has built up spectacularly in recent years.
  Much of the present discontent has been highlighted by one or two spectacular cases. British Gas attracted an enormous amount of publicity and Mr. Cedric Brown became famous. In my view, no reasonable man would want such fame, although there may be private consolations when he inspects his bank balance. Those cases have done a great deal to damage public confidence.
  During the passage of the Pensions Bill, we spoke learnedly about the impact of the Maxwell case and what it has done to shake confidence in the management and solidity of pension funds. I do not want to exaggerate, but some recent instances, particularly those concerning private utilities, and the way in which managers have used their muscle and their privileged position to award themselves startling increases in salary and perks have made a profound impression on the public. If I lived in the City, worked in the City and lived on the City, I would be concerned about some of the public responses and the evident worry.
  It is not just poor Mr. Brown and British Gas. In some ways, it is more alarming when people who are given the opportunity to enrich themselves do it with vim and vigour, although the chance arose simply through privatisation and not because of some great entrepreneurial skill that has driven out a new platform of economic activity and the opportunity to contribute to national growth.
  The national grid might be a example of that. The existing operation ran on under new colours, but those colours provided the opportunity to move very fast in the direction of self-aggrandisement. I do not intend to make a lengthy speech about that aspect. I draw it to the attention of the House because it is a matter of particular sensitivity, but I have no doubt that the arguments can be rehearsed on other occasions.
  The foregoing is symptomatic of a much wider problem of which the Secretary of State will be well aware. These days I read the Financial Times regularly. It reports pensions news and related issues in a detail that other papers cannot match. Reading it every day, I have been
  398
  struck by the number of times I have come across details, now routinely reported, of the emoluments of chief executives and directors of public companies. It is clear that there are now people who are able, out of earned income, to build up significant capital fortunes in a way that some of us would have though inconceivable only 10 or 12 years ago.
  Sometimes there are other perquisites, such as pension contributions which outrage common sense, and share options which yield profits comparable to a decent-sized win in the national lottery. I do not want to give the impression—I realise it is likely that the Secretary of State will charge me with this—that I am opposed to reward for initiative. If people work hard, if they have special talents or if they produce special results, that will and ought to be reflected in their earnings and their rewards. That is an inevitable part of the system; I do not protest against it. I am trying to put the case in comparatively low-key terms because I do not want to end up in a slanging match with Conservative Members over what they would describe as the politics of envy. That would not take the argument much further.
  I am sure that Ministers will accept, however, that certain cases have raised eyebrows and that there is a worry which is widely reflected right across the sweep of industry and of those who comment on industrial and commercial matters. I wish here to use the words "offensive" in a justified but not excitable fashion. I find it offensive to see rolling contracts extending over a number of years. They mean that if someone has to go because he has not been a success or has not delivered as expected, he is paid sums which seem extraordinary to me—I was going to say "to you", Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that would be an impertinence on my part; I do not know how broad your vision of these matters may be—given that he is paid them simply because he has not succeeded in his job.
  I am happy to recognise that worth must be rewarded, but the argument that firms are only paying the market rate has set in motion a ratchet phenomenon, whereby each supports the other and the ante goes up endlessly. There is genuine scope for abuse here. But I also recognise that this is not all about pay and executive perks. That would be a rather narrow basis on which to conduct the argument.
  As I have said, we come across extraordinary examples in the papers. I, for instance, have been watching the activities of Mr. Sorrell of Wire Packaging and Plastic with considerable interest. At one time—admittedly, tied to performance targets—he was looking at a rake-in of about £35 million over the next few years. It is interesting to note also that the sum has been moderated and the man has been reined in as a result of shareholder pressure and a revolt by a cross-section of the institutions with an interest in WPP—which, despite its rather prosaic name, turns out to be an advertising agency holding company more familiarly known as JWT, or Ogilvie and Mather, and one or two other names of that sort. This is a startling example of the extreme end of the argument.
  It is not just a question of pay. We also believe, in the context of investments in a public company held by a pension fund or any other institutional investor, that those investors ought to take a practical interest in how the company in question is run, in the interests of the beneficiaries of a pension fund or of the shareholders of an institutional investor. That would also lead to the better

  399
  government of the company under examination. I think of such matters as investment policy, environmental considerations, which often raise sensitive issues, and the difficult balance between profit and environmental considerations. There are other ethical and management issues that should be on the agenda and given active consideration by shareholders, especially institutional shareholders.
  Short-termism in investment policy is often debated. It may be said, "This is a general problem. Why do you seek to impose a particular burden upon pension institutions and pension funds?" By the end of 1992—the percentage has probably increased since then—pension funds were reckoned to hold about 34 per cent. of the equity market, getting on for £300 billion. In 1963, it was not 34 per cent. but 8 per cent. There is a real question mark over how that substantial influence will be exercised and the level of responsibility that is expected of the funds.
  There is not necessarily a great deal of dispute about many of the basic considerations of what should be expected. But there will be a dispute, I think, about whether we want to do anything about those who fall short of expected standards. That is perhaps the real purpose of the new clause. It is designed to provoke or invite some debate on that issue. We do not want—when it comes to short-termism, this is an important distinction—institutional investors or pension funds to be owners in a superficial sense. We do not want them merely to be dealers in the shares of the companies in which they have an interest. We do not want them watching and waiting to take a percentage profit when a share price reaches a pre-determined level and has a certain added value over the purchase price.
  It is compatible and much in the interests of those for whom pension funds are in existence that matters such as research and development, investment and management standards come well to the fore. To encourage that positive interest we want to encourage positive ownership of the sort that I have tried to outline.
  I remember talking to a managing director of a firm with a proud record of research and development and investment in it. My constituency does not throw up many such examples. The company was in a highly technical industry in which it did not produce spectacular results at the time. It was investing heavily for the future. A rather aggressive conglomerate came shopping for it with a hostile takeover bid. The managing director—in fact, he was the managing director of one of the subsidiary companies—was asked to see some institutional investors to discuss the issues with them and to try to persuade them that there was genuine interest in the company remaining in independent ownership and continuing its proud traditions of investment and innovation. There was also a national interest.
  The managing director told me that what ensued was the most depressing experience of his industrial life. He visited largely Edinburgh investment offices. The House will be aware that Edinburgh is a large centre of investment funds. He said, rather bitterly, that he found people half his age in smart suits. It sounded as though it was rather like looking at the occupants of the Conservative Benches.
  Mr. Ingram: They are not very smart.
  Mr. Dewar: I think that there is a sartorial distinction between the two sides of the House. No one has ever
  400
  accused me of being a dandy, but if the Secretary of State wishes to do so, I shall await his speech with interest.
  The managing director went around the boardrooms, but the young men would not listen to his arguments. He described them—at least, I am interpreting what he said, so I shall describe them—as having brains like calculating machines and having about as much vision. They made it clear that if the price—the percentage mark-up on what they had originally paid—was right, the door would be slammed shut and the sale could go ahead.
  There is a wider worry about institutional investors. That case was symptomatic of a general problem. The Secretary of State would not deny that investment in the United Kingdom, as a percentage of gross domestic product, has not been as good as it should have been. Between 1979 and 1993, our level of investment was lower than that of any of the other G7 countries. The deficit in investment in fixed capital relative to, say, France and Germany, is something like £1,000 per employee.
  4.45 pm
  It is not easy to put that right and I am not suggesting that a modest new clause in the Pensions Bill will resolve the problem. We have to start trying to resurrect an interest in a definition of ownership and stewardship for shareholders, and especially for institutional investors, that is wider than has been accepted in the past. It was on the basis of a wish to encourage healthy corporate governance that the new clause was tabled.
  The new clause is something of a reprise. We have debated it in the House of Lords and in Committee. My noble Friend Lord Haskel raised the issue and argued the case forcefully. Lord Mackay of Clashfern, sounding a little like a boy scout, expressed good intentions but promised no action. We thought it right to return to it in Committee but we got very little help, I am afraid, from the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot), who took that debate. It was an interesting debate in the sense that he conceded a great deal of the ground that I have outlined in this debate.
  The relevant passages come from the Standing Committee's proceedings of 18 May. We had tabled an amendment designed to make sure that when investment principles were being considered and put into written form, the trustees of a pension fund would take into account their ability to exercise their voting rights. It was a comparatively modest peg for a discussion about the way forward.
  I shall quote a few broken phrases to give the spirit of the Under-Secretary's argument rather than wearying the House with its detail. He said:
  "I am sure that we all agree that the intention behind the amendment—the improvement of good corporate governance—is admirable.
  Shareholders have a crucial role in influencing and ensuring good governance and the competitiveness of British industry … The Government are concerned that shareholders should take their corporate governance responsibilities more seriously. It is extremely important that they should subject the performance of their companies to critical scrutiny … The role of shareholders is crucial to the country's economic prosperity."
  At that point, I was in the audience and not an active participant. I felt 10 ft tall and thought that I was going to get a gold star for good conduct. Clearly, the

  401
  Under-Secretary thought that we were fighting the good fight. Rather oddly, he went off the tracks after that, because he started to consider what we should do, from that platform of agreement, about the nature of the problem. I do not disagree, but he said that
  "good practice in corporate governance does not necessarily translate easily into legislation … The Goode committee considered the matter carefully. On ethical and socially responsibly investment, page 350 of the report says:
  'We believe the present law to be satisfactory and do not recommend any change'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 18 May 1995; c. 223–24.]
  I have no doubt that the report did say that about the narrow issue of the rights of trustees to take into account certain ethical and environmental considerations, but that was not what we were discussing.
  The Under-Secretary went on, even more strangely, to accuse us—at least by implication—by charging that the choice that we were offering was between forcing trustees to invest in a particular way and allowing them to make their own decisions on how best to serve the interests of their beneficiaries. I cannot imagine how the notion that we were forcing trustees to follow a certain investment course could be inferred from the nature of that amendment.
  The point of rehearsing these arguments is to underline the fact that the Government accept that there is a problem and that a great deal needs to be done but that there is very little sign of their being prepared to consider any likely solution or even a modest first step forward.
  We know that in total—I am referring to equity holdings—the assets of pension funds are getting on for about £500 billion. We know that they have a crucial role, especially in the equity market, and that good governance must involve them. If we cannot get them moving, it will be difficult to make any impact on the problem.
  The House will know that, although there is a feeling that some progress has been made, there is clearly a long way to go. The National Association of Pension Funds, for example, has been charting the progress and examining in particular the way in which pension funds have been exercising their franchise at the shareholder meetings of the companies in which they have invested. There is no doubt that a good deal of progress has been made but, as the vice-chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds made clear at the association's most recent conference, there is still a long way to go. He accepted that the job was by no means satisfactorily completed.
  The Cadbury report had a fair bit to say about corporate governance in general. I do not want to mislead the House, but it is a little odd to find that the Cadbury report referred to the fact that the Goode committee—the Pension Law Review Committee—was sitting and said that, in the light of that, it would be inappropriate for it
  "to deal specifically with pension fund governance issues".
  However, its comments about institutional shareholders and good governance, which I shall not quote at length, are relevant. It states that institutional investors should make positive use of their voting rights unless they have good reason for doing otherwise and that they should register their votes wherever possible on a regular basis. The committee recommended that institutional investments should disclose their policies on the use of
  402
  voting rights. Although that report left the matter to Goode, I cannot see that it is any way likely that its general conclusion about corporate governance would not transplant—if that is not too agricultural a simile—to the world of pension funds.
  Unfortunately, as the House will know, the Goode committee did not consider the matter. It considered everything else that man could think of, several things that man probably had not thought of and certainly many that man did not want to think about at all, although perhaps he should have wanted to do so. It is indeed a comprehensive report but, strangely—despite what the Cadbury report said—the Goode committee did not say very much about this particular matter on this occasion.
  That is the general background. I hope that it will have convinced the Minister that we are not suggesting a sinister approach to an imaginary problem. The new clause is a genuine attempt to deal with a problem that is very real and a worry, whether to the NAPF or Cadbury or in Government circles. There is a recognition in every circle that the situation is unsatisfactory. Our share-owning democracy—a phrase that is occasionally used in Government circles—is not as developed in this country as we would like, partly because of the enormous importance of institutional shareholdings and, of course, pension funds, as I have being trying to outline. The new clause is a modest proposed step on the road to putting that right.
  To summarise, the new clause tries to lay certain duties—I say "tries" because we do not know whether it will find favour—on trustees or managers of pension schemes to make available to scheme members a statement of policy on the use of their votes in the affairs of the companies in which they have invested, to maintain a record of what they have done, to permit inspection of that record and to provide copies of that record on written request within 21 days.
  I must confess that I am sometimes astonished by the moderation of Labour Members. There is nothing in the new clause that anyone could say was extreme or objectionable. We are not trying to direct. We are not even going as far as saying that it should be mandatory to use the vote. We have tried to make the new clause compatible with the duties and responsibilities outlined in the current legislation.
  We have tried to make the new clause a harmonious proposition that fits in the Bill well and have tried to ensure that it is not something that would panic or frighten the horses. That is, perhaps, an unfair way to refer to Ministers, but I am sure that the House will understand the reference. When I am trying to persuade people, I always try to use language that they understand. I do not think that the Secretary of State is a horsey type, so I fear that he does not conform—but I cannot really be responsible for his individuality, in a Conservative sense. I did not use the word "peculiarity" as I thought that it might put him off.
  I now return to the argument, from which I was temporarily diverted. The new clause is modest but not unimportant, and it deserves serious consideration. Although it is modest, it is sensible and very much fits in with the provisions contained in clause 35. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that clause 35 deals with investment principles. It reads:

  403
  "The trustees of a trust scheme must secure that there is prepared, maintained and from time to time revised a written statement of the principles governing decisions about investments for the purposes of the scheme."
  It goes on to say that the statement must cover matters, which include the kind of investments to be held, the balance between different kinds of investments, risk, the expected return on investments, the realisation of investments, and such other matters as may be prescribed.
  Given that there is to be a written statement, it seems to me that a positive attempt must therefore be made to formulate a coherent investment plan, that it is not unreasonable to say that, as part of that process—if one likes, not as an addendum but perhaps as a parallel to that process—those same trustees should consider how they will cast their votes in corporate governance and produce guidance as to the general position they will adopt in these matters. That seems to be absolutely reasonable. It will draw attention to the matter and encourage a positive approach. It will also give information, and these days we are all interested, rightly, in transparency and in allowing people who have an interest as potential or actual beneficiaries in a pension scheme to know how their funds are managed. It will give them an opportunity to assess how their affairs are run.
  One of the reasons why we are picking out pension funds in this way, as opposed to other institutional investors, is that pension funds hold the money in trust for others. Trustees act on behalf of others, and a pension fund is a very important trust because it is a nest egg that, one hopes, will bring security in retirement. Surely, given those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask trustees to state their approach and to make that statement available to those who have a genuine interest.
  5 pm
  We could have gone much further. As the Secretary of State will know, in America it is mandatory, and has been since 1988, for the managers of pension funds to cast their votes. It is possible to escape the commitment only if the costs outweigh the benefits from the point of view of the beneficiaries of the pension trust. When I asked someone who was more familiar with such matters than I for an example of costs outweighing benefits, I was told that it might not be wise for a person with a holding in a Swiss company to exercise his mandatory duty to vote, as under Swiss law he would have to appear in person. Although that might prove popular with the executive sent on such a dangerous mission, it might not make much sense in other respects.
  I have made the point light-heartedly, but we are discussing the heartland of capitalism, often cited by the Secretary of State as an exemplar to us all—especially in terms of the job creation record and the policies that he mistakenly imagines to have been responsible for that record. As I have explained, in the United States it is not enough to provide a coherent statement of policy to serve as guidance, which is what we are suggesting; votes must be cast.
  I mentioned Switzerland because I understand that in August the rule was extended to overseas holdings. There have been some spectacular examples in that context, involving, for instance, the affairs of Saatchi and Saatchi, over which I shall draw a decent veil. We can all think of many other companies with substantial American holdings, however.
  404
  There has been an interesting shift in the statistics. American pension funds that used to invest a much smaller percentage of their total portfolio abroad than British funds are now increasing that investment markedly: there has been a large rise in the amount of buying of overseas holdings. Under American law, more and more will have to "punch their weight"—that is the cliché of the moment—and exercise their rights as shareholders at companies' annual general meetings. Many of the drug companies are involved, including Hanson—a company from over here that is doing very well over there. Its American shareholders will take a close interest in its affairs as a matter of legal duty. We have not gone as far as that in the amendment, because we realise that the Minister might bolt at the prospect.
  Ours is a reasonable and sensible proposition. It concentrates the mind; it increases the pressure; it recognises the difficulties that still exist, as defined by the National Association of Pension Funds; and it fits easily into a slot in the Bill, as a natural continuation of clause 35.
  The Minister is an individualist and may not advance the arguments that I expect him to advance, but certainly all his junior colleagues, such as Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and the Under-Secretaries of State, have taken shelter behind the Greenbury report—and his ex-junior colleagues. I hope that it was not listening to many hours of speeches in Committee that drove the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to seek shelter in the Cabinet; I suspect that he may regret the choice, but there we are. We may have to wait for a final decision on Greenbury, although there are rumours that the committee will not recommend legislation.
  In any event, our measure does not attempt to anticipate what Greenbury may or may not say. We are certainly not going into the more controversial issues such as mandatory voting, or the view—with which I have some sympathy—that if incentive payments are to be made they should not take the form of share options and the like but should constitute a bonus in the company's stock, to confer a sense of identification with the organisation and a vested interest in its future success. I understand that that is currently a strong trend in America.
  We have not tried to infringe, preclude, anticipate, pre-empt or do any of the things that we might have tried to do by tabling a new clause that was simply propaganda and would have us shouting abuse from the roof tops. Our new clause is a genuine attempt to encourage a positive approach rather than leaving matters to a system that has not been performing as it should, and hoping that it is a case of "Physician, cure thyself."
  The idea may not appeal to the Secretary of State, but I believe that the Government have a duty not to dictate or inhibit unnecessarily but to regulate sensibly and to set a framework within which people can realise the potential of their companies, and their own potential, to the best of their ability. I consider the new clause helpful, and I hope that the Secretary of State will view it in a friendly spirit.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will feel that I am suitably dressed, in view of his comments about Conservative Members' clothes.
  When I first studied the new clause, it struck me as fairly reasonable, but having listened to the hon. Member for Garscadden, I have become somewhat disillusioned. It is possible that I completely failed to understand what

  405
  new clause 4 was all about. If that is so, it is entirely my responsibility; but I put my name to the new clause because I assumed that it was essentially about supplying information to pension scheme members.
  Many pension scheme members feel that they are boxed into an arrangement that prevents them from receiving much information about what is going on. Beneficiaries in particular feel isolated from the operation of the scheme in which they are involved. I should have thought that, in principle, they were entitled to have as much information as possible, so that they know how their scheme is doing and can express to the appropriate people any views that they wish to express. I shall listen with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to say.
  Let me explain why I originally put my name to the new clause. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Garscadden has left the Chamber, but I did not think that most of his speech was very relevant to the new clause—especially the first part, which was a thinly veiled attack on various executives in individual businesses. I look forward to an explanation from my right hon. Friend, not having received much of an explanation from the Opposition. If the new clause is about supplying information to pension scheme members so that they can understand better how their money is being used, where it is being invested, what the impact is and whether they have a role to play or a view to express, I consider it a reasonable proposal —
  Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I should like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that time is short and I gave a pledge that I would make a short speech.
  If I have got the new clause right, I look forward to my right hon. Friend telling me about it, and I shall then judge what action I should take in the Division Lobby.
  Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) that new clause 4 makes it plain that it is concerned simply with the provision of information? As I hope to explain, such provision has implications for pension funds and the companies in which they invest, but the new clause is primarily an exercise in transparency for the benefit of people who contribute to their pension funds and therefore indirectly purchase shares in companies, specifically British companies.
  We are concerned with corporate governance. We are trying to promote greater corporate responsibility on the part of trustees or managers of pension schemes in respect of shares held by a pension fund and of the use of associated voting rights.
  The starting point for the debate must be the fact that United Kingdom pension funds hold assets totalling about £500 billion. It has been estimated that they hold about 35 per cent. of the total shares available on the UK equity market. Pension funds, along with many other institutional investors, are frequently the most significant institutional grouping among shareholders in any company. In practice, they may hold a controlling interest in a company.
  It is important that, as pension funds are such significant shareholders in UK companies, they should exercise the responsibilities that go with voting rights and the holding of shares in a proper way. That should be in
  406
  the national interest, as they receive significant tax concessions. They may have been able to accumulate shares in companies as a result of those tax concessions, which are, in effect, paid for by the UK taxpayer. The taxpayer must therefore have an interest in how those shares are held and in the manner in which funds are used and voting rights exercised.
  The new clause therefore deals specifically with the accountability of pension funds for their actions, both on behalf of people who have paid into a fund and their consequential position as indirect shareholders in major companies. With the new clause, we are seeking to establish the responsibilities that pension funds have to people who have, in effect, paid for shares by their pension fund contributions.
  The basic principle should be that scheme members who contribute to funds that are then invested in UK companies should have the right to know how the trustees or managers of the fund intend to use their voting rights to influence the policy and strategy of the company in question. Scheme members pay into the company, be it indirectly through their pension contributions, so surely it is not unreasonable to expect some information about how associated voting rights are then deployed. In essence, that is the purpose of the new clause.
  We know that the Cadbury committee has made recommendations on good corporate governance. It concluded that the trustees or managers of pension funds have a responsibility to vote their shares. As has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), to a great extent, that practice has been adopted in the United States of America. In 1974, legislation was introduced to encourage the process. Since 1988, it has been recognised that a shareholder's vote is an asset of a fund. That means that, in United States law, a pension fund has become under a duty to vote shares, unless there has been a positive decision not to do so.
  Moreover, as I understand the position in the United States, it flows from that that the pension fund is required to inform itself of the role that its shareholding has in a given company and therefore of the role that its shareholding plays in influencing the direction of corporate activities.
  5.15 pm
  It appears that the Government do not especially object to that practice. Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish said in another place:
  "We are in no doubt that institutional investors, as owners of shares, have a responsibility to the companies in which they invest. As part of that responsibility, it is extremely important that shareholders should subject the performance of their companies to critical scrutiny. If shareholders see that their companies are not competitive … they must demand changes in the management and impose them if they must. It is not an exaggeration to say … that that function is crucial to our economic prosperity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1995; Vol. 561, c. 536.]
  In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security made similar observations, but, notwithstanding the acceptance of the general principle, it appears that the Government are not prepared to recommend legislation to bring about the very objective that they appear to support. Their argument appears to be that it is best to leave it to the market to decide, that the market will bring about appropriate changes in the way in which companies operate, and that, therefore, it is not necessary to legislate.

  407
  It is significant, however, to contrast the Government's view on shareholdings with the way in which they have repeatedly sought to regulate trade unions, which are, after all, voluntary unincorporated societies. Since 1979, they have faced a welter of legislation from Conservative Governments who have interfered in the internal working and democracy of what, after all, are voluntary organisations. Why should the internal activities of such organisations be regulated by legislation? The answer, as I am sure Conservative Members would tell us, is that trade unions play a vital role in our society, and that their functions are so important that they must be subject to legislation.
  I do not disagree with that conclusion. Clearly, it is necessary that trade unions should be regulated. If they should be regulated in the interests of society, however, that must surely apply as much to pension funds, and in particular, the use of pension fund shareholdings in our major companies. If pension funds are able to determine the investment strategy of UK companies because of the size of their shareholding, surely that is as significant as the need to regulate trade unions.
  Unfortunately, too often in practice pension fund shareholders have, in effect, opted out of their responsibilities. Too often, they have handed over proxy votes to the chairman of the company concerned and allowed him to use the proxy vote to preserve the status quo. Even when there was significant opposition to the position set out by the British Gas chairman from the floor of its annual general meeting, it was clear that institutional voters had lined up behind the existing management to preserve the status quo and to stifle the opposition. That is a perfectly proper use of their votes, if that is how they see their best advantage, but it is not unreasonable—this is all that the new clause would do—to suggest that pension funds in particular should be able to justify their decisions to people who have contributed to the pension fund. This modest clause does no more than that.
  It is clear that pension funds' attitude towards the exercise of their voting rights has changed. Surveys have suggested that, between 1990 and 1993, only 20 per cent. of pension funds voted their shares at all times. By 1993, that figure appeared to have improved, with about 26 per cent. using their voting rights at all times. From other surveys, it appears that that improvement is proceeding steadily and that many more pension funds are prepared to recognise their corporate responsibility in this respect.
  Where pension funds do vote, however, there is a concern, particularly in respect of contentious takeovers, that they employ their votes in an especially short-term and negative way, and that the culture in the UK has often been to establish, as a result of disputed takeovers, management teams that will guarantee simply the highest rate of return in the form of dividends. That encourages companies to concentrate on maximising dividends, perhaps sometimes at the expense of productive investment. We are concerned that a significant institutional shareholding in major companies encourages the attitude that develops dividends and profits at the expense of returning profits to, perhaps, research and development or new productive capacity.
  The community has a clear interest in the sense that if pension fund shareholdings have been built up as a result of significant tax concessions, those concessions should be used for the benefit of British industry rather than simply for maximising profits. In the short term, that may
  408
  not necessarily appear to be in the interests of the pension fund whose managers want to maximise the return year by year. However, it will be in the longer-term interests of contributors to the pension fund.
  It is significant that the United States practice has developed in a way that ensures that investment is in the wider national and corporate interest. A United States institutional investor in a UK company could look at the wider interests of the company's performance, whereas a British pension fund manager, who might have narrower, short-term perceptions, would simply be concerned about dividends from one year to the next. There has been considerable academic criticisms of the United Kingdom practice of concentrating on short-term returns instead of looking at the longer-term benefits to United Kingdom industry.
  Describing the new clause as a modest measure might encourage the idea that contributors to pension funds have a right to know how their contributions are being used, and whether the pension fund managers are exercising their voting rights, and if so, in what respect, so as to encourage, we hope, productive investment in British industry and in our ability to compete in the world.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The 30-minute speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) caused me some concern because I think that he was in danger of being too reasonable for his own good. Perhaps he is getting soft in his old age. He tiptoed on eggshells all over the issue, and that was quite unnecessary. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had his reasons for doing that: there are tactical reasons for deciding whether to go in hard or gently. I am sure he knows what he is doing because he always does. I take a more robust view.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Garscadden had just entered the Chamber, but I see that it is the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) who is one of my constituents, from Paxton Mains.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is looking after my interests.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am, and I always do.
  I take a different view from that of the hon. Member for Garscadden. The new clause is clearly in the interests of fund members, and that is one of the overriding interests that the House should consider, certainly in relation to clause 35, which goes a long way towards giving pension scheme members a series of new bits of information. That is right, but the new clause is quite unexceptional. However, it is important in terms of giving powers in addition to those set out in clause 35.
  I can see no argument of any kind against the new clause. It would have been better in gremio of clause 35 because a new, free-standing clause does not make it any easier for a practitioner who is trying to use the legislation to find his way round the Bill's provisions. I found my argument in support of the new clause on the fact that it clearly establishes new rights and entitlement to information that pension fund members must have. For that reason alone, the clause deserves support.
  I take a keen interest in freedom of information and I assume that the powers in the Bill are new. I have no idea of the arrangements for pension fund members who want to ask for information under the existing rules. I assume that no pension fund manager in his right mind would

  409
  deny normal, legitimate requests for information from bona fide members. As the hon. Member for Garscadden said, the new clause would enhance transparency. In the context of freedom of information and enhanced rights, it should be supported and encouraged, and I hope that the Government will do that.
  The new clause has an important bearing on the way that joint stock companies organise and operate their decision-making process in the United Kingdom. I entirely agree that there are substantial worries that companies which are limited by shares are beginning to use their enormous financial power in a way that has caused concern in the past. The Government would be well advised to look more widely at the issue. It is not relevant, and technically not in order in debating the Bill, but the Department of Trade and Industry under its new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang) should look at the whole question of how joint stock companies that are limited by shares are running well ahead of the game in terms of board decisions and the impact of pension funds on their decisions. That should be one of the Secretary of State's first jobs when he arrives at his new desk tomorrow morning.
  That brings me to the fears that were expressed by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir. A. Bowden). He was right to draw attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Garscadden entered into some potentially controversial issues about what would happen after people got the information and whether it would encourage them to take political decisions in the context of what was being done by those in charge of the pension funds and how they voted. But, with respect, that is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the clause was accurate, but the measure is more neutral than that. It does not seek to knock people into political positions one way or the other: they are entitled to make their own decisions and reach conclusions on the information that is available to them.
  Like the hon. Member for Kemptown, I think that we cannot possibly take exception to the basic provision of information because that must be good in its own right. The hon. Gentleman's support is valuable. His signature on the clause adds an enormous amount of weight and will certainly concentrate Ministers' minds much more than would support by me or by the hon. Member for Garscadden. I expected the hon. Gentleman to say that he intended to withdraw his support because of his fears about the clause, but I assure him that his original interpretation of the clause was right. However, if people make up their minds to disagree with him politically, that is a matter for them.
  I do not think that it is possible for the Government to remain agnostic on this question, and it is completely disingenuous to say that they will wait until Greenbury reports, because we shall all be on the beaches by then. I look forward to reading my copy of the Greenbury committee report on the beaches, as I am sure does the Secretary of State. It is no answer for the Government to say, as they have in the past—the hon. Member for Garscadden rightly pointed this out—that we should wait and see. It is a good Asquithian response, I am sure, but it does not measure up to the Government's responsibility.
  The Secretary of State has a duty to say whether the Government are in favour of, or against, the proposal. It is a perfectly clear proposal. If the Government say that
  410
  new clause 4 is technically inadequate, or that they will implement its proposal through guidance, or that they will use any of the other multifarious devices available, it would certainly be enough for me. But they must come off the fence to say one way or the other whether the proposal is a good idea or not. This is the last chance for Ministers on the Treasury Bench to express a view on that important question.
  I certainly support the spirit of the new clause and will be looking to the Government to say something a little more positive in the debate than they have been able to say so far.
  5.30 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell: A number of points have been made about the moderation of the new clause. Indeed, the moderating influence of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is always with us. It is very tempting to explore more general issues about standards in public life because a great deal of the background to the tabling of this new clause relates to such issues, but that is not the first point of interest.
  The new clause is about transparency and allowing pension fund members to know how the fund, to which they have contributed and on which they are dependent, is being managed. It is a common sense measure. Like the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), I cannot understand why the Government are taking a negative line. Implementation of the proposal would be of considerable value in the operation of pension funds and it would also make people more aware of the possible impact of pension funds on the overall running of our corporate and industrial life in Britain.
  In the British system, which is heavily reliant on self-regulation, it is important to use the mechanisms available to ensure the highest possible standards in the operation of companies. Pension fund members have the opportunity, through fund managers, to exercise an influence which would be for the general good of the companies and would play a role in transforming the landscape of our corporate and industrial life.
  I have one specific criticism of the operation of fund management in relation to the boardrooms of Britain. It is, bluntly: the boardrooms of Britain are populated by a self-perpetuating clique. It is very rare that I find cause to pay tribute to the Prime Minister but, in one area, he drew attention to the fact that our boardrooms are a self-perpetuating clique whenever he referred to the absence of women in them. Indeed, he began Campaign 2000 as a means of trying to break some of those glass ceilings. The fact that he has manifestly failed in his endeavour is neither here nor there. At least it has been recognised that such cliques need to be broken.
  I say that with a degree of passion because it was my misfortune to be involved in investor relations. Indeed, I was involved with investor relations with Mirror Group Newspapers immediately after the crisis was discovered following the misappropriation of company and pension funds. I was involved in a number of presentations made to the fund managers and I never want to see a prawn vol-au-vent or a canapé again. Much work is done behind closed doors by people who all work within walking distance of one another, who share the same clubs and, increasingly, share the same schools. Frankly, that is not sensible for the good governance of pension funds.

  411
  The other side of the coin of that exercise was having cause to make presentations to fund managers in the United States. I can assure the House that I would rather appear before a Labour party selection meeting than go again before fund managers in the United States because it was a brutal experience. They wanted answers, and they were entitled to them. That very determination to get answers has led to legislation in the United States.
  Reference has been made to the Cadbury report. Some people assume that just because there has been such a report, all is well in the boardrooms of Britain. That is arrant nonsense. In more cases than not, the Cadbury report is honoured in the breach rather than in the observance. Any influence that can be brought to bear to increase standards is to be welcomed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to the fact that institutional shareholders hold about 62 per cent. of UK equity in pension funds: roughly 35 per cent. of the equity market. If we want good stewardship of public companies, the institutional shareholder must use that power. It can be a boost to corporate power.
  One example, although not directly related to pensions, shows the impact that action by companies can have, not only in the way that they do their business, but in the way that Governments can be influenced. Would Nelson Mandela be President of South Africa had it not been for the actions, not only of trade unionists and men and women throughout the world, but of companies? Indeed, a number of pension funds decided that they would take an ethical line on their investments regarding South Africa.
  Increasingly, too, companies are taking a line on the environment. It is an important aspect of the life of those who can determine the future of companies that they act with the broader community in mind. Furthermore there is a responsibility to the pensioners to ensure that corporate decisions are soundly taken.
  As I said, a self-perpetuating clique can allow boardroom inaction and certain aspects of boardroom behaviour can have a detrimental effect on the company. We hear about pay-offs. I shall not go down the road of condemning pay deals in the privatised utilities because that has been debated often enough in this House, but, from the point of view of pensioners, I am concerned that the impact on company performance and dividends available to pension funds of rolling contracts and big pay-offs must be taken into account.
  Someone who is perhaps closer to the Secretary of State than anybody on the Opposition Benches, Mr. Alastair Ross Goobey, has very much made the case on behalf of POSTEL, now Hermes, on the whole issue of rolling contracts. The new clause will not affect the situation directly but it will mean that pension fund members will be able to see the voting records of their fund managers.
  The case of British Gas has been mentioned. There was swingeing criticism of the activity of institutional shareholders at its recent annual meeting. Dr. Ann Robinson, formerly of the Institute of Directors and now of the National Association of Pension Funds, drew attention to the fact that it is extremely rare for institutional shareholders even to turn up at annual meetings. Dr. Robinson—not me—claims that institutional shareholders prefer quiet dialogue behind closed doors. That is not in anyone's interest.
  412
  It is also extremely important that there is no suggestion that pension fund managers for institutional shareholders in any way may be swayed by a conflict of interest. In ensuring that there is no conflict of interest, new clause 4 is very important. There must be transparency at all levels.
  In the LEX column in the Financial Times on 31 December 1994, clear allegations were made that because executive directors who are trustees of pension funds award the mandates which give these very fund managers their lifeblood, it is not in their best interest to offend the hand that feeds them. That is a powerful argument for this new clause. In an article in The Times, Professor Tom Clarke of Leeds business school referred clearly to the environment of self-regulation. In such a climate, the penalties for non-compliance are hardly severe. They work in an environment which is like a gentlemen's club.
  I refer to the situation in the United States where there has been a dramatic turn, as my hon. Friends the Members for Garscadden and for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) have pointed out. Since 1988, it has been enshrined in statute in the United States that pension funds in the private sector have a duty to vote under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act. Since 1994, that duty has been extended to shares outside the United States. United States institutional investors now vote in 71 per cent. of all foreign companies in which they own a stake, according to the investor responsibility research centre, Washington. That figure was only 24 per cent. in 1991.
  A classic example, which has been referred to before, is that it was a United States institutional investor who set in train the process that led to the ousting of Maurice Saatchi from Saatchi and Saatchi. Activities by US pension fund managers are expected to increase dramatically in the near future, which raises an issue for us here. There are a number of companies in which 25 per cent. of shares are held by US institutional investors and those investors will dictate standards within our companies. Does not logic suggest that British institutional shareholders should do the same?
  One powerful argument was summed up by Mary Ellen Anderson, the director of investment and corporate relations at the State of Connecticut retirement and trust fund, who said of US companies:
  "They want our money. We have made it clear we are interested in investing but we are also interested in voting. We don't really want to do one without the other."
  The new clause would secure that aim.
  In March this year, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equity Fund, the world's largest pension fund—and the one with the longest name—engineered the board room coup that brought down Peter Grace, the 81-year-old chairman of W. R. Grace. All of that led to a warning by Bill Crist, who is the board president of the California public employees retirement scheme. He said:
  "There will be an increase in the application of standards we attempt to maintain in the US to other parts of the world."
  That is a lesson to us here in Britain. If the institutional funds of other countries are concerned about the operation of companies here, it is a damning indictment of all of us that we are not setting up the mechanisms whereby we can secure those high standards through British institutional funds.

  413
  The new clause would not represent a dramatic move. It is in the interests of transparency and it flags up the fact that we wish to see the highest possible standards in this country.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I have reservations about the new clause; I am torn in different directions and I shall explain why. I support all that the new clause says on the surface about transparency and I support the idea that members of pension funds should know what is going on in terms of investment and so forth. That is an excellent thing. However, there is another aspect to the matter which I ask those who have tabled the new clause to consider.
  It was the mention of the United States that alerted me to a problem. Some of the pension funds in the United States are being used by certain elements to try to impose the MacBride principles on certain United States firms in Northern Ireland. That is being done despite the fact that the United States Government are against the MacBride principles and despite the fact that all the legislation for Northern Ireland passed by this House is designed to look after the interests of all citizens in Northern Ireland and to ensure that there is fairness, regardless of political, religious or any other views.
  There are those who bring pressure to bear on the shareholders and trustees of funds and who say that the funds should be used in a political manner—in an anti-British manner in terms of Northern Ireland. I wonder whether those who have tabled the new clause considered that point. People who are against smoking, for example, might not want investments in companies that deal in tobacco. Others might be against any number of things and might insist that although the trade concerned was genuine, the fund should not invest in it. We could open up the door to all sorts of things.
  5.45 pm
  Legislation for Northern Ireland is passed by Members of this House. Even with all the parties in Northern Ireland opposing the MacBride principles, the pension funds and those who bring pressure to bear on them insist that some of the US firms in Northern Ireland should do certain things. That has an adverse effect on Northern Ireland; it does not help relationships in Northern Ireland. In that situation, the new clause and the ideas behind it could be counter-productive.
  I would be happy for the system to be transparent and I would be happy for people to know about it, but I have the reservations that I have described. When the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) winds up, perhaps he would consider that point and make some comments which would be helpful to me.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: The interpretation of the new clause by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) is not mine. I believe that the new clause is all about transparency, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested. I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the new clause, given that about £500 billion is held in pension funds, in some cases not very stringently accounted for in terms of how the money is spent and how it is invested. Anyone who has experience of pension funds knows that. It should be a basic principle that anyone contributing to or investing in
  414
  a pension fund should know what the fund's policy is. Unless one knows what the pension fund's policy is, one can encounter all sorts of problems. It is because certain pension funds made information available that great pressure was brought to bear on the South African Government to make changes, which led to the election of Nelson Mandela. I hope that the Government will take that aspect on board. Equally, if representatives cast their votes in pension funds, we should know what issues the representatives have voted on and how they have represented the pension fund members.
  Another area which is of tremendous concern to people outside the Chamber after the events of the Maxwell fiasco, which I shall not repeat today, is the power of trustees and the accountability, or lack of it, of trustees. I should have thought that the Minister would give an early indication that he accepted the new clause. From time to time, Ministers—some of my hon. Friends have mentioned this—have referred to the reasons why they had to introduce legislation against the trade unions. That was all about what they claimed to be transparency and accountability. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government cannot adopt the same principle here—after all, it is their principle—and accept the new clause.
  Hon. Members must remember that pension funds derive many tax concessions from the taxpayer. Taxpayers contribute their taxes and rebates are given back in their name, but they do not seem to have much influence on what is done with the money.
  Then there is British Gas, for example, or the water companies. Money has been invested in them but there is not much transparency or accountability. Some of my hon. Friends have said that not many people know, for example, the policy of the water authorities—I shall not mention British Gas—on executive perks. People, especially the people who contribute to the pension funds, should have some influence on such matters.
  A further aspect worries me, and it has not yet been touched on in the present debate. Employers often use pension funds to invest in their companies when there is a question of whether they can survive. Yet they do not refer to the employees to see what they think about it. That issue is not highlighted often, but there certainly have been instances of employees finding that their money has been used to prop up a company that has eventually gone bankrupt, and they have lost their pensions.
  Equally, employees often find that some of the conditions that they thought that they would have after retirement are not available. As many as 6 million people could be in that position, because during the 1980s when there was not much transparency about pension funds many people were encouraged to move out of the state earnings-related pension scheme into private pension schemes. Many hon. Members will know that such people now turn up at our surgeries and ask us to try to sort out their pension problems. That is another reason why the Government should accept our reasonable amendment.
  Ms Judith Church: It is clear that comprehensive information is a vital prerequisite of any correctly functioning market. Full information for scheme members is all the more important in the pension fund market, given the concentrated nature of the power in the hands of a few trustees and fund managers.

  415
  Efficiency depends on each level of authority being accountable to those whom it represents, yet at present scheme members do not even have a right to see the voting records of their trustees. Clearly that information would have a significant bearing on whether members are satisfied with the conduct of those trustees.
  The logical solution—it certainly seems logical to Opposition Members, and we have heard many excellent arguments about why the measure is sensible—is to have a legal commitment to proper disclosure. That move is obviously necessary following the pensions industry's pallid response to the Cadbury report.
  The recent actions of fund trustees in backing enormous pay rises for utility bosses serve only to emphasise the problem, which has been in existence for some time. Conservative Members are just beginning to realise how people throughout the country have been sickened by the way in which decisions taken in secret to award huge bonuses and enhanced pension rights to executives have feathered the nests of people whose nests they consider to be over-feathered already.
  All that is done in secret, so it is detected only by quite difficult forensic investigations. As the Barber judgment defined pensions as deferred pay, it seems only fair that employees should have better information about how their trustees are using their future income.
  This is not a trivial matter—far from it—and I hope that the Government realise that. The failure of those affected by the various operations of different enterprises to find out what is going on within those enterprises litters history, especially recent history. That covers the prominent failures to disclose information on vital health and safety issues that has led to the loss of life in incidents such as the Piper Alpha disaster, the Herald of Free of Enterprise sinking, the Clapham rail disaster, the King's Cross fire and others too numerous to mention now.
  Conservative Members may think those disasters remote from the operations of the pensions market, but there is a striking common factor—the culture of secrecy and the failure to provide information to people who are not only entitled to it but whose lives may be seriously adversely affected if it is withheld.
  Contrast that with the charters that the Government have promoted, which are stuffed with information, much of it unintelligible and only remotely relevant to people's everyday lives, but which are heralded by the Government as their contribution to open government. Why are the Government permitting the secrecy that will seriously imperil the security of pension funds and the recipients of pensions? We can think only that their stated central objective of setting a framework for an efficient market is to be undermined by their refusal to accept our proposals.
  If we are to have a properly functioning efficient market, the core of the structure has to rest on assuring proper information flows. Without the new clause the Government will create an environment in which full information is not a right but a privilege. How can there be confidence in such a market when scheme members are denied basic information on the voting records of their trustees? If the Bill is not changed it will create a market characterised by secrecy, inequity and inefficiency. Is that really what the Government want to achieve? Millions of pension scheme members think otherwise, and they look to the Government to back their words with action, but I fear that they will be disappointed.
  416
  The measures that we propose would give a further boost to trust and confidence in the operation of the pensions market, which badly needs such a boost. Do the Government not realise that the public have lost confidence in those operations—rightly, I believe, in view of all the scandals and mismanagement? Why do they not take the opportunity to tackle that serious problem and to put right what so desperately needs correcting?
  From the perspective of the public, the only conclusion to be drawn if the Government fail to support our proposals is that the Labour party will champion the interests of the typical fund member, improve the operations of the fund market and bring transparency and security to the pension fund arrangements of thousands of our retired citizens.
  Mr. John Denham: The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) posed an important and challenging question. Fortunately I do not have the responsibility of speaking from the Front Bench, so any views that I express spring from my own interpretation. I would love to give the hon. Gentleman a totally reassuring answer, but in all honesty I cannot. He asked whether we were prepared to live with the consequences of allowing members of pension funds to exercise greater rights over their money as held in investments in those funds.
  I am a deferred member of an occupational pension scheme managed by one of the leading ethical investment houses in this country. When I was self-employed and took out a personal pension I also, as an individual, chose to invest in an ethical scheme. If I buy a personal pension I can make an ethical choice about how I want the money to be invested, and if I am a member of a collective scheme I should, with other members of the scheme, be able to exercise the same rights. Clearly, the new clause does not take us to that situation, as it is more limited in its scope and deals mainly with transparency.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South rightly said that if we go further down that road, as I hope that we shall, all sorts of safeguards and procedures will need to be brought into place to ensure that some of the problems to which he referred, including the policies of a democratic Government being subverted by such measures, can be properly dealt with. I see the new clause as part of what I hope will be a series of changes that will influence corporate governance in this country and help us to tackle the fundamental contradictions of British economic and pensions policy.
  6 pm
  The growth of pension funds in this country in the past 50 or 60 years is a remarkable phenomenon which has not occurred in most other European countries to the same extent. It is a voluntaristic—one might say socialistic—approach to employers and employees contributing towards pension fund savings, and it has produced a huge mass of funds. At the same time as that growth in savings by employees and employers has occurred, British industry has been starved of investment. This country has an appalling investment record, and it has been particularly appalling in the past 15 years. I do not think that anybody could suggest that there has been a "golden age" in the past 15 years when the level of investment—particularly in manufacturing industry—has been at a satisfactory level.

  417
  I hope that the new clause will help to start a process of attacking the contradiction in which people in this country are putting aside huge sums in savings while there is a total failure by financial institutions and businesses to invest that money where it is needed. It is clear that there is a problem at the interface between the management of funds and the small and medium-sized enterprises which are currently being starved of investment. Something in the interface between the savings that people put aside and the needs of the economy is breaking down badly.
  There are two reasons why that interface has broken down. The new clause begins to address the first of those reasons, which is that members of pension funds have become totally detached from the use and investment of their money. They have no say in and no knowledge of how their money is used. It is taken away from them and put in the hands of a professional elite who are, of course, supposed to be bound to act on behalf of the members' interests, but whose decisions, values and judgments cannot be challenged or questioned by the members. It is dangerous to see so much money and power slipping out from the grasp of members.
  The second problem, which the new clause also addresses in part, is that the criteria by which pension funds are managed contributes to the problem of short-termism and the lack of funds for investment in the economy. There is a lack of information coming through to members. It is a remarkable feature of our lengthy discussions on the Pensions Bill that while we have discussed minimum funding requirements and a number of other investment criteria, we have not had a debate about where the money held by pension funds is invested. It has been assumed throughout that the narrowest definition of a return on pension funds is the most appropriate one, and that if the fund manager aims to produce the highest short-term investment result the wonders of the market will ensure that the money is invested in a most efficient and effective way within the economy. Yet that is clearly not the case. Short-term gains being pursued by pension funds will create a society in which people will not wish to enjoy their retirement because unemployment is too high—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is getting rather broad. His remarks are very interesting, but they are not directly relevant to the new clause. I would be grateful if he would get back to the new clause.
  Mr. Denham: The problem is that members of pension funds have no information about how their funds and savings are invested on their behalf. They are unable to scrutinise the policies adopted by the fund managers, or the criteria used by them. If those criteria are too narrow, it creates a situation in which the funds are invested in a way that is not in the long-term interests of members. That is the issue that I am seeking to address.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman and I am well aware of his point, but there is nothing in the new clause about what the rules and regulations of fund managers should be. I accept that there is a debate to be had on that matter, but not during discussions on the new clause.
  Mr. Denham: One of the issues that fund managers must address is the question whether they follow market trends and shift investments from one company to another or whether they stick with individual companies for a long period. When more information is made available to the members of funds about the voting record of their fund managers, it will become more apparent to the members whether the company is backing major British companies over a long period of time and exercising its voting rights responsibly in seeking to influence the development of the company—as advocated by the Cadbury report—or whether the fund managers are switching the funds on a regular basis from one company to another because they anticipate a short-term increase in profits.
  Once the information becomes available to members of pension schemes, as sought by the new clause, they will be able to interpret the strategy being pursued on their behalf by fund managers. Making information available to fund members will raise awareness in a healthy way of the power of the money that they have invested in a pension fund and the need to see that that power is exercised responsibly.
  It is true that the public debate on the issue over the past few months has centred on the important, but rather narrow, issue of payments to the bosses of privatised industries. It may well be that, in the short term, the immediate effect of publishing voting records will be to focus attention on questions of executive pay, over-pay and perks. That would be reason enough for making voting records available to members of schemes, but the real prize in the long term for members of a scheme is to know whether their funds are being applied in their interests and in the long-term interests of the British economy.
  As the debate on the application of pension funds is generated, we shall begin to bring about the change in culture that is needed if we are to produce a better economic performance in this country and to make the maximum use of the funds of pension fund members which, as hon. Members have said in the debate, have now reached a very large sum of money in total.
  By increasing the transparency and operation of funds and seeking the publication of voting records, the new clause may provide a middle way between the "do nothing" approach of the Government—who do not want make to make any changes to the culture of investment and operation in the City or to the investment policies of funds—and the other argument, which is more or less in favour of the sequestration of pension funds. The latter argument is that instead of fund members knowing how their funds are to be dealt with, the funds are sequestered by a Government agency and invested on their behalf. That is neither politically nor economically desirable.
  If we wish to raise the awareness of the members of pension funds about where their savings are going and how they will be applied, we must give them information about how their votes and influence will be used by the pension fund managers. That would, over time, send some shock waves through the culture of the City of London. There are many people who vote those funds or who do not vote those funds who assume that, by virtue of their professional position as fund managers, they have an absolute right to use those funds as they think best. They also assume that their criteria and their judgment are best. It will be good to open the culture of the fund managers in

  419
  the City to the scrutiny of pension fund members. Those managers will then be asked to justify the decisions that they take on behalf of millions of people.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I enter, or re-enter, the debate on the Bill with humility, conscious as I am of the depth of expertise that has been built up by those hon. Members who served long hours and days in Committee. I recognise the quality of the debate that has taken place on many of the issues not just in Committee but on Report.
  I pay tribute to the calibre of the Members involved from both sides. My opposite number has played a full part, often a constructive one, in the discussions. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People and the Under-Secretary of State, to whom I shall refer again on Third Reading, when I hope that they will be present, despite renewed responsibilities for both of them in, I regret to say, other areas than my own. One of the consequences of working for me is that one gets promoted.
  Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the Secretary of State will agree that there is a lot to be said for a policy of short sentences.
  Mr. Lilley: Yes. That is something of which I have a little experience, having been one of the longest-serving Secretaries of State at the Department of Trade and Industry—once I passed the 11-month mark. I have been in office at the Department of Social Security for three years.
  I have chosen to participate in the debate on new clause 4 not just because of the chance of timing, and certainly not because it is the most important issue, nor because I am totally opposed to the spirit at least of what some hon. Members believe lies behind the new clause. After all, I would welcome, if I believed that it was wholehearted, the Opposition's conversion to belief in shareholders' power. I agree that institutional investors should be encouraged to exercise their shareholders' power and to develop long-term relationships with companies. That has long been the Government's objective. We endorse the Cadbury recommendation that institutional investors should
  "use their voting rights positively".
  We facilitated the Myners group working party into co-operation between corporate management and institutional investors. I strongly approve of the initiative led by Postel to adopt best standards and, notably, to limit the length of rolling contracts.
  I recognise the concerns that some shareholders have about executive pay. If I were a shareholder in one or two companies I would want to be convinced that the managers were paid neither more nor less than their market worth, because if they were paid more than their market worth I would know that that money was coming out of shareholders' funds.
  What distinguishes our approach from that of the Opposition is that we recognise that there is already an obligation on trustees, and through them on those whom they appoint to manage their funds, to act in the interests of the beneficiaries of that fund. That includes acting in their interests when deciding whether and how to exercise the voting rights on their shares. The question is whether we should decide how they should fulfil that obligation and spell it out in law.
  420
  I have distinct reservations about the Opposition's approach because it exemplifies, albeit in miniature, three characteristics of the Labour party's approach to investment in industry which give rise to concern.
  First, the new clause would impose unnecessary specific burdens on the management and trustees of investment funds through extending unnecessarily the bureaucratisation of best practice. If anything is good, the Opposition tend to think it should be imposed by statute. I fear that if that practice were carried a little further we would see a Labour Britain in which anything that was not forbidden would be made compulsory.
  It is true that it is a good thing that trustees should take their responsibilities seriously, and that may involve thinking through systematically their approach to how they use their voting rights, but that does not automatically mean that we then have to impose on each and every trust and fund a requirement that they work out and specify a statement of such policy. The practical effect of that would be to impose a time-consuming burden on the trustees. They would have to sit down and try to think out an abstract statement of policy. That may be quite easy to pursue in practice, but rather difficult to express in abstract form. It would inevitably lead to vague platitudes, meaningless generalisations or to the rigid codification of whatever is current fashion. All too often those trustees would simply be unable to foresee the actual problems on which they would have to vote, and they therefore would be unable to spell that out. They would have to go back to their beneficiaries subsequently to explain a change in policy in the light of unforeseen circumstances.
  6.15 pm
  The second reason why I have reservations about the Opposition's approach is that it would lead inevitably to the politicisation of business and investment. For all I know, that may be the consequence of what remains an instinctive Opposition approach to business and investment—and, indeed, to life in general. They see life as a political process. It is significant that all the examples cited by Opposition Members of how institutional shareholders should use their votes related to political matters—sex equalisation and job equalisation. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) pointed out how businesses in America are compelled by pressure groups to use their votes for political purposes, involving them in the politics of Ireland and backing Irish republicanism.
  Opposition Members have also referred to pay and inequalities in pay, but we have heard absolutely nothing from them about how voting power could be used to improve the performance of business in the normal economic process.
  Mr. Hoon: With respect, the only example I gave of how the new clause might encourage the use of investment was investment in the productivity capacity of British industry. Does the Secretary of State object to that?
  Mr. Lilley: I will certainly read what the hon. Gentleman said, although I thought that he distinguished between some national interests in investment and the interests of the businesses concerned. I may be mistaken about that. I will certainly discuss the issue of long-termism versus short-termism.
  Mr. Denham: For the record, I hope that the Secretary of State will concede that I also said that one of the

  421
  reasons for publishing the voting record is that it would enable members of a pension scheme to see whether their fund managers were making a long-term commitment to the company.
  Mr. Lilley: That is splendid. I should have made reference to that. All the specific points raised were political, however, and the hon. Gentleman did not tell us specifically—unless my attention slipped—how trustees should spell out in their policy statements, as the new clause requires, any policies towards business which would make it more efficient.
  The danger of politicising the decision making of companies is that it distracts business leaders from the business of business, which is business, to political considerations. We, and even the Labour party, lost faith in nationalisation because it diverted attention from business to political considerations. Conservatives still reject Government intervention in industry because it means the inevitable politicisation of industry. It is a great paradox that the clause is known as new clause 4, which seems to suggest that it will socialise industry. In fact, one Labour Member spoke about a socialisation process and referred to the instruments of collective government. That is a legitimate view, but it is not one that we endorse.
  Of course businesses and investors should be ethical, honest and honourable in all their business activities. I agree with Samuel Johnson, who said:
  "There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money".
  That does not mean that we should try to pretend that a prime concern of business is addressing the political and social problems of the day rather than running the businesses concerned in an honest, honourable and efficient fashion to the long-term benefit of their shareholders—the members of the pension trusts.
  I have a third reservation about the new clause and the direction in which it is heading. It could lead to a transfer of power from trustees to political activists and to a conflict of responsibilities for the trustees. At present, trustees have a clear legal responsibility to act in the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust. New clause 4 implies that trustees should represent the views of current members and, in practice, the views of the most articulate and politically motivated members.
  Labour Members may argue that new clause 4 imposes no such obligation. If it stopped short at subsection (a), that would be fair enough. However, subsections (b), (c) and (d) would have the inevitable effect of subjecting trustees to pressure from scheme members—especially those who are motivated and organised by pressure groups. That would have an insidious and undesirable coercive effect on trustees which, to the extent that they succumbed to it, would be improper. Their responsibility is to the long-term interests of beneficiaries and not to the short-term pressures or views of any group of members. We would be very unwise to create any such conflict of interest. I hope that that is not the intention of the Opposition amendment, although it may be a consequence of it.
  Opposition Members suggested that the normal time horizon of investors is a short-term one. I hope that the time horizon of any managers of pension funds in which I am involved will be long-term. I would like to think that they were investing for a retirement that was due to begin
  422
  only at a considerable distance into the future and which would continue for some decades after that. At least my own retirement has not begun today.
  I believe that it is logical, legal and natural to oblige people running a pension fund to take a long-term view. They should not be terribly concerned about the precise movement of profits from quarter to quarter if they do not reflect the underlying trends and prospects of the company.
  Mr. Denham: The Minister said that it would be logical to take a long-term view and not to move with prices from quarter to quarter, but does he really believe that that is what pension fund managers are doing? I believe that many pension fund managers are driven by pressures to operate according to quarterly results, which diverts them from a long-term commitment and involvement in major and growing companies.
  Mr. Lilley: We could spend a long time debating the subject—I am not sure how much time the Front Bench spokesman wishes to spend responding to the points that I and other hon. Members have raised. My point is that it is not just a logical obligation: fund managers are obliged legally to act in the interests of the fund beneficiaries. There are long-term interests to match the liabilities which are imposed on the schemes.
  One must distinguish between taking that legal obligation seriously and responding to the long-term interest, and simply sitting indefinitely on a company, unmoved and inactive. It may be best to sell a company if one thinks that its value is out of line with its price in the marketplace. That would have a beneficial effect in the long term through the operation of market forces on the allocation of capital and, conceivably, on the management of the company. We should not equate taking a long-term interest with not trading in shares. A case can be made for trading in shares and thereby fulfilling the obligation to the beneficiaries of the scheme.
  If trustees were subject to political pressures through the sort of approach indicated in new clause 4, we would impose a much shorter time horizon upon them. The time horizon of those who were likely to manipulate the processes under the new clause would be that of the political process, which is usually much shorter than the time horizon of pension funds. It involves current fashion and current issues or those matters associated with the electoral cycle. It would be regrettable if those pressures were brought to bear on companies in the way that new clause 4 implies.
  I am not suggesting that the new clause would mean an end to capitalism and a return to the contents of the old clause IV, from which the Labour party has so recently escaped. However, I think that it has some of the symptoms that concern us about the Labour approach to business and industry, such as the belief that ever-increasing burdens may be imposed upon industry without a thought about the costs involved in diverting attention from the main function of management investment. There is also a cost in terms of politicising the process and in terms of creating a conflict of interest between the real responsibilities of trustees to the long-term beneficiaries and the short-term pressures of the views of the more articulate members of the schemes.
  I am afraid that I am unable to recommend that my colleagues endorse the measure—moved though I was by the plea from the hon. Member for Glasgow,

  423
  Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that I should approach it in a friendly fashion, and charmed though I was by his suggestion that we were in any way sartorially superior to Labour Members—I see no good evidence of that, although no doubt he has a better view from his side of the House.
  Mr. Dewar: There are great hazards in parliamentary life, one of which is that one starts to get quite fond of one's opposite number. The Secretary of State must be the last man in Britain who believes that the arrival of a Labour Government will mean that everything that is not forbidden will be made compulsory. That is a very quaint view. He always gives me the impression that he has been dragged screaming and struggling into the 19th century. If we wait a few months or years, he may even get there.
  The Secretary of State's speech was an embodiment of the conspiracy theory. I am slightly embarrassed that this poor new clause—which seemed to me to be almost harmless—is now being seen as part of the great conspiracy to politicise pension funds. I think that that is quaint and curious. So far as I can see, the politicisation charge boils down to the fact that the clause would ensure that members of funds receive information which would allow them to take an interest in the management of the funds. I suppose that that may be a form of politicisation, but I understood that it was a form of politicisation that everyone approved and wanted to encourage.
  If the Minister is worried about the proposal and gives it such sinister connotations, he had better read the rest of the Bill before it is too late. That wicked left-wing group the Goode committee, the Pension Law Reform Committee, has been making all sorts of nasty suggestions about giving more information and giving scheme members a greater say in the running of schemes. I fear that it may encourage people to take a political approach to such matters. This is a obviously very dangerous Bill and the Minister had better do something about it before it gets an unopposed Third Reading later tonight. The fact that the Labour party is not voting against the Bill is proof positive of just how dangerous it is.
  6.30 pm
  It is a great pity that the Secretary of State was not on the Committee because he would have discovered that the whole point about conspiracies is that they are secret. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who is about to be his Cabinet colleague, is clearly part of the conspiracy because he has not warned the Secretary of State that clause 35 is full of nasty regulations on which creeping socialism can be based. To mix metaphors, it is a big Trojan horse full of people like me who will spring out and destroy capitalism as we know it. I have decided that that is my historic role. The Secretary of State should realise that that is all nonsense.
  New clause 4 is a good clause which attempts simply to bring into legislative form best practice and to ensure that what most good pension funds are doing is done by all. I commend it to the House and we shall certainly divide the House on it.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 275

  Division No. 199]

  [6.31 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Faulds, Andrew

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ainger, Nick

  Fisher, Mark

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Flynn, Paul

  Alton, David

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Foulkes, George

  Barnes, Harry

  Fraser, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Galloway, George

  Bayley, Hugh

  Gapes, Mike

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Garrett, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bell, Stuart

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Godsiff, Roger

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Berry, Roger

  Gordon, Mildred

  Betts, Clive

  Graham, Thomas

  Blunkett, David

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Boateng, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bradley, Keith

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Gunnell, John

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

  Hall, Mike

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Burden, Richard

  Harvey, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hoey, Kate

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Home Robertson, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Chidgey, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Church, Judith

  Hoyle, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Cohen, Harry

  Ingram, Adam

  Connarty, Michael

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jamieson, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Janner, Greville

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Keen, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

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

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Denham, John

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Frank

  Litherland, Robert

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dowd, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McAllion, John

  Eastham, Ken

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Etherington, Bill

  McCartney, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fatchett, Derek

  McFall, John

  425

  McKelvey, William

  Reid, Dr John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McLeish, Henry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rogers, Allan

  MacShane, Denis

  Rooker, Jeff

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Madden, Max

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Marek, Dr John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Salmond, Alex

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maxton, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Short, Clare

  Meale, Alan

  Simpson, Alan

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Milburn, Alan

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Miller, Andrew

  Spearing, Nigel

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morley, Elliot

  Stevenson, George

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mudie, George

  Timms, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Paul

  Touhig, Don

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Trimble, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Tyler, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wallace, James

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walley, Joan

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Parry, Robert

  Watson, Mike

  Pearson, Ian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pope, Greg

  Wilson, Brian

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Worthington, Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Purchase, Ken

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Radice, Giles

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Raynsford, Nick

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Booth, Hartley

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bowls, John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Boyson, RI Hon Sir Rhodes

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Ashby, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Baldry, Tony

  Burns, Simon

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Burt, Alistair

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butler, Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterfill, John

  Bendell, Vivian

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  426

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Heald, Oliver

  Carrington, Matthew

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Cash, William

  Hicks, Robert

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Chapman, Sydney

  Horam, John

  Churchill, Mr

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clappison, James

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

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Congdon, David

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Jack, Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Couchman, James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Cran, James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Davis, David (Booth ferry)

  Key, Robert

  Day, Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Devlin, Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Dicks, Terry

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Knight, Grge(Derby N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

  Dover, Den

  Knox, Sir David

  Duncan, Alan

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Dunn, Bob

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Legg, Barry

  Elletson, Harold

  Leigh, Edward

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lidington, David

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lightbown, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luff, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forman, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forth, Eric

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Madel, Sir David

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Malone, Gerald

  French, Douglas

  Mans, Keith

  Gale, Roger

  Marland, Paul

  Gallie, Phil

  Marlow, Tony

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Martin, David (Portsmouth South)

  Garnier, Edward

  Mates, Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gillen, Cheryl

  Merchant, Piers

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hague, William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Paice, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hayes, Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  427

  Pawsey, James

  Sumberg, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Sweeney, Walter

  Pickles, Eric

  Sykes, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thomason, Roy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Richards, Rod

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Riddick, Graham

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robalhan, Andrew

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tracey, Richard

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sackville, Tom

  Viggers, Peter

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Scott Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Walden, George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Waller, Gary

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watts, John

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Sims, Roger

  Whitney, Ray

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Whitlingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Wilshire, David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Sproat, Iain

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Stephen, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Allan

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Streeter, Gary

  Mr. Michael Bates.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 5

  EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION FOR TRUSTEES
  'In relation to a trustee who is also a member of the scheme, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 shall each have effect as if

  (a) the reasons specified in section 157(1) of the 1992 Act include reasons concerned with, or connected with, his duties as a trustee;

  (b) the purposes specified in section 146(1) of the 1992 Act included preventing or deterring him from carrying out any duties concerned with, or connected with his appointment as a trustee, or penalising him for carrying out such duties.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 24—Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed—
  428
  '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that, being a trustee of a trust scheme which relates to his employment, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a trustee.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal, except where an employee is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of section 142 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act"), section 54 of that Act does not apply to the dismissal.
  (3) Sections 22B and 22C of the 1978 Act (which relate to proceedings brought by an employee on the grounds that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 22A of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference in section 22B(1) to section 22A included a reference to subsection (1).
  (4) In the following provisions of the 1978 Act—

  (a) section 129 (remedy for infringement of certain rights),

  (b) section 141(2) (employee ordinarily working outside Great Britain), and

  (c) section 150 and Schedule 12 (death of employee or employer),

  any reference to Part II of that Act includes a reference to subsection (1).
  (5) The dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for it is that, being a trustee of a trust scheme which relates to his employment, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a trustee.
  (6) Where the reason or the principal reason for which an employee was selected for dismissal was that he was redundant, but it is shown —

  (a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and

  (b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in subsection (5),

  then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.
  (7) Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) applies to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of subsection (5) or (6) regardless of the period for which the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly section 64(1) of that Act (which provides a qualifying period and an upper age limit) does not apply to such a dismissal.
  (8) Any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be void in so far as it purports—

  (a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this section, or

  (b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to an industrial tribunal by virtue of any provision of this section.

  (9) Subsection (8) does not apply to an agreement to refrain from presenting or continuing with a complaint where—

  (a) a conciliation officer has taken action under section 133(2) or (3) of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation) or under section 134(1), (2) or (3) (conciliation in case of unfair dismissal) of that Act, or

  (b) the conditions regulating compromise agreements under the 1978 Act (as set out in section 140(3) of that Act) are satisfied in relation to the agreement.

  (10) In this section, "dismissal" has the same meaning as in Part V of the 1978 Act.
  (11) Section 153 of the 1978 Act (general interpretation) has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that Act.'.
  Amendment No. 109, in clause 120, page 81, line 4, at end insert—
  '( ) This section does not apply to sections 42 to 45 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed).'.
  Amendment No. 110, in schedule 3, page 137, line 17, leave out 'and 43' and insert
  '43 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed)'.
  Amendment No. 111, in page 137, line 18, at end insert—
  '. In section 71(2B) (compensation award for failure to comply with section 69 not to be made), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
  . In section 72(3) (special award), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
  . In section 73(6B) (calculation of basic award), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
  . In section 77(1) (interim relief), after "57A (1)(a) and (b)" there is inserted "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995".
  . In section 77A(1) (procedure on application for interim relief), after "57A (1)(a) and (b)" there is inserted "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995".'
  Amendment No. 112, in page 137, line 22, leave out 'or 43' and insert
  ' 43 or (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed)'.
  Amendment No. 113, in page 137, line 25, at end insert—
  '. In section 138 (Application of Act to Crown employment), in subsection (1), after "and section 53" there is inserted "of this Act and sections 42 to 45 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995.".'.
  Mr. Ingram: The purpose of the new clause is to protect trustees from unfair dismissal for exercising any of their rights or obligations in respect of the pension funds of which they are members. This matter was extensively dealt with in another place and in our Committee deliberations, and it is right that so much attention and time have been given over to the issue, as it is clearly important.
  As the law stands, employees have the right to claim compensation or reinstatement for wrongful dismissal. However, the burden of proof falls on the employee—and anyone so dismissed needs two years of qualifying service before he can take a case against the employer who dismissed him. The new clause makes dismissal automatically unfair in the case of trustees, and requires no qualifying service. In essence, it strengthens the protection afforded under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
  It is worth taking a look at why the new clause is required. One of the key features of the Bill is the enhanced role and responsibility given to trustees, especially to member trustees. As experience has shown, trustees are likely to be the first people to know if there is wrongdoing on the part of an employer in the administration of a pension fund.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have added my name to his new clause, because I think it important that the House debate it. He said earlier that the new clause will mean that a company employee who becomes a trustee will be protected from dismissal as a result of his actions as a trustee, even though he has not
  430
  been with the company for two years. In practice, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be extremely rare for someone to join a company and become a trustee in less than two years?
  Mr. Ingram: I was going to come to that later. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Gentleman has added his name to our new clause, and I shall deal with his point in due course.
  Trustees can find themselves forcefully arguing against their employers' wishes in relation to a pension scheme, and that may be detrimental to scheme members. It may not be a case of wrongdoing in a pension scheme; it may simply be that the employers or employer trustees are seeking to do something that other trustees believe not to be in the interests of the scheme members. Employee trustees could find themselves arguing against such an action, thereby causing friction in their relationship with their employer.
  In that sense, they put themselves in an exposed and vulnerable position. But if they are to do their job properly as trustees, they must be allowed to act in a free and unfettered way and not be under any pressure.
  That concept was accepted by the Government. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "It is important that member-nominated trustees should be able to feel free to be able to act in the best interests of the members of the scheme."—[Official Report, Standing Committee d, 16 May 1995; c. 181.]
  That is a position that all of us would endorse. But the Minister needs to do more than utter sweet words of encouragement to member-nominated trustees. If they are to be free from pressure, they must be given the full protection of the law in all the circumstances in which they find themselves.
  Member-nominated trustees need not platitudes but protection. The Bill rightly imposes considerable responsibilities on these trustees, and in so doing exposes them to greater potential pressure from unscrupulous, crooked employers such as Robert Maxwell. They are expected to blow the whistle, but they are under no statutory obligation to do so, unlike scheme actuaries and auditors. They cannot plead such an obligation before an industrial tribunal if they are dismissed.
  The Government's view is clear. They do not believe that trustees require a special protection in law. Indeed, that view was set out by Lord Mackay in another place when he said:
  "employees are already protected against significant victimisation or bullying by employers for whatever reason … we do not believe that acting as a pension scheme trustee will put individuals in any more vulnerable a position with regard to victimisation by an employer. After all, employers set up pension schemes voluntarily; so any real employer-trustee conflict should be something of a rarity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 625.]
  That passage exposes a complete misunderstanding of what can and does take place in the real world of industry and commerce. The Maxwell case highlighted many shortfalls in pension legislation. That is why the Bill was introduced in the first place.
  Bullying and the victimisation of employees was referred to during our deliberations yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) gave the example of a member-nominated trustee of the Maxwell pension scheme. There was a member trustee who was arguing against what Maxwell was seeking to do. He

  431
  wanted to expose what was happening. Maxwell found it difficult to remove that person as a trustee, so he sacked him. He removed the problem in that way. That may or may not be a rare happening, but it is important that the law did not adequately protect the individual, as the Select Committee on Social Security so graphically highlighted.
  By its existence, the Bill accepts that there will be occasional conflict between bad or dishonest employers and employees, and assigns a special role to the member trustees in preventing abuse. Trustees are expected to be the second line of defence for scheme members. The Secretary of State made that clear on Second Reading. However, when trustees act on behalf of scheme members they will be in an extremely vulnerable position without additional employee protection.
  The Government argue that few member trustees will have less than the two years of service needed to bring them under the ordinary employment rules. That is the point that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir. A. Bowden) raised. I accept that that is the position, because most trustees are long-standing employees who are respected by the rest of the work force. That tends to be the position that prevails when it comes to selecting and appointing member trustees.
  But in a new company, where a new scheme is being set up, where there has been an upheaval within a company that has led to a complete turnover in posts, or in a small company, there may well be trustees with less than two years of service. Those trustees will need protection. There will be occasions—they may be rare—when the trustees have less than two years of service and so will not be protected by the law if they are victimised or bullied by their employer and subsequently dismissed.
  The new clause is designed to protect employer-nominated trustees as well as member nominees. In many instances, senior managers could be appointed as employer-based trustees. Those trustees, as employees of the company, could find themselves in a difficult situation with, for example, the finance director. Acting in their proper function of trustees, they could put themselves in difficulties. It is important that the clause deals not only with employee-nominated trustees but with employer-nominated trustees as well.
  I agree that the situations to which I have drawn attention would undoubtedly be rare. It cannot be argued, therefore, that industrial tribunals will be clogged by the cases that stem from them. Many crimes are rare, but that does not make them any the less reprehensible and any less illegal.
  I would welcome the support of the hon. Member for Kemptown, who has added his name to the clause. I know that he added his name to new clause 4 and then expressed some reservations. I hope that I have not scared him off on new clause 5, as we possibly did when dealing with new clause 4, and that he will decide that he can support the arguments that I have advanced.
  I welcome the anticipated support of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), who, in tabling comprehensive amendments, is, I guess, seeking the same objectives. I hope that the Minister—perhaps I should refer to him as the Secretary of State. As I understand it, this will be his swan song in his present capacity. I have already commented on his new appointment. Other hon. Members may wish to make their comments during the debate, or perhaps on Third Reading.
  432
  I hope that the new Secretary of State for Wales, but the Minister in the context of this debate, will take on board the arguments that will be advanced in favour of the new clause, which I commend to the House.
  Mr. Michael Stern: First, I join the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on his appointment to the Cabinet. We shall miss him greatly during our debates on these matters, on which he has shown considerable expertise.
  I do not intend to detain the House for long. As the hon. Gentleman anticipated, many of the arguments that I would advance in moving new clause 24 and the related amendments would be identical to the arguments that he has rehearsed.
  There is a clear need for further legislation. It would be pointless for the House to create a framework of law and regulations to bolster the independence of trustees of pension schemes if there were to remain among those seeking or accepting appointment as trustees the fear that they might be subject to any form of victimisation in carrying on the proper duties of their office.
  Both new clauses 24 and 25 are about providing protection to ensure that the fear of victimisation is removed. They are not tabled on the basis that they will be needed to cope with victimisation. In the majority of pension schemes, the relationship between the employer and the trustees will be, as it has always been, a fair and proper one.
  The new clauses are designed to do deal with that tiny minority of cases, not where undue pressure is put on, but where the nominated trustee fears that if he acts properly, he may come under such pressure. The House has previously given similar rights to nominated health and safety officers in companies, and I believe that it is entirely proper that we should do the same for nominated trustees.
  If my right hon. Friend is moved to accept the proposals in the new clauses—I have some feeling from the Committee debates that he may well be inclined to—it is merely a question of whether he has moved more towards new clause 5 or new clause 24. Clearly, the differences between the new clauses and the related amendments are much more a matter for argument between lawyers than argument across the Floor. I can say only that I hope that my right hon. Friend will decide that my lawyers are bigger and better than his lawyers and recommend the adoption of new clause 24.
  7 pm
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I join in the congratulations to the new Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that he quickly learns the words of "Land of my Fathers" better than his predecessor. At last I have told a joke that the Minister has laughed at. In Committee, I missed the punch line of one of the better jokes of my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram).
  In yesterday's debate, some important points were made about the role of pensioner trustees. One of the most powerful arguments used by several hon. Members was derived from page 261 of Professor Goode's report, where, in respect of pensioner trustees, he states:

  433
  "In addition, they are thought to be less susceptible to some of the pressures that face active members."
  That argument was rejected last night, but the evidence from the Goode inquiry and the arguments of several hon. Members during last night's debate are important in the context of the new clause.
  If, as Professor Goode and hon. Members on both sides of the House believe, it is true that pensioner trustees are less susceptible to pressure, clearly the reverse must also be the case: active members are in a position where employers could lean upon them. Indeed, the Confederation of Occupational Pensioner Associations has set that out in a leaflet that it circulated to hon. Members.
  It must be a straightforward and clear principle that, when an employee becomes a trustee, he or she has direct responsibility for that trust. That responsibility must at all times be free of any pressure from the employer, for whatever reason. The only way that we can achieve that is to build it formally into statute.
  I will not delve into the detail of the lengthy new clause 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), but say only that the principle that he is seeking to pursue is precisely the same as that sought by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride. I hope that the Government recognise the simple philosophy, which was explored in Committee in slightly different form and reappeared last night in a slightly tangential debate, to which we have returned in black and white terms this evening. The employee must be protected at all times. I urge hon. Members to accept the spirit of the new clause to bring that about.
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy: I add my congratulations to the now right hon. Gentleman, the new Secretary of State for Wales. I wish him success in his new position, and I am sure that his unfailing courtesy will stand him in good stead in the short time that his party will remain in government.
  I shall deal with new clause 24, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) and which is entitled "Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed". Clause 16 allows for nomination and selection of trustees by members of the scheme. In Committee, we established that the term "member" could mean active members—in other words, employees—pensioner members or, indeed, deferred members.
  The new clause would offer protection to member trustees who are selected from the work force. The trustees selected may come from any level of the work force. It is quite possible that trustees may also be trade union or health and safety representatives. Their work as trustees will without doubt take them away from their workplace. They will need to attend meetings of the board of trustees. Most importantly, they will need to attend training sessions if they are to perform their function properly.
  Paragraph 9(ii) of the fourth report of the Social Security Committee states:
  "We believe that particular emphasis should be placed upon instructing trustees they are there to act as independent guardians of the trust and not as representatives of the employers, employees or
  434
  pensioners … For their part, employers will have to accept that trustees will require adequate assistance to attend training courses as well as meetings."
  While the principle of the important role that trustees have to play has been accepted by the Government, the consequences of the decision to invest new powers and responsibilities in the trustees has still not, in my view, been sufficiently well thought through. That is why I welcome the new clause. It gives us an opportunity to press the Government one more time to take our arguments on board.
  Employers will be required to allow for selection of member trustees, some of whom will be their own employees. Many occupational schemes already have such employee trustees, and their experience has been that such trustees perform diligently. Companies that have resisted that, and which are now having it forced upon them, might find ways of placing obstacles in the path of employee trustees performing their proper duties.
  A member trustee drawn from the workplace will be called upon to leave the workplace from time to time, and in so doing, interrupt the functioning of the workplace. They may well need to be replaced by another employee to ensure that their function carries on and that work is progressed.
  If employees are on performance-related pay, they stand to lose bonus pay unless they are fully compensated. The same applies to shift workers who receive premium rates of pay for unsocial hours of work. Further, the team of workers left behind may be disadvantaged, and may require the employer to take steps to ensure that they do not lose because of the activity of the trustee. Failure to act to address that range of problems would lead to dissatisfaction, which might lead to pressure being brought to bear on the trustee by his or her workmates, let alone an employer minded to undermine the work of the trustee.
  Good employers, who have the best interests of pension schemes at heart, will take steps to remedy the problems that I have outlined, but at no little cost to them. Employers who take less care, or who are facing financial difficulties for whatever reason, may not take the steps necessary to address those problems.
  The trustees may then find themselves out of pocket or faced with choices over whether, for example, to forgo opportunities for promotion. They may even, on occasion, have to choose between leaving the workplace at an inopportune moment to attend to business relating to the pension scheme and staying in work, thereby failing to fulfil their role as trustees.
  If a trustee also has the role as shop steward or health and safety representative, he is protected by statute from discrimination and has the right not to suffer detriment. New clause 5 and the new clause and amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West correct that failing, and bring trustees under the same statutory protection as other employee representatives.
  I look forward to hearing the Government's response but, in view of experience on the Bill, I am not sure that they will have the wisdom and foresight to adopt either of the new clauses or any of the amendments.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I, too, warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. I believe that the people of Wales will soon realise that they have a very able and dedicated Secretary of State.

  435
  New clause 5 is important, because it protects people from a minority of employers who inevitably try to exploit their power. Pressure can be applied to an employee trustee in various ways. It can be done subtly and relate to an employee's promotion prospects or salary increases. The word can be carefully spread, so that, if a trustee does something that displeases key people, there could be repercussions. Those of us who have worked in industry—I admit that it is a long time since I did—will be aware of the problem.
  After I completed my national service in the late 1940s, I went to a large company—it is not fair to name it, because I am sure that it is wholly different today—which was running a management trainee scheme. The scheme was due to last for some six or seven years, and was quite an innovation at the time. Even as far back as the 1950s, I was active in politics in my spare time. I wanted to stand as a candidate for the old London county council in the constituency of Deptford and fight the very distinguished man who represented that seat. He was the leader of the council, Sir Joseph Hayward.
  As a matter of courtesy, I informed my employers of my intention. I said that I had no prospect of being elected, but that I wanted to gain the experience of contesting a parliamentary-sized seat in the LCC. I explained that it would involve a considerable amount of time in the evenings and at the weekend, but that it would not affect my duties and responsibilities as an employee.
  It quickly came home to me, in various relatively subtle ways—and some perhaps not so subtle ways—that, if I wanted to progress in the company, I should not meddle in politics, because business and politics did not mix. I understood that I had to dedicate myself seven days a week, flat out, to the company if I wanted to join the senior ranks. I do not think that that would happen today in a political context, because more companies recognise that it is useful to have among their employees people of all political persuasions who are active outside work.
  Pressure can, however, be applied in subtle ways which are extremely difficult to counter. There is therefore a strong case for enshrining in law the maximum protection for employee trustees. Subject to what my right hon. Friend may have to say, I am minded to support the new clause.
  Madam Speaker: Who is next? The Minister?
  7.15 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. William Hague): I was momentarily surprised by the absence of other hon. Members wishing to speak.
  I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and all the other hon. Members and my hon. Friends for their good wishes. If I can enjoy my new appointment—I certainly intend to—as much as I have enjoyed this portfolio and as much as I have enjoyed debating this particular Bill, it will be very rewarding indeed. I have immensely enjoyed the company of all the hon. Members and my hon. Friends with whom I have debated the Bill.
  The new clause tabled by the Opposition, and the new clause and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern), all have the same objective, as became clear in the debate. They would protect employee pension scheme trustees against
  436
  victimisation by their employers. They aim to do that by giving those employees a right to complain to an industrial tribunal if they are dismissed or subjected to any other adverse treatment in connection with their duties as trustees. No qualifying length of service, hours of work or age thresholds would apply.
  As the House may be aware—those hon. Members present certainly are, because we have discussed these matters before, and they have been discussed in another place—the Government have resisted the introduction of such protection. Our concern has been to avoid adding unnecessarily to the legislative burdens on business.
  We have taken the view that virtually all employee trustees would have the two years' continuous service necessary to entitle them to make an ordinary unfair dismissal complaint. That was the point about which my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) asked the hon. Member for East Kilbride earlier in our proceedings.
  The two-year qualifying period is a key element of our policy of sensible deregulation of employment protection, and we remain firmly committed to ensuring that a proper balance is struck between employees' rights and employers' costs.
  The Government have always accepted that there are specific types of dismissal which are so unacceptable and contrary to public policy that the employees involved should be entitled to make an industrial tribunal complaint without first having to satisfy the usual length of service and other qualifying criteria. That category must be drawn narrowly, or the benefits of protection will be outweighed by the loss of job opportunities that the legislative burden would cause.
  Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree that action short of dismissal should be included in the category of actions that he regards as unacceptable?
  Mr. Hague: I must address my remarks to the specific new clause. The hon. Gentleman may take some pleasure in what I am about to say. I have listened to the views expressed in this debate as well as those put forward in another place. In the light of the various arguments, the Government have been persuaded that it is indeed a sphere in which special protection should apply.
  Employment legislation already provides special protection for trade union and health and safety representatives. The new clauses and the amendments that we are considering must be seen in the light of that existing legislation. I therefore accept that dismissal on the grounds of carrying out or proposing to carry out functions as an employee trustee should fall into that special narrow category.
  Protection against detrimental action short of dismissal goes hand in hand with the special protection against dismissal enjoyed by trade union and health and safety representatives. It is therefore only right that it should do so in this case, too. I believe that that deals adequately with the point raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). I may be accused of agreeing to this in the spirit of demob abandon, but I am pleased that, as we come to the end of our proceedings, we may be able to achieve some cross-party agreement.

  437
  Of the suggested proposals, I prefer those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West.
  Mr. Ingram: I am not surprised.
  Mr. Hague: They are drafted in terms that are similar to those of the provisions of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993, through which the Government introduced the analogous protection for health and safety representatives. They also provide for remedies identical to those that are available to such representatives, which include the possibility of special awards of compensation, and interim relief in dismissal cases.
  New clause 5 would not deal with a number of important consequential matters, including remedies, and is, I believe, flawed in its drafting, in that it refers to clause 157(1) of the 1992 Act whereas it should refer to clause 152, just to take up a pedantic point.
  Although I support the intention of both new clauses, I intend to support new clause 24, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, and hope that Opposition Members will feel able to withdraw their new clause.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) doubted whether I would have the wisdom and foresight to accept these new clauses and amendments. I hope that she will readily agree that wisdom and foresight are on display in great quantity this evening.
  We have consistently made clear our belief that victimisation of employee pension scheme trustees for carrying out their functions as trustees would be totally reprehensible. We are confident that very few employers would ever be tempted to act in such an irresponsible manner, but the amendments will nevertheless ensure that employee trustees can carry out their important duties confident in the knowledge that they have the protection, afforded in these provisions, to deter unwarranted retaliation by their employer.
  I am happy to recommend new clause 24 and the associated amendments to the House.
  Mr. Ingram: That is most welcome. There has clearly been substantial movement on the part of the Government, obviously because of the weight of arguments that have been advanced by Opposition Members in the House and in Committee, and because of the valuable contribution that was made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern). I think that I heard him correctly when he said that his lawyers were bigger and better than ours.
  Clearly, those people are capable of writing bigger clauses and amendments, and obviously the Minister thinks that they are better, but just let me tell him, however, that one of the lawyers who was involved in drafting new clause 5 was my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden, and lawyers do not come any bigger or better than him.
  I still feel that new clause 5 could be argued as being marginally better, but I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said and take on board some of the points that he made, notwithstanding the typographical error in new clause 5. I am grateful that he has accepted the weight of the argument that has been advanced. I am sure
  438
  that employee pension scheme trustees, and trustees generally, will warmly welcome the protection that is afforded them. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 24

  RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER DETRIMENT IN EMPLOYMENT OR BE UNFAIRLY DISMISSED
  '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), an employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that, being a trustee of a trust scheme which relates to his employment, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a trustee.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal, except where an employee is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of section 142 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act"), section 54 of that Act does not apply to the dismissal.
  (3) Sections 22B and 22C of the 1978 Act (which relate to proceedings brought by an employee on the grounds that he has been subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 22A of that Act) shall have effect as if the reference in section 22B(1) to section 22A included a reference to subsection (1).
  (4) In the following provisions of the 1978 Act —

  (a) section 129 (remedy for infringement of certain rights),

  (b) section 141(2) (employee ordinarily working outside Great Britain), and

  (c) section 150 and Schedule 12 (death of employee or employer),

  any reference to Part II of that Act includes a reference to subsection (1).
  (5) The dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act as unfair if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for it is that, being a trustee of a trust scheme which relates to his employment, the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a trustee.
  (6) Where the reason or the principal reason for which an employee was selected for dismissal was that he was redundant, but it is shown—

  (a) that the circumstances constituting the redundancy applied equally to one or more other employees in the same undertaking who held positions similar to that held by him and who have not been dismissed by the employer, and

  (b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which he was selected for dismissal was that specified in subsection (5),

  then, for the purposes of Part V of the 1978 Act, the dismissal shall be regarded as unfair.
  (7) Section 54 of the 1978 Act (right of employee not to be unfairly dismissed) applies to a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of subsection (5) or (6) regardless of the period for which the employee has been employed and of his age; and accordingly section 64(1) of that Act (which provides a qualifying period and an upper age limit) does not apply to such a dismissal.
  (8) Any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be void in so far as it purports—

  (a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this section, or

  (b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to an industrial tribunal by virtue of any provision of this section.

  (9) Subsection (8) does not apply to an agreement to refrain from presenting or continuing with a complaint where —

  (a) a conciliation officer has taken action under section 133(2) or (3) of the 1978 Act (general provisions as to conciliation) or under section 134(1), (2) or (3) (conciliation in case of unfair dismissal) of that Act, or

  439

  (b) the conditions regulating compromise agreements under the 1978 Act (as set out in section 140(3) of that Act) are satisfied in relation to the agreement.

  (10) In this section, "dismissal" has the same meaning as in Part V of the 1978 Act.
  (11) Section 153 of the 1978 Act (general interpretation) has effect for the purposes of this section as it has effect for the purposes of that Act.'.—[Mr. Stern.]
  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 16

  IMPROVED STATE PENSION RIGHTS WHEN SPOUSE ENTERS RESIDENTIAL CARE
  'There shall be inserted after section 48 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992—
  "48A.—(1) Where a woman who is married and has attained pension age but is residing apart from his spouse because the spouse is resident in residential accommodation (other than a temporary resident) and in respect of the tax year before he reached pensionable age and any previous tax year, does not, with his own contributions, satisfy the contribution conditions for a Category A retirement pension then, for the purpose of enabling him to satisfy those conditions (but only in respect of any claim for a Category A retirement pension), the contributions of his spouse may be to the prescribed extent be treated as if they were his own contributions.
  (2) A person who receives a category A pension under these provisions will no longer be entitled to a category B pension under section 49 of the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992.
  (3) In this section 'residential accommodation' means either

  (a) accommodation provided under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948 or

  (b) accommodation in a nursing home or residential care home as defined in Regulation 19 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 if such accommodation is not provided under Part III above.

  'resident' means a person provided with residential accommodation.
  'temporary resident' means a resident whose stay is—

  (a) unlikely to exceed 52 weeks, or

  (b) in exceptional circumstances, unlikely to substantially exceed this period".'.—[Sir Andrew Bowden.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The object of the new clause is to give the same state pension rights to a woman whose husband enters long-term care as to a woman whose husband has died, or from whom she has divorced. It will give women who have separated from their husbands who then go into permanent—I stress permanent—residential care parallel rights to women who are divorced and widowed.
  People who are divorced or widowed can use their former spouse's contribution record up and until the end of the marriage to gain a basic state pension or to increase a partial pension. The new clause would particularly benefit older married women receiving the married women's category B pension of £35.25 per week. When the partner goes into care, a category A state pension of up to a maximum of £58.85 a week will be the substitute for the married women's pension.
  The new clause introduces parallel changes to state pensions. It will give a spouse who is separated from his or her partner entering long-term care similar rights to those of people who are divorced or widowed. I shall read to the House a specific case that has been brought to my
  440
  attention. It is not from one of my constituents, and, of course, I do not intend to give the name, but I can assure colleagues that it is a perfectly genuine case.
  In the letter, the lady writes:
  "I am 69 years of age. I worked to make ends meet as my husband has not been well. I worked till I was 65 and then had my husband to look after. We manage on our pension, as I have never asked for help in my life and never owed a penny anywhere. The last two years were just awful and the last 12 months my husband has Alzheimer's disease, which is bad enough to watch happening. I had a slight heart attack on 5th March, was taken to hospital and my husband was put into a home. The doctor advised me he must stay there as he won't get any better. I was told to send my pension book in so I could get more money. My pension is £35.60p, but I had the book back saying that that is all I can get. How can I live on that? Now the little I have saved will have to go to keep myself. I don't want any help, but my pension surely should have been £57 old-age pension, but they told me I am classed as single and my husband is still alive. To go in and see him and come out as I do is so upsetting and now the worry of the pension. Life just not seems worth living. Please can you help?"
  That represents a very sad situation indeed. I am aware that this matter was discussed in Committee, and, of course, I know the arguments that were used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who said:
  "the spouse at home would benefit only if the pension they received was sufficiently substantial to lift them entirely above the level of income-related benefit they received."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 27 June 1995; c. 890.]
  I do not think that that gives the full picture. As I understand it, the full state pension is £58.85. The applicable amount for income support for a single pensioner aged between 60 and 74 is £65.10, so a woman benefiting from my new clause and with no other income would still get income support of £6.25 in addition to her enhanced pension. The applicable amount for a pensioner aged between 75 and 79 is £67.20, and for a pensioner aged 80 or over it is £71.65.
  I shall at this point remind the House and emphasise to my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that pensioners do not like taking income support; they will avoid it whenever they can. The new clause would help considerably in that regard.
  I shall not detain the House any longer. I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the new clause again.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The new clause attempts to extend the existing substitution rules in a way that I believe would distort the intention behind those rules. The substitution provisions are aimed at cases in which a marriage has ended. The rules recognise that in such cases a woman needs to be compensated for a particular change of circumstances—the unforeseen ending of a marriage in which she had previously relied on her husband's record for an income in retirement.
  In such circumstances, substitution gives women a record on which they can build with their own contributions following a divorce. The married woman's 60 per cent. pension could almost be described as a good buy, because it is achieved without the payment of any extra contributions. Ours is the only country in the European Union to provide such a pension. The new clause would give women in that position a 100 per cent. pension, again without any contribution.

  441
  An amendment similar to the new clause was discussed in another place, and we had a full discussion on the whole residential care issue in Committee. As both my noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and I said in our separate debates, the Government sympathise with the concerns felt in both Houses about people in such circumstances, and—as I have said many times in Committee—we are a listening Government. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health have taken action: the local authority charging regulations will be amended so that spouses can keep their partners' occupational pension when those partners enter residential accommodation. That will extend to income support preserved rights cases. The change will benefit many people, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) will welcome it as far as it goes.
  My hon. Friend, however, has pressed us to go further, and to amend the legislation relating to the basic state pension. I cannot agree that that is necessary. It would not benefit everyone concerned, especially in cases in which the remaining spouse receives an income-related benefit—usually, income support. All income-related benefits must take pensions fully into account, and in such cases spouses at home would benefit only if the amount of pension that they received was large enough to take them entirely above the level of income-related benefit that they received. In the majority of cases it would simply be a bureaucratic accounting exercise, recycling state spending from one benefit to another. An adequate safety net already exists: that is the point that I wish to make in regard to the example given by my hon. Friend.
  My hon. Friend suggested—rightly, in my view—that older people preferred to receive contributory benefits rather than means-tested benefits. I understand that preference, but I do not consider it sufficient reason to extend contributory benefit provision to this or any other group. That would impose an automatic and unwarranted extra charge on public expenditure. After all, spouses at home may have considerable resources of their own. I do not believe that automatically granting extra state pension to people in such circumstances would be an appropriate use of public funds.
  I hope that, having listened to my argument, my hon. Friend will not feel it necessary to press his new clause.
  Question put and negatived.

Clause 1

  THE NEW AUTHORITY
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 10, at end insert—
  '(1A) It shall be the duty of the Authority, when it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, to cause an investigation to take place into any breach of trust law or any other misconduct alleged to have occurred in relation to an occupational pension scheme.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also No. 14, in schedule 1, page 131, line 3, after 'expenses', insert
  442
  'provided that, taking one year with another, not less than one quarter of those expenses shall be paid by the Secretary of State.'.
  Sir Andrew Bowden: Amendment No. 7 is intended to strengthen the powers of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. At present, OPRA is seen essentially as a fire fighter; I believe that it needs to become more proactive, and to have powers of fire prevention.
  OPRA will replace, and expand on the powers of, the Occupational Pensions Board. It will be an independent statutory body. It currently lacks clear powers, however. The Goode report recommended that the new legal framework should depend for its effectiveness on proper supervisory and enforcement machinery. I therefore suggest that the pensions regulator should have wide-ranging functions and powers. I do not think that the Bill deals adequately with OPRA's powers: there are not enough clear definitions relating to monitoring, registration, investigation and codes of good practice—in short, the role of the regulator himself.
  The aim of amendment No. 14 is to make OPRA 25 per cent. state funded. The current intention is to finance the authority through a levy on pension funds, but that may lead to its being far from independent of those whom it is meant to regulate. The House should not forget that more than 10 million employees are active members of occupational schemes. If we take account of beneficiaries and other family members, we see that the majority of the population benefits from such schemes. I believe that an element of state funding, via taxation, is justifiable. Furthermore, OPRA replaces the Occupational Pensions Board, which, as the House knows, was state funded. The amendment strikes a compromise between those who want state funding and those who favour an industrial levy.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: The amendments address different subjects. I shall deal with the issues raised by each in turn.
  First, on amendment No. 7, the powers of the regulator to conduct investigations and take action are directly linked to a wide range of obligations relating to scheme security, which are clearly specified in the Bill and the Pension Schemes Act 1993. In that way, we have sought to ensure that all responsible for running pension schemes are left in no doubt about the obligations placed on them, and the consequences of failing to comply with those obligations.
  If we gave the authority the powers set out in the amendment, we would undermine the very clarity that we seek to achieve. There is a danger that the authority could be drawn into investigating matters that were the responsibility of the other regulatory bodies.
  In Committee and in the other place, there has been extensive debate about whether the authority should police trust law. Our reasons for resisting that were set out fully in those debates. We do not believe that it would be right to extend the authority's remit to cover the vast and complex body of trust law or that we should attempt to re-create trust law in the Bill. Disputes relating to the particular characteristics of a scheme, as set out in its trust deed or rules, can be settled by the pensions ombudsman or, if necessary, the courts.
  The Bill enshrines the principles underlying the most important duty of trust that apply to all schemes. The security of members' rights will be considerably strengthened by it, and the authority's powers of

  443
  investigation and enforcement will provide a robust and effective regulatory regime. I understand, however, that my hon. Friend is concerned about general misconduct on the part of trustees. We have naturally considered those concerns very carefully, and will continue to do so. To some extent, however, those concerns are already covered by the extensive provisions in the Bill; I am referring in particular to sanctions available to the regulatory authority under clauses 3, 4, 10 and 29.
  Amendment No. 14 seeks to alter financial arrangements that we have made for the authority. Paragraph 8(1) of schedule 1 gives the Secretary of State power to decide how much to pay the authority in respect of its expenses. Instead of its running costs being recovered in full from the levy on pension schemes, the amendment would require him to raise from taxation a minimum of one quarter of the amount that he determines is appropriate to meet those costs.
  The fundamental issue here has been well rehearsed and debated, not only in this House but in another place. Although, this time, a smaller amount is at stake, the principle of who should pay for regulation remains the same. Recovering the costs of the authority through the levy is merely an extension of the principle on which the pensions ombudsman, the pensions registry and the grant to the occupational pensions advisory service are already funded. It is right that the costs of the regulator should be borne by those regulated. Given that we expect the costs to be in the order of £12 million and the assets of pension funds amount to many hundreds of billions of pounds, that does not seem unreasonable. I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue the amendments.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

  REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES: NOTICES
  Amendments made: No. 27, in page 4, line 13, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.
  No. 28, in page 4, line 22, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.
  No. 29, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'in the United Kingdom'.
  No. 30, in page 4, line 31, leave out from first 'given' to end of line 33 and insert
  'to any person under this section may be given by delivering it to him or by leaving it at his proper address or by sending it to him by post; and, for the purposes of this subsection and section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 in its application to this subsection, the proper address of any person is his latest address known to the Authority.'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 10
  CIVIL PENALTIES
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'require' and insert 'provide for'.—[Mr. Hague.]
Clause 11

  POWERS TO WIND UP SCHEMES
  Amendments made: No. 32, in page 7, line 9, leave out 'subsection (6)' and insert—
  'the following provisions of this section'.
  No. 33, in page 7, line 16, at end insert —
  444
  '(1A) The Authority may not make an order under this section on either of the grounds referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b) unless they are satisfied that the winding up of the scheme —

  (a) cannot be achieved otherwise than by means of such an order, or

  (b) can only be achieved in accordance with a procedure which —

  (i) is liable to be unduly complex or protracted, or

  (ii) involves the obtaining of consents which cannot be obtained, or can only be obtained with undue delay or difficulty,

  and that it is reasonable in all the circumstances to make the order'.
  No. 34, in page 7, line 34, at beginning insert
  'except for the purpose of the Authority determining whether or not they are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1A)'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 12

  POWERS TO WIND UP PUBLIC SERVICE SCHEMES
  Amendment made: No. 35, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
  '( ) Subsection (1A) of section 11 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that, but as if references to the Authority were to the appropriate authority'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 33

  INVESTMENT POWERS: DUTY OF CARE
  Amendments made: No. 36, in page 20, line 41, leave out from 'the' to 'under' in line 42 and insert 'function has been delegated'.
  No. 37, in page 20, leave out line 44.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 34

  POWER OF INVESTMENT AND DELEGATION
  Amendments made: No. 38, in page 21, line 13, leave out from beginning to 'except' in line 17 and insert—
  '(2) Any discretion of the trustees of a trust scheme to make any decision about investments—

  (a) may be delegated by or on behalf of the trustees to a fund manager to whom subsection (3) applies to be exercised in accordance with section 36, but

  (b) may not otherwise be delegated'.

  No. 39, in page 21, line 28, at end insert—
  'or the person who made the delegation on their behalf has taken all such steps as are reasonable to satisfy himself.
  No. 40, in page 21, line 29, leave out 'he' and insert 'the fund manager'.
  No. 41, in page 21, line 33, leave out subsection (5) and insert —
  '(5) Subject to any restriction imposed by a trust scheme —

  (a) the trustees may authorise two or more of their number to exercise on their behalf any discretion to make any decision about investments, and

  (b) any such discretion may, where giving effect to the decision would not constitute carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986), be delegated by or on behalf of the trustees to a fund manager to whom subsection (3) does not apply to be exercised in accordance with section 36;

  but in either case the trustees are liable for any acts or defaults in the exercise of the discretion if they would be so liable if they were the acts or defaults of the trustees as a whole.

  445
  ( ) Section 33 does not prevent the exclusion or restriction of any liability of the trustees of a trust scheme for the acts or defaults of a fund manager in the exercise of a discretion delegated to him under subsection (5)(b) where the trustees have taken all such steps as are reasonable to satisfy themselves, or the person who made the delegation on their behalf has taken all such steps as are reasonable to satisfy himself—

  (a) that the fund manager has the appropriate knowledge and experience for managing the investments of the scheme, and

  (b) hat he is carrying out his work competently and complying with section 36;

  and subsection (2) of section 33 applies for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of that section'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 35

  INVESTMENT PRINCIPLES
  Amendment made: No. 42, in page 22, line 19, at end insert—
  '( ) Neither the trust scheme nor the statement may impose restrictions (however expressed) on any power to make investments by reference to the consent of the employer'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 36

  CHOOSING INVESTMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 43, in page 22, line 39, leave out
  'they have delegated any discretion'
  and insert
  'any discretion has been delegated'.
  No. 44, in page 23, line 15, leave out 'fund manager' and insert
  'the fund manager to whom any discretion has been delegated under section 34'.
  No. 45, in page 23, line 19, leave out paragraph (a) and insert —
  '(a) where giving the advice constitutes carrying on investment business in the United Kingdom (within the meaning of the Financial Services Act 1986), advice—

  (i) given by a person authorised under Chapter III of Part
  I of that Act,

  (ii) given by a person exempted under Chapter IV of that Part who, in giving the advice, is acting in the course of the business in respect of which he is exempt,

  (iii) given by a person where, by virtue of paragraph 27 of Schedule 1 to that Act, paragraph 15 of that Schedule does not apply to giving the advice, or

  (iv) given by a person who, by virtue of regulation 5 of the Banking Coordination (Second Council Directive) Regulations 1992, may give the advice though not authorised as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 46

  PROFESSIONAL ADVISERS
  Amendments made: No. 46, in page 28, line 40, after 'by', insert 'or on behalf of'.
  No. 47, in page 28, line 42, leave out from 'person' to end of line 2 on page 29 and insert—
  '(a) is appointed otherwise than by the trustees or managers as legal adviser or to exercise any prescribed functions in relation to the scheme, or
  (b) is appointed otherwise than by or on behalf of the trustees or managers as a fund manager'.
  No. 48, in page 29, line 7, leave out from 'actuary' to 'referred' in line 10 and insert
  'and legal adviser appointed by the trustees or managers,
  446
  ( ) any fund manager appointed by or on behalf of the trustees or managers, and
  ( ) any person appointed by the trustees or managers to exercise any of the functions referred to in subsection (3)(a),
  are'.
  No. 49, in page 29, line 18, leave out from 'which' to end of line 19 and insert
  'professional advisers may be appointed and removed'.
  No. 50, in page 29, line 20, leave out from 'which' to '(including' in line 21 and insert
  'professional advisers may be appointed'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 50

  ANNUAL INCREASE IN RATE OF PENSION
  Amendments made: No. 51, in page 32, line 37, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A)'.
  No. 52, in page 32, line 45, leave out from 'scheme' to 'and' in line 46.
  No. 53, in page 33, line 13, at end insert—
  '(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to a pension under an occupational pension scheme if the rules of the scheme require—

  (a) the annual rate of the pension, or

  (b) if only part of the pension is attributable to pensionable service or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on on or after the appointed day, so much of the annual rate as is attributable to that part,

  to be increased at intervals of not more than twelve months by at least the relevant percentage and the scheme complies with any prescribed requirements.
  (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) the relevant percentage is—

  (a) the percentage increase in the retail prices index for the reference period, being a period determined, in relation to each periodic increase, under the rules, or

  (b) the percentage for that period which corresponds to 5 per cent per annum,

  whichever is the lesser'.
  No. 54, in page 33, line 14, leave out 'subsection (2)' and insert 'subsections (2) and (2A)'.
  No. 55, in page 33, line 21, at end insert—
  '(3A) This section does not apply to any pension or part of a pension which, in the opinion of the trustees or managers, is derived from the payment by any member of the scheme of voluntary contributions'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 53
  SECTIONS 50 TO 52:SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 34, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 35.—[Mr. Hague.]
Clause 58
  DETERMINATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendment made: No. 57, in page 38, line 12, at beginning insert 'Except in prescribed circumstances'.—[Mr. Hague.]
Clause 59
  SERIOUS UNDERPROVISION
  Amendment made: No. 58, in page 39, line 5, at beginning insert 'Except in prescribed circumstances'.—[Mr. Hague.]
Clause 63

  EQUAL TREATMENT RULE: EXCEPTIONS
  Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 41, leave out lines 38 to 47.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 20, in page 42, line 2, leave out 'or (3)'.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I do not want to detain the House any longer than I can help, but it is worth spending time, even at this late stage in the progress of the Bill through the House, to consider sexual discrimination on actuarial grounds in private and occupational pension schemes.
  I am prepared to accept the criticism that this issue relates more to sex discrimination than directly to pensions, but the amendments—which are probing—would make it unlawful for defined benefit occupational pension schemes, defined contribution schemes, occupational pension schemes and personal pension schemes to differentiate actuarially on the ground of sex for the purposes of calculations of both contributions and benefits.
  At present, the application of sex-specific actuarial factors is permitted under the current regulations when calculating pensions contributions and benefits. Allowance for that provision is reinforced in the Bill. It is right to raise questions about that because it is possible to argue that we should oppose any sort of discrimination on the ground of sex; that includes discrimination based on an expectation that, on average, women will live longer than men.
  Of course, as the House will know, actuarial calculations are based on a range of life style factors, such as smoking, diet, amount of exercise, occupation and social class, in addition to a genetic predisposition that determines that women will, on average, live longer than men. Average life expectancy, however, does not tell one when one will die; all of us know women who have died in their 60s and men who have died in their 90s. I understand that the state pension system does not discriminate on the ground of sex. Other life style factors such as smoking, diet, occupation and income level create much greater actuarial differences than that of gender alone.
  7.45 pm
  An independent report was drawn up on behalf of the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1989 by the actuarial consultants Tillinghurst. It was called "Unisex Pricing in Long-Term Insurance". Its conclusion was that there would be no great disruption to the life insurance market if unisex pricing were introduced for the determination of payments and benefit.
  I want to draw the House's attention to the experience in the United States of America. In 1978 and 1983, the Supreme Court ruled that the use of sex-specific actuarial factors in the calculation of pensions was unlawful under the Civil Rights Act 1964. It is now the case there that pensions contributions are assessed on unisex mortality tables and that sex distinctions have been eliminated from all calculations.
  In addition, the European Court of Justice has considered the issue extensively and ruled that the use of sex-specific actuarial factors in defined benefit schemes
  448
  is outside the scope of article 119 on equal pay. Of course, the Minister will probably be aware that it has yet to make a judgment on differential rates of benefit and contribution for defined contribution schemes, but by removing this clause of the Bill, as the amendments propose, and by amending section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the United Kingdom would be following a similar path to the United States Supreme Court and would be leading the way for the European Union.
  As the Minister may know, the Equal Opportunities Commission has been calling for a repeal of the actuarial defence in section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act, for direct discrimination in insurance and annuities according to sex or gender. It would be simpler, although technically incompetent in terms of the scope of that Act, to repeal the whole of section 45. To remove from women any avoidable structural disadvantage in the provision of annuities is of great importance for social policy precisely because of the combination of women's life expectancy and many other life and career factors that already tend to depress their chances, relative to men's, of accumulating an adequate retirement income. In the amendments that I moved last night, I was seeking to focus the Government's attention on the difficulties that women face in retirement, particularly because of their tendency to work part time and in having their career patterns interrupted.
  The Government's decisions in the past few years to encourage people to take financial responsibility for their retirement, by creating readily obtainable personal pensions and allowing for contracted-out money purchase occupational schemes will not benefit women to the same extent as men if they find that they have to pay more into a scheme and receive less back. The actuarial justification that women receive less back in benefits because they live longer can easily be countered with the argument that the needs of women in their old age are greater because they live longer; thus, there is a need for greater assistance and care.
  There are also the problems associated with reduced mobility and the possible need for special diets. All those matters give rise to additional expense and must be paid for somehow. I shall conclude my case by quoting two sentences from the European Court of Justice report in the Neath v. Steeper judgment. It states:
  "The Commission claims … any difference in treatment based on sex would be permissible only if it were objectively justified. Statistical data based on the life expectancy of the two sexes do not, in its view, constitute an objective justification because they reflect averages calculated on the basis of the entire male and female population whereas the right to equal treatment in the matter of pay"—"
  that was the issue in front of the court—
  "is a right given to employees individually and not because they belong to a particular class."
  The Government have a duty to balance discrimination between the sexes for benefits and contributions. This may not be the appropriate legislation or the right time or place, but it is certainly the right issue and something should be done about it quite soon.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I was not expecting a debate on this amendment. This is the second time today that that has happened. The hon. Gentleman relies quite heavily on the European Court of Justice words on the matter in the case of Neath v. Steeper. The words that the hon. Gentleman

  449
  quoted are set out in paragraph 27 of the judgment. However, if he reads the judgment he may find that the court set out that argument in paragraph 27 in order to reject it comprehensively in paragraphs 28 to 34. The hon. Gentleman should not place too much reliance on it.
  The amendment would remove a permitted exception to the equal treatment rule that was granted by the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the case of Neath v. Steeper. The amendment proposes the removal of a subsection in the Bill that would permit schemes to use sex-based actuarial factors when deciding the necessary funding of the scheme, and also in the application of such factors when calculating certain benefits arising from the scheme.
  The use of sex-based actuarial factors in relation to the funding of the scheme simply reflects the fact of life that, on average, women live longer than men, as the hon. Gentleman so rightly said. That matter concerned the Committee, but we felt that we could do little about it. As a result, schemes generally have to pay pensions to women on average for a longer time than for men. That is an inescapable fact of life and it must be accounted for if schemes are to be adequately funded to meet their liabilities.
  Clause 63(3)(a) reflects the fact that employers may need to make higher contributions to schemes in respect of female members than for male members. Consequently, where a pension benefit is commuted to a lump sum, the amount paid to a woman is normally greater than that paid to a man because it reflects the greater amount of money in the fund to take account of her longer average life expectancy.
  By the same token, the lump sum will, on average, need to last a woman longer than it would a man. Similarly, transfer payments where an individual transfers from one scheme to another are normally higher for women than for men. That again reflects the higher investment made for a woman in the transferring scheme and the fact that the receiving scheme will require a higher transfer payment than for a man if it is to provide for benefits of equivalent value to those that she had in the transferring scheme, as well as providing a periodic pension of equal value to men in the receiving scheme.
  I should add that the clause is permissive. There is nothing in European law or in the Bill that requires the use of sex-based actuarial factors; therefore, the clause does not prevent schemes from using unisex actuarial factors based on the average life expectancy of the whole population if they so desire.
  Funding a scheme on a national, unisex basis could put a strain on a fund if a scheme had more female members than male members, because there would be a greater call on the fund by the longer-living women. The likely result would be that schemes would err on the side of caution and would fund more closely towards the more expensive female rates. Costs would increase, and pensioners would therefore receive less value from their schemes. Male members of the scheme would be likely to opt out shortly before pension age and purchase an annuity or personal pension on the open market which would not be restricted to unisex rates and might offer them a better pension for their money. Meanwhile, the occupational scheme would be left with a higher proportion of female members, and a higher overall increase in costs which would have to be
  450
  met by employers and remaining members of the scheme. Actuaries would have to take such matters into account when assessing the proper contributions to such a scheme. Such selection against occupational schemes by their male members could seriously damage the viability of those schemes. For those reasons, I do not support the amendment although I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's reasons for moving it and the concerns that lie behind it.
  Mr. Kirkwood: I am content because of the Minister's last sentence. I carefully avoiding saying that the Neath v. Steeper judgment was conclusive. I carefully avoided doing that because I have been in courts. The judgment is not the point in any case, because it relates more to pay than to pensions, contributions and benefits. The Minister's technical objections have to be weighed in the balance, but in the fullness of time we shall be pulled in that direction, I suspect through European Court judgments although perhaps not Neath v. Steeper. It would be better to consider these matters properly in advance so that the technical matters to which the Minister rightly referred can be redressed before changes are made. They must be properly attended to in good time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 72

  PREFERENTIAL LIABILITIES ON WINDING UP
  Amendments made: No. 59, in page 47, line 24, at end insert
  '(but excluding increases to pensions)'.
  No. 60, in page 47, line 27, after 'scheme', insert
  '(but excluding increases to pensions)'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 87
  SCHEDULES OF PAYMENTS TO MONEY PURCHASE SCHEMES: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendment made: No. 61, in page 57, line 3, at beginning insert 'Except in prescribed circumstances'.—[Mr. Hague.]
Clause 93

  SECTIONS 90 TO 9: SUPPLEMENTARY
  Amendment made: No. 102, in page 61, line 4, at end insert—
  '( ) references to a charge are to be read as references to a right in security or a diligence and "charged" is to be interpreted accordingly,'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 105

  DISCLOSURE FOR FACILITATING DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY THE AUTHORITY
  Amendment made: No. 103, in page 73, line 20, at end insert —

  'The Lord Advocate.

  Functions under Part I of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990. '.

  —[Mr.Hague]

Clause 107

  OTHER PERMITTED DISCLOSURES
  Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 75, line 21, at end insert
  'or any proceedings for breach of trust in relation to an occupational pension scheme'.
  The amendment is of some significance and worth. I am fairly confident about that, but then I normally am when I move an amendment. However, in a sense it is second best and related to the arguments by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) who said that the remit of the regulatory body should be extended and that it should be able to deal with breaches of trust law. We canvassed that matter in Committee with the kind of success that the hon. Gentleman had a few minutes ago. As that door is closed, it seems reasonable to make efforts to ensure the speeding up of disputes about trust law.
  The clause simply lists and defines the properly limited power of the regulatory authority to make disclosure of information, and that should be extended a little by allowing the release of information that may be relevant to an allegation and proceedings pursuant to it of a breach of trust law. That is the intended effect of the amendment. It does not widen the powers of OPRA but ensures that that regulatory authority is able to help either the pension ombudsman, who has a remit, presumably if the parties believe that the dispute can be decided by a third party, an honest broker, or the courts if, sadly, because that is always an expensive and time-consuming business, the matter has to go to the courts for proof. In either category, it should be possible for the regulatory authority to make the information available, although normally that disclosure would not be possible if it were not specifically endorsed as a proper course of action by the Bill.
  I take the view—although I know that the Minister does not—that it would be desirable to give the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority such wider powers. I know that he wishes to confine OPRA to a very narrow enforcement role. Having said that and having lost the battle to—I could hardly say the massed ranks of the Conservative party—the small group of hon. Members who made up the Minister's majority in Committee, it seems sensible to bring in this element of flexibility in at least allowing disclosure in the circumstances that I have described. I hope that that is a fair summary of the amendment.
  8 pm
  Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden) spoke earlier about his concerns over OPRA having powers to regulate breaches of trust law. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is always persuasive, but on this amendment he has been more persuasive than usual.
  In view of the concerns which have been raised and also because of the need to ensure that restricted information in connection with any proceedings for breach of trust could bolster the regulatory regime, we agree that the amendment would add some value to the Bill. Therefore, unusually—I hope not uniquely—I would be delighted to accept the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to

Clause 117

  POWERS TO MODIFY THIS PART
  Amendment made: No. 62, in page 80, line 6, leave out from 'modify' to 'in' in line 7 and insert
  'any provisions of this Part'. —[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 120

  CROWN APPLICATION
  Amendment made: No. 109, in page 81, line 4, at end insert —
  '( ) This section does not apply to sections 42 to 45 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed).'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 123

  INTERPRETATION OF PART I
  Amendment made: No. 63, in page 82, line 7, at end insert —
  ' "member-nominated director" has the meaning given by section 18(2)'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 135

  NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTED-OUT SCHEMES, OTHER THAN MONEY PURCHASE SCHEMES
  Amendments made: No. 64, in page 92, line 12, after 'which', insert—
  '(i)''.
  No. 65, in page 92, line 13, after 'scheme' insert 'and
  (ii) may include a requirement that, if the only members of the scheme were those falling within any prescribed class or description, the scheme would comply with section 12A'.
  No. 66, in page 92, line 20, at end insert—
  '( ) In subsection (3) of that section (requirement for protected rights, etc.) after "case" in paragraph (a) there is inserted—
  "(aa) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the scheme does not fall within a prescribed class or description" '.
  No. 67, in page 92, line 28, at beginning insert
  'Subject to regulations made by virtue of section 9(2B)(c)(ii)'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 139

  REDUCTION IN BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF CERTIFIED SCHEMES
  Amendment made: No. 68, in page 100, line 43, at end insert
  'and section 45A of that Act did not apply (where it would, apart from this subsection, apply)'. —[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 171

  PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 82, in page 128, line 32, leave out 'or'.
  No. 83, in page 128, line 33, at end insert —
  '( ) section (hybrid occupational pension schemes)'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Clause 174
  EXTENT
  Amendment made: No. 84, in page 129, line 5, after '148' insert '165'. —[Mr. Hague.]
Clause 176
  COMMENCEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 85, in page 129, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).—[Mr. Hague.]
Schedule 1

  OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS REGULATORY AUTHORITY
  Amendments made: No. 104, in page 133, line 35, at beginning insert '(1)'.
  No. 105, in page 133, line 37, at end insert—
  '(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to any document which is or is to be signed in accordance with the law of Scotland.'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Schedule 2

  THE PENSIONS COMPENSATION BOARD
  Amendments made: No. 106, in page 137, line 4, at beginning insert '(1)'.
  No. 107, in page 137, line 6, at end insert—
  '(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above does not apply in relation to any document which is or is to be signed in accordance with the law of Scotland.'. —[Mr. Hague.]

Schedule 3

  AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON PART I
  Amendments made: No. 110, in page 137, line 17, leave out 'and 43' and insert
  '43 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed)'.
  No. 111, in page 137, line 18, at end insert—
  '. In section 71(2B) (compensation award for failure to comply with section 69 not to be made), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
  . In section 72(3) (special award), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
  . In section 73(6B) (calculation of basic award), at the end there is added "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995."
  . In section 77(1) (interim relief), after "57A (1)(a) and (b)" there is inserted "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995".
  . In section 77A(1) (procedure on application for interim relief), after "57A (1)(a) and (b)" there is inserted "of this Act or section (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995".'
  No. 112, in page 137, line 22, leave out 'or 43' and insert
  '43 or (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed)'.
  No. 113, in page 137, line 25, at end insert—
  '. In section 138 (Application of Act to Crown employment), in subsection (1), after "and section 53" there is inserted "of this Act and sections 42 to 45 and (Right not to suffer detriment in employment or be unfairly dismissed) of the Pensions Act 1995.".'.
  No. 108, in page 138, line 13, at end insert—

  'The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66)
  . In section 31(1) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (vesting in permanent trustee of debtor's estate on sequestration), after "Act" there is inserted "and section 90(3) of the Pensions Act 1995".
  . In section 32 of that Act (vesting of estate, and dealings of debtor, after sequestration), after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) The amount allowed for the purposes specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) above shall not be less than the total amount of any income received by the debtor—

  (a) by way of guaranteed minimum pension; and

  (b) in respect of his protected rights as a member of a pension scheme,

  "guaranteed minimum pension" and "protected rights" having the same meanings as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.".'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Schedule 5
  AMENDMENTS RELATING TO PART III
  Amendments made: No. 86, in page 154, line 32, at end insert—
  'The Administration of Justice Act 1970 (c. 31)
  . In Schedule 4 to the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (taxes, social insurance contributions, etc subject to special enforcement provisions), in paragraph 3, for "State scheme premiums" there is substituted "Contributions equivalent premiums".

  The Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 31)
  . In Schedule 2 to the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (taxes, social security contributions etc relevant for purposes of section 3(6)), in paragraph 3, for "State scheme premiums" there is substituted "Contributions equivalent premiums".'.
  No. 87, in page 155, line 3, at end insert—
  '( ) In section 64(3) of that Act (expenses and receipts), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium".'.
  No. 88, in page 155, line 7, at end insert—

  'The Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (c. 55)
  . In section 55(6)(b)(ii) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 (duties of local authorities), for "state scheme premiums" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premiums".'.
  No. 89, in page 155, line 16, at end insert—

  'The Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
  . In Schedule 2 to the Companies Act 1985 (interpretation of references to "beneficial interest"), in paragraphs 3(2)(b) and 7(2)(b), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium".'.
  No. 90, in page 155, line 31, at end insert —

  'The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (c.4)
  . In Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (supplementary provisions), in paragraph 8(1)(g), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium".'.
  No. 91, in page 155, line 33, after '10.' insert—
  ' —( ) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.
  ( ) In section 110 (appointment and powers of inspectors) —

  (a) in subsections (2)(c)(ii) and (6)(a)(ii), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium", and

  455

  (b) in subsection (7)(e)(i), for "state scheme premiums" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premiums".

  ( ) In section 120 (proof of previous offences), in subsections (3) and (4), for "state scheme premiums" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premiums".
  ( )'.
  No. 92, in page 155, line 33, leave out
  'the Social Security Administration Act 1992' and insert 'that Act'.
  No. 93, in page 164, line 24, at end insert —
  '. In section 171 (questions arising in proceedings), in subsection (1)(b), for "state scheme premium" there is substituted "contributions equivalent premium".'.
  No. 94, in page 164, line 40, leave out
  'the definition of "the Board" is omitted'
  and insert '—

  (i) the definitions of "accrued rights premium", "the Board", "contracted-out protected rights premium", "limited revaluation premium", "pensioner's rights premium", "personal pension protected rights premium", "state scheme premium" and "transfer premium" are omitted, and

  (ii) in the definition of "contributions equivalent premium", for "section 55(6)(e)" there is substituted "section 55(2),'.—[Mr. Hague.]

Schedule 7

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 95, in page 170, leave out line 50.
  No. 96, in page 171, leave out lines 10 to 14.
  No. 97, in page 173, leave out lines 4 to 6.
  No. 98, in page 174, line 32, column 3, leave out 'definition of "the Board"'and insert
  'definitions of "accrued rights premium", "the Board", "contracted-out protected rights premium", "limited revaluation premium", "pensioner's rights premium", "personal pension protected rights premium", "state scheme premium" and "transfer premium"'.
  No. 99, in page 174, line 54, column 3, after 'Board"' insert 'and'.
  No. 100, in page 174, line 56, column 3, leave out 'and' and insert 'in sub-paragraph (2)'.
  No. 101, in page 175, line 42, leave out from '1971' to end of line 43 and insert
  'shall come into force on the day this Act is passed'.—[Mr. Hague.]
  Order for Third Reading read.-[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Lilley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This huge Bill, with 177 clauses, is the biggest of half a dozen Bills which collectively constitute the largest overhaul of social security legislation in 50 years.
  The Bill imposed an enormous task on the Committee and I am very grateful to the members of the Committee for the constructive way in which they approached it. I extend that gratitude to the Opposition, as I do to all the organisations which have contributed to the thought behind, and amendment of, the Bill as it has gone through the House. We are grateful to the joint working group on occupational pensions, the Institute and Faculty of
  456
  Actuaries, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, the Pensions Management Institute and a great many other organisations and individuals for their advice and representations.
  Above all, I should like to express my gratitude to my ministerial team, whose members have so efficiently and effectively, good-humouredly and with such intellectual distinction, carried the Bill in Committee and on Report to Third Reading. This speech gives me an opportunity to offer my congratulations, which I think will be shared by all hon. Members, to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who is moving from the dales to the valleys.
  I got into slight trouble when Neil Kinnock was claiming that he was going to displace my former right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley, now my noble Friend Lady Thatcher, from No. 10. I said that I was pretty sure that the people of Britain would not send a boyo to do a woman's work and I was criticised by someone in Wales who wrote to me saying that I should not use the word "boyo". So, I shall just say how I am certain that the people of Wales will be delightful-sorry, delighted to know—
  Mr. Hague: They will be delightful.
  Mr. Lilley: Oh, they will be delightful. The people of Wales will be delighted to know that a boy has been sent to do a Vulcan's job.
  I should not refer to the age of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks. To me, he is reaching middle age. I was brought up in the village where William Pitt was born and every week I saw the statue commemorating the fact that he was Prime Minister at the age of 24, so I rather think that the new Secretary of State for Wales is a bit past it. He is, of course, admirably placed to launch a leadership bid at a future stage.
  I also convey my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) who—I think that I am allowed to reveal it—has been made the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. He goes there with two enormous advantages: first, he has had experience of spending large sums of money in the DSS, which will come in handy in his new task and, secondly, as a former parliamentary private secretary of mine, he knows that his new post is but a stepping stone to the Cabinet, where all of my PPSs are destined to end up, as the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, with her enhanced authority, can confirm.
  This is a big Bill and it is about big money. Pensions are the largest single element of social security spending. Indeed, the basic state pension alone is the biggest item of expenditure in Government. In the private sector, too, they account for an enormous amount of money: £500 billion is invested in occupational schemes and personal pension funds in this country, which, as we know, is more than that invested in all similar private pension schemes in the rest of the European Community put together.
  We as Conservatives believe that it gives us a tremendous advantage to have so much private provision complementing state provision, especially as we move into a world in which there are an increasing number of retired people supported by a decreasing number of people of working age. We are therefore determined to build on

  457
  our success in encouraging people to build up occupational and personal pension schemes; that is one of the key things that the Bill is about.
  The confidence that lies behind the growth of occupational and personal pensions was dented by the events affecting the Maxwell pension schemes and by the mis-selling of private pensions. The Bill is designed to restore confidence in the security of occupational pension schemes by giving greater rights to members, greater powers to trustees, greater duties to professionals such as actuaries and auditors and authority to a new strong regulator. It sets a minimum funding requirement and backs it up by a compensation scheme should all other measures fail to prevent a deficiency in the funds.
  Secondly, we believe that the Bill will encourage choice in personal pensions by giving people greater choice in how they use the funds that they have built up in their personal pension schemes, when they convert them into annuities and draw funds from them before they do so, and by making it possible for people to remain opted out of the state pension scheme throughout their working life by introducing age-related rebates.
  The third aspect of the Bill is its emphasis on equality. That is partly in response to the Barber ruling by the European Court of Justice and partly as a result of an autonomous decision, which we still have the power to take in the House, to equalise the state pension age between men and women. We have chosen to do that in a way that, we believe, is responsible and reflects the growing propensity of women to work, especially once their children have left home, and, therefore, to build up their own pension rights. We decided, therefore, to equalise at the age of 65, beginning the change in the second decade of the next century.
  That decision is probably the most important spending decision taken this century—if we had decided to equalise at 60 rather than 65, the cost to the taxpayer would have been £12 billion a year once the change had come through—but we have not had a clear-cut response from the Opposition to it. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has talked about introducing a flexible decade with a pivotal age of 63. I am not sure whether that is a firm commitment or one of those ideas that the hon. Gentleman is wont to float in his engaging way.
  I point out to the hon. Member for Garscadden merely that the key thing about a flexible decade is the pension that one is entitled to draw at the beginning of the decade. The overwhelming experience everywhere is that people draw their pension at the first opportunity. If both men and women were allowed to draw their pension at the age of 60, we can assume that, just as they do now, the bulk of people would draw their pension at the age of 60 even if it were 20 per cent. lower than the present basic pension. That would be the result of having a pivotal age—that is, the age at which a person would reach the present value uprated for inflation, which is some three years into the flexible decade.
  We will allow a much longer period of potential flexibility—an indefinite period of flexibility—from a starting age of 65. At the starting age, people will be able to draw the full basic pension, uprated for inflation. Should they defer for a year, they will get an extra 10 per cent. They will get an extra 20 per cent. for two years, an
  458
  extra 30 per cent. for three years, and so on. The Opposition's proposal combines the worst of all possible worlds—high up-front costs, which would be higher than equalisation at 63, and the result of many people being much more dependent on income support because they have chosen to draw a low pension at an earlier age.
  Other issues, to which I shall now refer, have arisen during the passage of the Bill. One important one is pension on divorce. I am grateful for the amendment introduced by my noble Friend Baroness Young in the other place, which provided the basis of the changes that we introduced. I know that there is a case, strongly argued in some quarters, for going further in the direction of full pension splitting. I believe that it would not have been appropriate to move in that direction in the Bill. The Government will, however, look at that issue in the context of the research that we are undertaking.
  The issue of war widows came up and we made an important concession, which was right in this 50th anniversary year of the second world war, but we resisted other changes and I am grateful for the brave and lucid speech given by the hon. Member for Garscadden in that context.
  The issue of residential care was raised and we have resolved an important difficulty and a sense of grievance, which were aired as a result of the Bill, by saying that we shall require, as a result of regulation changes, local authorities to ensure that when one spouse is in residential care—usually the husband—and the other remains outside, he or she will be able to retain at least half of the joint occupational pension. Local authorities will no longer be allowed discretion to leave less than half the pension for the spouse who remains outside residential care; that discretion was being used, in a minority of cases, in a way that was simply not acceptable.
  I have paid a genuine tribute to the contributions from hon. Members on both sides. It would not be right, however, to let pass the fact that we are dealing here with an absolutely fundamental aspect of modern government and with a central aspect of social security provision—pension provision and provision for retirement. It is the most costly single item in the Government's Budget. It is important that any Government who are serious about controlling public expenditure and about ensuring that public expenditure does not outstrip the nation's ability to. pay spell out clearly what they intend to do about it. We as a Government have done so previously and we have done so in the Bill. We still wait to hear any clear response from the Opposition to the challenge so lucidly laid down by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, now Secretary of State for Wales, in which he asked them to make clear
  Mr. Miller: Right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Lilley: No. My hon. Friend has yet to take the oath.
  My hon. Friend laid a clear challenge to the Opposition, to which we have heard no response. He asked whether they reaffirmed the pledge to uprate pensions in line with earnings—a pledge on which they have fought the past three general elections—whether they were still pledged to reverse the changes to the state earnings-related pension scheme, which they have criticised in this Bill, whether they were still pledged to reverse the other changes to which they objected and whether they were firmly committed to a process of equalising the state

  459
  pension age that would involve a cost several billion pounds higher than the cost in the Bill. In their ability or inability to answer that question lies one of the great tests of whether they are a serious Opposition and a potential Government or whether they are wedded to being in opposition and determined to remain there.
  I commend to the House the Bill, with the changes that have been introduced in its passage through both Houses. They enhance it and mean that it will be a major contribution to the provision of pensions into the next decade.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Miller: As was said last night, the genesis of the Bill came in the wake of the Maxwell affair. That was followed soon afterwards by Professor Goode's inquiry, which raised many important issues that I am sure that the House will revisit many times.
  As the Secretary of State said, the Bill is large, and I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on the amazing efforts that they have put in. I acknowledge that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People—the future right hon. Secretary of State for Wales—was clearly in command of his whole team, but his team was enormous. I have never met so many civil servants as I did during the passage of the Bill. My hon. Friends had little or no such expert support, so their efforts should be commended—along with the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), who occasionally let me out of the Committee to do other things.
  It is clear from the energy and effort that went into the Opposition's activities that there are certainly people who will soon form a new Government. I take issue with the Secretary of State's closing comments, because it is obvious that the Opposition have taken the Bill extremely seriously, in a most responsible manner.
  Many issues arise from the Bill. First there are the functions of the new regulatory authority, which we shall have to re-examine. The composition of that body, especially the absence of a pensioner representative, is a fundamental error. As we heard in our debates last night, the whole House and indeed the whole country are taking pensions matters increasingly seriously, and it would be improper to leave the gap unfilled in the longer term.
  Trustees, too, have been debated in the past two days. Both the rights of pensioners as potential trustees and the numbers of member trustees will need revising. I feel strongly that a good pension scheme has nothing to fear from having at least as many member trustees as management appointed trustees. We considered those ideas in Committee and examined several potential permutations, all of which were rejected by the Government. For the sake of basic democracy in pension schemes, we shall have to revisit those issues in the near future.
  The Secretary of State mentioned residential care, and we have heard some carefully thought-out contributions to that debate. I am worried about some of the anomalies that still exist. For example, I think of people in the same category as a constituent of mine who, having paid for 40 years into an occupational pension scheme, finds that at the age of 88 she gets no direct benefit from it. The woman in the next room has not paid into an occupational
  460
  pension scheme—she has probably not had the opportunity—but under the clawback arrangements both women end up with the same personal allowance. That is an anomaly that needs thinking through more carefully.
  Because of another personal constituency case, I was pleased that the effect of second marriages on war pensions was dealt with. That removed another anomaly that has deprived one of my constituents of a pension. She was one of the women who escaped during the fall of Singapore, and her pension was taken away in 1957. It will be welcome if her pension is restored after all those years.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the importance of occupational pensions. Whatever changes we introduce in this place, occupational pensions will continue to be an important part of personal savings—probably the most important part. In my previous occupation, it took me a long time to persuade many of the people whom I represented that their investment in their occupational pensions was equal to, and in many cases greater than, their investment in their houses. When that argument was won, it woke people up to the idea but they should have some control over the funds invested on their behalf. That is why issues concerning democracy in occupational pension funds are dear to me, and I hope that a future Government will revisit them.
  My great regret is that I do not believe that the Bill will stop another potential Maxwell. It puts obstacles in the way of such a person, but I do not believe that it would stop someone determined to bypass fairness and equity and to manipulate people's pension funds improperly.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the age of retirement. Many women resent the way in which the Government have dealt with that issue. There is no point in hiding the fact that the problems are complicated, but the Labour party's alternative approach provided a solution that would have been far more beneficial to a significant proportion of the population. I am especially disappointed that the Government failed to pick up those ideas.
  Finally, I shall return to an issue at which I have nagged away in other debates, including those in Committee. I was disappointed that the Government did not pick up the spirit of the Occupational Pensions Bill that I presented in 1992.
  Mr. Arbuthnot: I have not received it.
  Mr. Miller: That is extraordinary. Here we have a Under-Secretary who is so keen on computing and information technology that we hear that he is now to be responsible for procuring weapons for our service personnel, yet he cannot find in his Department a piece of paper that I presume he will have to acknowledge must have been eaten by his predecessor. If the hon. Lady reads some of the Minister's remarks about her in Committee, she will perhaps eat him as well.
  It is a great pity that the concept of my Bill—to deal more specifically with what happens to pension funds at the point of takeover of a company—was not addressed within the Bill. I acknowledge that the Government have dealt with some of the points that I raised in other debates, but I find it sad that they have continued to avoid the basic right of occupational pension fund members at the point of takeover. The Government have argued time and again that the assets of pension funds belong to everyone involved, including the employer, and that therefore the

  461
  employer should have some of the benefits in certain circumstances. I have strongly argued that where an incoming employer has taken no risk whatsoever at the point of takeover, he should have none of the benefits accruing from assets in a fund.
  We have gone through a lengthy Committee stage, and lengthy remaining stages, of the Bill, and we have sought to address many problems and other issues that I have described. I hope that the Government's confidence is well-founded, but the Bill is deficient in a number of ways. I hope that if, in their short remaining period in office, the Government recognise that we were right and they were wrong—as the Minister graciously did on the question of the rights of trustees during his swansong this evening—they will come back and make amendments to correct any deficiencies.
  8.32 pm
  Sir Andrew Bowden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the gigantic task that they have now completed. This is an important Bill which has a great deal to commend it, but I fear that time will reveal some weaknesses—for example, in relation to the powers and effectiveness of OPRA. In the sector of trustee representation, I regret that an opportunity to define in law the purpose of pension funds and to establish the principle that pension fund money represents deferred earnings has been missed. I appreciate that the Bill is complex and technical, and that it has placed an enormous burden on Ministers in the Department who have undertaken an incredible amount of detailed work, but I suspect that, in the not too distant future, the House may well have to consider another amending pensions Bill.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I know that Northern Ireland business is coming directly after Third Reading, but I would like to take a little time to say a word about the Bill. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on his elevation, and also the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) on his promotion. Both promotions are well deserved. It was a pleasure to work in the Committee considering the Bill. It was hard work and exhausting, but it was also pleasant.
  I also congratulate the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on their tremendous work during the debates on the Bill. It is not often that we mention Whips, but I should like to refer to the hon. Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell). I have been fortunate to have two Whips on this Committee, and I feel greatly honoured. I would like to thank both of them, but particularly the hon. Member for Leeds, East for the great help that he has given me.
  The House should know that, as a member of the Ulster Unionist party and therefore not subject to the Whips who know what is going on, I had to listen carefully to the points put forward both by Government and by those leading for the Opposition. It has been fascinating, and it is quite obvious that those who took part are well versed in the subject.
  462
  I feel this evening that I have come to the end of a very long journey. My experience of this subject began when I heard the news that a certain gentleman had gone overboard and drowned. That prompted my first experience of looking into occupational pensions. Since then, we have come a long way. When I spoke on Second Reading, I made out a list of items that I felt we should try to change. I have to tell the House that, up until a very short time ago, every item on that list had not been changed. I was almost dancing with joy this evening when two amendments that I very much support were accepted by the Government.
  I am delighted that the Bill is reaching the end of its passage through the House. I know that most of us are, but for the best reasons. The difficulties for the Committee in looking at the subject were enormous, and I congratulate everyone concerned with the Bill and all of my Committee colleagues on the hard work that they did.
  I should like to mention one other item. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland left the Chamber just before I began my speech. I mentioned earlier that I am very concerned because the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. I was shown great courtesy by Ministers and by civil servants—for whom I have the highest regard—when I raised the matter. I must also congratulate the civil servants on their hard work. When such matters are being looked at, the fact that they should extend to Northern Ireland should be taken into account at the beginning. Perhaps if they had, we would not need 167 amendments applying to Northern Ireland. I fully support the Bill and I am delighted that it has managed to complete its passage through the House.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Denham: I will not detain the House for long, because I have already tested the credulity and patience of my Front-Bench team by saying that I found the Bill interesting and the Committee enjoyable. I also know that the Minister of State will want to go off to look for a house in the Principality or in a nearby commuter suburb, such as Wokingham. The Under-Secretary will soon find a number of letters on his desk regarding major procurement contracts, so I would not like to alienate him at this stage in our proceedings.
  We have been on a long journey, and we have all aged a lot. Cabinet Ministers seem a lot younger to me now than they did when we started our consideration of the Bill. Just like one feels when one gets to the top of a hill while fell walking, when one wants to enjoy the view before one goes down, it is worth taking a quick overview of the Bill. I must say that I am disappointed by it. It was born out of a desire to provide more security for people's pensions and people's retirement.
  It is a remarkable achievement of the Bill that the great majority of people will now receive a lower pension as a result than they would have done before its introduction. Every single woman will now have less entitlement to pension rights than she did before the Bill was introduced. Every single member of the state earnings-related pension scheme will now have a lower SERPS entitlement than he or she did when the Bill was introduced.
  People with appropriate personal pensions, APPs, which are, as we have said, linked to SERPS, will, through the rebate, be liable to a lower entitlement and will receive lower pensions should the Government

  463
  Actuary gets his calculations right. The links between SERPS and occupational pension schemes have been broken. Perhaps the jury is still out on the requisite benefits test, but I suspect that people's pension rights will be worth less than they were before the Bill was introduced.
  It would be churlish not to accept that one or two measures such as limited price indexation will provide better pensions for those who do not enjoy that protection in their current occupational schemes. It is a remarkable and rather cynical achievement on the part of the Government to introduce a measure on the back of widespread concern about pension security that diminishes people's pension rights.
  The Secretary of State chided the Opposition for failing to provide all the details of their pension strategy. The Government's Bill does not constitute a pension strategy. It is a mistake to believe that simply redrawing the boundaries between what the state scheme does and what non-state schemes do constitutes a new pensions strategy. It may constitute a public expenditure strategy for the future and a strategy for reducing the future tax burden, but it does not constitute a pension strategy.
  One question is still unanswered. Will there be sufficient funds available in 2010, 2020, or 2030, whether through a state scheme or through funded non-state schemes, to provide people with the level of pensions that they would expect to accrue during their working lives? There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that those funds are available to pay people's pensions in the future. The past six months have changed nothing.
  I believe, perhaps for slightly different reasons from the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir. A Bowden), that, in a short time, under a Labour government, the House will have to reconsider the pensions strategy. That must happen if we are to ensure that people in the 21st century have a pension to retire on that is not only secure—a central aim of the Bill—but of an adequate level to provide them with a decent retirement income.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Dewar: Many things happened in the course of the Committee, some of which I sadly missed. One that I particularly regret missing was the sight of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) dancing with joy. That would have been a rare spectacle. As I said at the end of the Committee, I thought that the staying power of the hon. Member for Antrim, South was admirable. He took punishment with uncomplaining zeal, and lasted the pace. He was an extremely useful colleague in Committee.
  My feelings are mixed. The Bill is in many ways a disappointing end product, but I cannot pretend that I am not sorry to see the end of it. I am, to put it bluntly, very pleased to see the end of it. The Secretary of State said that the Bill has 177 clauses. It started out with 162 clauses, so I suppose that that represents productivity in a way. I doubt whether we will get a bonus for our efforts—certainly not from the Secretary of State.
  The Bill has been a difficult one to consider because of its complexity, but the business has been conducted with great courtesy, I hope on both sides. I certainly pay tribute to the Ministers who were in charge of the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister of State is aware that there is a rather unfortunate rumour that he was born aged 54½ I am
  464
  prepared now to put it around that at least the evidence is worth re-examining. I will not put it more enthusiastically than that, but he was genuinely extremely helpful within the limits of propriety. I do not know what that means, but it sounds very pleasant.
  The new Minister of State for Defence Procurement must have got some sort of remission, because he was among us at the Department of Social Security for a short time. He passed wraith-like among us and is now disappearing. I must bring him the bad news, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham): that I, too, have a defence procurement constituency. I look forward to the next round of type 23 orders—
  Mr. Denham: I do, too.
  Mr. Dewar: Oh dear. Damn. I would be straying just marginally out of order if I prayed the case of Yarrow Shipbuilders, although I feel strongly about it in the context of frigate orders.
  Everyone has tried hard on the Bill at least to make sense of it. I agree with other hon. Members that we have been on a long road—at times a stony one. I do not pretend that there were not moments when I began to wonder where we were going. I suppose that that is inevitable.
  I am grateful to my colleagues who have stuck to the task remarkably well. The Whips are, of course, a race apart, we all know that. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) has been a constant aid, and the co-operation from his opposite number would have warmed the heart of those who enthuse over the Jopling Committee report—a small and select band in the House. I believe that such co-operation is important in making the business of the House manageable.
  I will not advise my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill—it would be extraordinary if I did so—because it has some good things in it, particularly in the earlier sections, which built upon the Goode committee report. There has been widespread concern about security and the adequacy of the regulatory framework for occupational pensions. Although there are some disappointments, I believe that much of the Bill, taken from the Goode committee and translated into legislation, is helpful and right.
  I am sorry that the shift in control represented by the arrival of a legal minimum for a number of active member-selected trustees stuck at one third. As the Minister knows, we tried hard to persuade him that many British companies operate successfully on at least a 50:50 basis. That, too, fell upon stony ground.
  The Opposition also had doubts about the regulatory authority, not in terms of the need for such a body, but whether it has all the powers it needs to carry out its enforcement and monitoring jobs, which are essential to it. We also argued hard and lost on pensioner trustees.
  The compensation scheme, time off for trustees, training for trustees, indexation, limited price indexing and so on will stand the test of time. I hope that those parts of the Bill will have provided an enduring framework for occupational pension schemes. Whatever may happen in the future, at least that shape will remain. It will be of importance in reassuring the public, and perhaps encouraging an even broader coverage of occupational pension schemes in the future.

  465
  I also approve of other parts of the Bill. Perhaps it is inevitable, but I thought that the Government were a little over-proud of the important concession to war widows and to that band who unfortunately have seen a second marriage end. I take some satisfaction from the fact that the Labour party in another place voted for that concession, but the Government did not. I will leave that point at that.
  It was important that we got the concession on the protection of the rights to a portion of occupational pensions when the holder of that pension has, unfortunately, gone into residential care. That was again the result of fairly sustained pressure in another place. We were preparing to return to that point when, to their credit, the Government capitulated.
  There is much unfinished business. I cannot agree that the argument about the future treatment of pension assets upon divorce and the break-up of a marriage has concluded. To be fair, the Minister said that the Government would examine the matter again in the context of further research. However, I feel very strongly about it, as do my hon. Friends and the majority of people in the wider community.
  It is not some sort of Opposition delusion on this occasion; I think that it is the unanimous view of those who are involved in the technicalities of the matter that there should at least be an option of dividing funds at the time of divorce and providing security for an ex-spouse. That cannot occur with the form of deferred maintenance that the Minister appears to prefer.
  I think that we have said all that we need to say, but I must conclude with one important area of dissent. I refer to part II of the Bill, which deals with the state pension system. We were disappointed that the Government insisted on what we believe is the rather unrealistic concept of a retirement age of 65 when people are expected to shuffle off into retirement. I recognise that the term "flexible decade of retirement" is anathema to the Secretary of State.
  It is not such a silly idea when we remember that it was—and still would be if the door had not been slammed—the preferred option of the National Association of Pension Funds and of the Confederation of British Industry. I do not suggest for a moment that that means that it is, by definition, the right solution. However, it is perhaps an antidote to the idea that it is some sort of eccentricity on the part of the Labour party to believe that flexibility should be part of the scheme.
  466
  I look forward to seeing the costings and the definition of the Prime Minister's pledge—I referred to it in Committee—which appeared in the Evening Standard as one of his trump cards in the leadership election. He promised that there would be a new flexible pension scheme which would allow people to receive their state pension before the normal retirement age in circumstances such as illness or unemployment. I do not know quite what that means, but Prime Ministers do not give those pledges lightly, and we look forward to seeing exactly how it will work and how it will be costed. Perhaps it will give a rather different definition to the whole argument.
  Our major concern is that part II of the Bill represents an attack on the state earnings-related pension scheme, which is fundamental in its impact and very serious in social terms. It is a very complex matter, and we spent hours talking about the annualisation of SERPS, for example—an interest that will not be widely shared. However, people may be interested in the end product.
  As we all know, the way in which we treat the proportion of earnings below the lower earnings level of the national insurance contributions band and the alterations to how it is treated that have been introduced are "technical"—that is the word used by Ministers—but, to be fair, important in financial terms.
  Many people will not have woken up to the fact that the changes will save the Treasury £400 million in 2010 and £2.3 billion by 2050. If one puts that into more practical terms, it means that those people drawing SERPS in 2000 will find that their weekly pension is worth about £2.70 per week less, on average, in current terms. By 2020, it will be £4.90 per week less.
  When we examine the basis of entitlement to SERPS and the loading of the contracting-out calculations, it is fair to say that SERPS has again been mugged by the Government. That argument is encapsulated by the Government's calculation that, as a result of the changes, in 2050 the cost of SERPS to the national insurance fund—which would have been £19.3 billion—will be £9.9 billion. That has been done by stealth, and it is a mugging in the small print of the Bill.
  I think that it is a serious matter, and one about which we protested in vain. It means that that section of the legislation will have a very uneasy and, I suspect, rather short life. I look forward to returning to the matter, and I recommend that the Secretary of State keep the Committee stage reports by him, as they will prove a useful reference work when he is on this side of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Merchant Shipping Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  8.54 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Merchant Shipping Bill, the Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill and the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill are consolidation Bills which resulted from the work of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The Merchant Shipping Bill is closely linked to the Bill that follows it, and perhaps the House will permit me to speak to them together.
  The Merchant Shipping Bill is a major consolidation measure, encompassing some 30 Acts or sections of Acts dating back to the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill covers a discrete topic derived from parts of two of them. Both Bills were referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills during their passage through the other place. The Joint Committee reported its approval of the Bills, subject to minor amendments and corrections, and its opinion that the Bills are pure consolidation and represent the existing law.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: As the Solicitor-General has explained, the three Bills continue the important consolidation work and we have nothing further to add. Much of the undergrowth in the statute book is being taken away by this and by other means, and we can only rise to applaud the work that is being done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [Lords]
  Read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be read a Second time tomorrow.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that the Bill is not being proceeded with tonight, but I wonder whether it is possible to have a very brief explanation why?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): No. The Bill has not been moved.

  Northern Ireland Act 1974
  8.58 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
  If schedule 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 were not renewed, direct rule would come to an end, resuscitation being possible only by means of a further Westminster statute. What has to be acknowledged, with regret, in this debate as in its precursor on each of the occasions when I have had responsibility, is that the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 again need to be renewed. Direct rule from Westminster is still needed and the principal reason is that an insufficiently broad basis of agreement as yet exists for any system of larger local accountability.
  It is not for want of encouragement or for want of trying. It is worth taking a little of the House's time to look at what we see as an encouragement and at the efforts that have been made. The obvious starting point is this time last year. In that debate I said:
  "I have faith in a better future for Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 30 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 963.]
  I pointed to the Downing street declaration, then some six months old, and said that it represented a new context for political progress. It had contributed to rational grounds for hope that, through consent and democracy, a settlement would be reached.
  Looking back to the period from 31 August 1993 to the end of June 1994—that is to say, before the IRA ceasefire—87 people lost their lives in Northern Ireland because of the security situation. In the same period ending a few days ago, the total is only three—one of whom, Constable Seymour, died from head injuries caused by the IRA as long ago as 1973. Every such death is a tragedy, with on-going miseries whenever it occurred, in whatever circumstances. That is in every way true of the deaths of young Karen Reilly and Martin Peak in September 1990, who are in our minds this week.
  That ceasefire and the loyalist one which followed it were as welcome as they were overdue. For my part I give great credit to all—and I mean all—who influenced the declaration of the ceasefires. I acknowledge the contribution of all who have been prepared to take risks to bring violence to an end. Most particularly, I identify and pay tribute especially to the security forces, whose staunch courage and professionalism has attracted such admiration. In that context, I should like to congratulate the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the professional manner in which they have responded to the disgraceful disturbances and violence of the past few days in Belfast, Londonderry and elsewhere. These have been orchestrated by those keen to confront and discredit the police and they have been deeply unjust to the people.
  The ceasefires and the absence of terrorist attacks have enabled the Government and the security forces to respond to an improved security situation. Much has been done and much more can be done, given the right circumstances. More than 1,000 soldiers have been withdrawn from the Province. Nearly 100 border road
  470
  have been opened. Army patrols in support of the police are now the exception. Exclusion orders and broadcasting restrictions have been lifted.
  We are also, with the RUC and the Police Authority, looking ahead to the future of policing in Northern Ireland. The RUC is making the transition from a force primarily concerned with countering terrorism to one dealing mainly with the everyday concerns of the ordinary community. Much work is in progress, with the public being consulted as never before.
  The Government place an even greater emphasis on community relations work to help heal the divisions between the main sections of the community and to create a more stable and united society for the future. The evidence is that positive changes are taking place in the relationships between the main traditions in Northern Ireland, but real and lasting change takes time.
  I can also report briefly and happily on the economy. I shall be brief because many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. A strong economy with plenty of jobs is, of course, a great support for stability. There is much good news. Employment in the year to March 1995 rose by 2.1 per cent.—four times the Great Britain rate. At 565,000, it is the highest March figure on record. In the year to May 1995 unemployment fell by more than 10 per cent. It is now 11.7 per cent., which is still much too high, but it is the lowest since September 1981, almost 14 years ago. Particularly welcome is the fall over the last year of almost 5,000 in the number of long-term unemployed. We shall be working hard to bring the figures down still further.
  Manufacturing output is growing strongly, with an increase in 1994 of 6.8 per cent. Some of this growth occurred in the period before the ceasefires. In the current year, however, with the prospects of a sustained peace continuing to improve, we hope that we shall do better still. The consensus among local economic commentators is that this year Northern Ireland will be able to build further on recent successes. Local surveys of business opinion suggest continuing high levels of business confidence and strong positive investment intentions.
  There has also been good news in the Fair Employment Commission's latest annual monitoring report, summarising the religious composition of the Province's work force, which shows a significant increase of 2.3 percentage points in the Catholic share of the monitored work force between 1990 and 1994.
  The Prime Minister's conference in Belfast last December greatly enhanced Northern Ireland's profile as an attractive investment location for companies from the United States, Great Britain, Europe and the far east.
  Then in Washington in May there was the US President's White House conference for trade and investment, which was also a resounding success. The conference focused on trade and investment in Northern Ireland and the six border counties of the Republic of Ireland, and attracted an attendance of approximately 1,300 people. Of these, 600 were business people—350 US-based and 250 from Europe, predominantly Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We are enormously grateful to the President for this initiative, and for the follow-up which his Administration is pursuing.
  Turning to political policy, this time last year I reported that we were in discussion with the Irish Government. We had the aim of achieving a shared understanding between

  471
  us of the elements of a political settlement which in our view was most likely to command widespread support across the community in Northern Ireland. We did that because we were asked to do so.
  After considerable hard work on all sides, and lengthy negotiation, on 22 February my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched in Belfast the document, "A Framework for Accountable Government in Northern Ireland" and, together with the Taoiseach, "A New Framework for Agreement". Taken together, the two documents outline what a political settlement in Northern Ireland might look like.
  Many things have been said about those documents, but I should like to emphasise once again what they are not. First, the documents are not a blueprint; the ideas are not set in concrete and the proposals will not be imposed without the consent both of the Northern Ireland parties and of the Northern Ireland people. They do not affect Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee; they do not contain any proposals for joint authority and there is no slippery slope to a united Ireland. They are ideas for discussion and negotiation. They represent the best ideas of the two Governments.
  The House is familiar enough by now with the documents' character and contents. Both Governments believe that they have fulfilled a useful purpose, but as Mr. Bruton said at their launch in Belfast,
  "If people have better ideas—and we hope you have—let us hear them".
  Meanwhile we both stand by them and we believe that they have already encouraged much fresh thinking by the parties about the issues central to a settlement. Progress towards a settlement will come only by talking.
  Shortly before Easter I invited the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Democratic Unionist party and the Alliance party to a series of separate bilateral meetings to discuss the issues on which agreement must be reached if there is to be a widely acceptable settlement. To date, I have had very useful and productive discussions with the UUP and the Alliance party, and we hope and plan to hold more. I very much hope that the other two Northern Ireland parties which I have invited will take part in the discussions.
  The context for negotiation has been transformed by the two terrorist ceasefires, and I know from talking to people in Northern Ireland that everyone wants peace. They see that the way forward can be found only through talking, by discussion and by negotiation.
  With Sinn Fein, the Popular Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party, the Government have sought to consolidate the situation created by the two ceasefires of 31 August and 13 October 1994 by entering into exploratory dialogue with them. The dialogues began on 9 and 15 December respectively. The objective was and remains to exchange views on how those parties would be able, over a period, to play the same part as the main constitutional parties in the public life of Northern Ireland, and to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence.
  There have now been 12 meetings of exploratory dialogue with the loyalist parties, covering a range of subjects including prisons, political development, decommissioning of arms, policing-criminal justice issues and the economic-social problems of disadvantaged areas.
  472
  Given the progress made in the earlier exchanges with officials, it was decided that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), would join the dialogue at the eighth meeting on 22 March. As for exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein, there have now been seven meetings, two of which have been attended by my hon. Friend. Discussions have taken place on a broad agenda, including the decommissioning of illegal arms.
  Progress on the decommissioning of illegally held arms is needed to help to demonstrate the parties' commitment to exclusively peaceful methods. Serious and constructive discussion of this issue has taken place with the PUP and the UDP. The Government have made clear their belief that substantial progress on decommissioning will be necessary before any party that is closely associated with paramilitaries can expect to participate in inclusive talks.
  More than nine months have now elapsed since the IRA ceasefire and eight months since its loyalist counterpart.
  Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State has been talking about the exploratory talks between a Minister, officials and paramilitaries and the possibility of moving to what he calls inclusive talks. Given the disturbances that have occurred in Northern Ireland over the past 48 hours and given the clear involvement in fermenting those disturbances of Sinn Fein, can that party still be regarded as having any commitment to peaceful methods? Is it still appropriate for officials or Ministers to continue talking to Sinn Fein when Sinn Fein is clearly involved in violence?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: As I have already said, the disturbances to which the hon. Gentleman refers were clearly orchestrated. That has been made clear by the assistant chief constable, Mr. Stewart, in a public statement a day or so ago. In that statement he said that local members of Sinn Fein were present and prominent, I think, on a number of occasions. We want to see a good deal more of what has happened and why it happened. I am reluctant to break off conversations with any party for the reasons that I have given this evening. Any participation by the central direction of a political party in such events certainly precludes that party from claiming that it is wholly committed to a peaceful means of dealing with political disputes. There can be no question about that.
  Yet the guns and explosives have not yet been decommissioned even though more than nine months have elapsed since the IRA ceasefire and eight months since its loyalist counterpart. The latent threat of violence accordingly remains. Decommissioning is not an arbitrary new hurdle created by the Government to block progress with Sinn Fein and the loyalists. Nor is it tantamount to surrender by the paramilitaries. Nor do we have pre-conceived notions about how decommissioning takes place, provided that it happens and is verifiable.
  We are in no doubt that decommissioning is a difficult issue. Equally we are in no doubt that it needs to be resolved if we are to move forward. The phrase which I think expresses best the new opportunities which decommissioning could bring about is "parallel progress". I shall explain what I mean by that. The ending of paramilitary violence has created an environment allowing commanders on the ground to make operational

  473
  decisions about the level of military deployment. In all these matters I have been guided by the professional advice of the chief constable, Sir Hugh Annesley.
  Equally, however, nothing by way of troop reductions, for example, has occurred which cannot be taken further. Parallel progress in that direction and in other areas can and will be occasioned by events which establish that risk to the public has been further reduced. If I may distort Newton's third law of motion, every action has an equal and parallel reaction.
  We have within view talks in which all sides can take part, provided they are wholly committed to democratic methods. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remains fully committed to the peace process and is determined that it shall properly be seen through to a successful conclusion. But peace can only be built on trust, and trust can never sit alongside the loaded gun pointed at its head.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman rose—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I will finish now, if I may.
  I conclude by saying to the House that the Government will continue to do all in their power to build on the advances of the past two years. Meanwhile, the Government will also continue, through direct rule, to work for a just, peaceful and prosperous society in which both sides of the community can by consent come to exercise greater control over their affairs. I commend the order to the House.
  9.16 pm
  Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I apologise to the Secretary of State for missing his opening couple of sentences. I welcome him and his team in its entirety, back after the events of the past 48 hours. I hope that now that we have some political stability at Westminster, we can move things forward.
  In the past six months I have met a number of local councillors, business leaders, trade unionists and community and voluntary groups across Northern Ireland to discuss how economic policy can be made more responsive to local need. The ideas and enthusiasm generated in the present window of opportunity, with US and European assistance, are very impressive.
  However, the common concern of all parties is their lack of ability to influence decision making. For example, was anybody listening to the people of Limavady, Strabane and Derry who wanted urgent improvements to the A5, especially to the bottlenecks at Toome and Dungiven; or to the thousands of people who raised money for a scanner for South Tyrone hospital. who want to use that scanner in their own hospital; or to folk in Moyle who want to have the planning powers to accommodate both the wishes of local farmers and the environmental needs of an area of outstanding natural beauty?
  Everyone would be happier if such decisions were taken closer to the people whose lives are affected through devolved government. Short of improving the transparency and accountability of the 96 quangos in Northern Ireland, meaningful change can come about only
  474
  in the context of an agreed and balanced constitutional settlement and new political structures such as those outlined—
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Surely there are more than 96 quangos in Northern Ireland?
  Ms Mowlam: Yes, there are certainly more than 96 quangos. I was dealing with those directly related to local authority matters such as health and education and which, if local democracy were working, would be affected by local accountability.
  Whether we are dealing with those 96 or others, there can be meaningful change and genuine accountability only if there is a change towards a balanced constitutional settlement and new political structures are put in place, such as those suggested in the framework documents, whether within Northern Ireland, between the North and the South, or between Westminster and Dublin.
  We regret that we are having this debate again this year. We hope that the momentum in the peace process will be maintained and that significant progress can be made so that it will not be necessary—or there will be new legislation—next year.
  The Secretary of State outlined a number of the changes that have occurred in the past 10 months and the considerable progress made towards peace and reconciliation since the ceasefires last autumn. He is right. It is sad and instructive to mark the changes that have been achieved by comparing this July with the same month in previous years.
  This July will, we hope, be a quiet one. Last July, seven people were killed; in 1993, one person—Kevin Pullin—was killed by a sniper; in 1992, five people were killed; in 1991, three were killed; and, as many hon. Members will remember, nine people died in July 1990, including Ian Gow, a former Member of the House. Our horror at this history of violence and killing must not prevent any of us from exercising imagination and thinking clearly about the future.
  This debate concerns the Secretary of State's stewardship in Northern Ireland. It is difficult to evaluate as the debate is always held at the end of the year and there are few yardsticks to go by. As the next year is crucial, I think that it would help the debate if we put down some markers that are important for us to consider in the progress that we hope will be made in the year ahead.
  As the Secretary of State said, the momentum of political progress must be maintained. The issue of decommissioning has to be tackled in such a manner that it is not a surrender but a clear statement that progress is made in the process of decommissioning paramilitary arms. Consideration should be given by the new—or newish—joint committee to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) that a third party should oversee and verify the decommissioning process.
  In the coming year, we want to see progress made on anti-terrorist legislation. This year, the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act were again renewed in full without an independent review for which we and many others called. We hope that Ministers will respond with careful planning and preparation for new UK-wide legislation, which is

  475
  essential if we are to be properly equipped to respond to the changing circumstances in Northern Ireland and to combat the changing nature of terrorism world wide.
  There are other difficult and delicate matters that must he on the political agenda for discussion, including the question of prisoners and parity of esteem. We want prison policy—including, as we have said, the transfer of prisoners closer to their families—to be considered. Each case must be dealt with on its own merits within the rule of law. There can be no bargaining or equating the cases of different prisoners. The law must be fair to all people and implemented equally. At the very least, those cases which should be considered now are those subject to persistent dispute.
  I deal again with more mundane political matters. We should like a halt to the accelerating process of compulsory competitive tendering and privatisation of public services in Northern Ireland so that, when the new settlement is agreed and, we hope, a new Assembly established, there are at least some services left for people to manage.
  The disaster of water privatisation should not be inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland. In a recent survey, 90 per cent. of respondents said that they were opposed to it. The Government should rule it out completely in the next year.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have.
  Ms Mowlam: The Government have already done so in respect of legislation for the first term, if I can earwig on the Secretary of State's whisper, but that commitment has not been given for the duration of this Parliament. We should welcome such a commitment this evening.
  We want a change of direction and a new economic strategy that includes measures more specific than those presently on offer to help small businesses; we want a unified framework for skills and training, incentives for businesses to take on the long-term unemployed—I know that there is a pilot project at the moment but projects need to be directed more specifically at the one in five people who are still long-term unemployed—and other more innovative approaches such as the improvement of nursery care.
  We want significant progress in reducing the appalling level of unemployment, which is still officially around 12 per cent. I acknowledge the progress that the Secretary of State outlined, but a fifth of the unemployed in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for five years or more. Action has to be taken to bring them back into training and employment because the effects of such high unemployment are economically disastrous and socially damaging.
  We should also like action to target social need and to tackle the relative deprivation of specific areas and pockets within parts of Northern Ireland. Measures to deal with unemployment must be accompanied by enforced employment legislation.
  The people of Northern Ireland cannot be dictated to and will reject any attempts to impose a settlement, and rightly so. Agreement is the only basis on which the people of both communities can proceed towards a new settlement for Northern Ireland.
  Like the Downing street declaration, the joint framework document maintains that it is for the people of Ireland alone, by agreement between the two parts
  476
  respectively, to exercise their right to self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, north and south.
  I have tried to be brief and shall not make a closing speech tonight, as I know that many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland want to speak. I pay tribute to the security forces, the police and the many public servants who during the past year are adapting well to the changing circumstances. I thank them. I would also ask them to continue to show that commitment and determination to change in the year ahead—a time when flexibility and lateral thinking will be crucial for everybody involved.
  The months ahead present many difficult and delicate decisions. We have seen an example of that over the past couple of days in the case of Private Clegg—a decision that I welcome because he should not stay in prison a day longer than is necessary. It is also important, however, that decisions taken clearly show the impartiality and the rule of law and that they are based on the rule of law on a case-by-case basis.
  What is needed now is a policy of restraint by all parties, not only to keep the peace process moving forward but to help economic progress too, and to build on the two ceasefires from last autumn.
  I hope that, as the peace process evolves, more progress can be made in improving the day-to-day quality of people's lives by continuing to remove some of the security apparatus, to which the Secretary of State referred tonight, such as the watchtower on the Rosemount estate in Derry. There must be an attempt to draw a line over the past and to move forward to achieve stability and to make sensible and rational decisions.
  Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Lady agree that the watchtowers have improved the quality of life for many people, because by keeping a watch on terrorists they have kept people alive? Therefore, why should they be removed?
  Ms Mowlam: I agree that when there was violence on the streets the quality of people's lives was improved considerably by the watchtowers, because, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, people remained alive. We have had ceasefires since the autumn of last year. I did not put a time scale on it, but asked whether in the year ahead the Secretary of State could bear them in mind for the simple reason that, if the peace holds and there is no violence on the streets, the watchtowers make a difference to the quality of life. Both the hon. Gentleman and I do not live within 20 yds of one, and we do not have to live with them watching us in our kitchens day-by-day. Our quality of life may be okay, but for the people who live close to them it is not.
  I am not asking for a blanket removal of the watchtowers or for a time scale to be attached. All I am saying is that the quality of those people's lives should be taken into account, because they are being affected. We would be negating the impact on their lives if we denied that this evening.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point, is the hon. Lady aware of what is happening in Northern Ireland at the present time? Is she aware that almost £6 million-worth of damage has been done in the city of Belfast and elsewhere? Is she aware that last night a property worth almost £1 million was gutted by fire, by

  477
  IRA attackers? Is she in reality when she talks about the peace that is going on? The peace is not going on. How can she say that there is a perceived peace when violent people are on the streets? I am sure that she listened on Tuesday to what the Prime Minister said when he underscored the fact that the IRA and Sinn Fein were at the heart of this. The Prime Minister himself said that in the House.
  Ms Mowlam: I listened, not only to what the Prime Minister said, but to the comments that the Secretary of State made about the present situation and the assumptions that he is working on. I am well aware of what is happening on the ground; I have spent the past two days in Belfast and Newry, so I have direct day-to-day experience of what is happening. I know only too well of the impact on the communities and the effect of the economic policies, which all of us have been trying to encourage to get a quality of life and jobs for people that would make a difference to their lives. The bread van that was burnt out in west Belfast was new and belonged to an expanding small business. That business had just begun to turn the corner from the difficulty, which small businesses have, of growing from two to three people. The effort was being made. We are only too well aware of the disastrous impact that the events of the past couple of days have had on many people, but the situation has calmed down, and perhaps, if we can keep things moving, progress can be made. As I said to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), we are not asking for that progress immediately; I am merely saying that I want certain issues to be on the agenda, so that when we are having the same debate here in a year's time we can look back to the markers that I have put down tonight.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: We can all talk about watchtowers, releases from prison and all sorts of issues. As the hon. Lady is putting down markers for the coming year and, as it were, wrapping up the previous year, will she tell us—in political terms—the one thing that she would have done differently from the Government in that year?
  Ms Mowlam: I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, for the simple reason that I have made it clear on numerous occasions that I will not draw a clear distinction between us and the Government in relation to the peace process and the negotiations that he, and we, are conducting with all parties. On other occasions, I have made clear distinctions between the parties in regard to policies relating to, for instance, the economy.
  I am avoiding the question because if I said, "If I had acted differently from the Secretary of State, this would have been the outcome", it might please the hon. Gentleman who asked the question but it would not please others. I would merely be opening the door for others to say, "So you think that the Opposition would do better. Let us wait for instability in the Government to start again in four months' time. Let us wait for a general election; then we will do better."
  In view of the disturbances of the past 48 hours, the worst thing that could happen to the peace process now would be prevarication and procrastination by any hon. Members present, or any of the parties not represented here tonight, because they believed that delay would
  478
  secure them a better deal. I will not answer the question for that reason, and I have no difficulty in saying so to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
  As I have said, my hon. Friends the Members for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) and I will continue to approach the current peace process in a bipartisan manner. We shall continue to play our part; but we, and every other hon. Member, can do so only with the support and encouragement of people in Northern Ireland.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. James Molyneaux: As you have been kind enough to call me early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me take the opportunity to congratulate and welcome the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). My hon. Friends and I look forward to his contribution if he catches your eye, as I trust that he will.
  On 30 June last year, in another debate on the extension of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, the Secretary of State told us:
  "we are currently working … on a framework document."
  He added:
  "let me address fears about what is spoken of as 'joint authority'".
  It was feared, he said, that the two Governments
  "would jointly run the affairs of Northern Ireland over the heads of the people."
  He concluded:
  "There is no truth in that at all."—[Official Report, 30 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 960.]
  I did not and do not wish to imply that the Secretary of State was less than honest, but after 25 years in this place I do not underestimate the duplicity of those in certain Departments whose mission in life is to find a form of words. That blessed phrase "find a form of words" has plagued us at every meeting that we have had to discuss the way forward in Northern Ireland. I sometimes wonder whether those people are descended from ancestors in "Alice in Wonderland".
  It was with such unworthy suspicions in my mind that, several minutes later in that debate—not several months later—I delivered the Ulster Unionist answer to those words of the Secretary of State. I said:
  "We would add merely that that joint authority, however it is disguised, amounts to a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 30 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 972.]
  That remains the position of my party. We have not changed and we shall not change.
  It was for that reason, therefore, that, in the succeeding months of last year, we warned the Government that the required support, to use their words, of the Unionist community for a framework document would not be forthcoming. Now the Government must think again. Now that all the high wire acts of two decades have failed, they could, with great advantage, go back to basics, to coin a phrase.
  In December 1976, in the week-long debate on the constitution of the United Kingdom and on what was known roughly as the Kilbrandon report, I suggested, as a first step, the decentralisation of powers away from the gentlemen in Whitehall who are reputed "to always know best". I think that I am on all fours with the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), who was good in the first part

  479
  of her reference on restoring accountable democracy to Northern Ireland. She rather spoilt it by getting into the "nothing agreed until everything is agreed" package, but I forgive her that. I think that we will convert her eventually.
  That plea of mine way back in 1976 led to the formulation of section 22 of the 1979 manifesto, on which the Thatcher Government were elected. I shall quote from that manifesto—I am a student of these things. It says:
  "We will seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of powers over local services."
  As I played some little part in tendering advice from time to time during the drafting proceedings before the manifesto was put to the shadow Cabinet in 1978, I know exactly what was in the mind of the then Leader of the Opposition, soon to become Prime Minister. For elected regional councils, one would read an elected assembly—that is what it was all about—and the wide range of powers over local services did not mean just powers to local government; it meant clearly—and I know this for a fact and one of the draftswomen is still fortunately alive and can confirm this—administrative powers to administer the law as made by this sovereign Parliament of the UK. It meant delivering a service, the sort of service that all of us in this Chamber deliver. When we open that untidy bundle of mail every morning, we discover that 95 per cent. of our constituents' problems can be redressed by administrative and not legislative action, so it was prudent at that time, and still is prudent, to start at that level, and then to see what can be built on and what is necessary thereafter.
  That pledge was ditched by the new Government within six months. As the then Prime Minister explained, and I am not looking at my memoirs here, when I asked why they did not proceed with a proposal on which they were elected, "Jim, because it was not enough", but I never knew for whom it was not enough. I can assume only that it was Dublin and Washington, with a bit of the European Community—sorry, I am not politically correct; it should be the European Union, I suppose—thrown in.
  The partners in the reversal of that election pledge were utterly blind to the simple fact that, in aiming too high too soon, they were dividing and not drawing together the Northern Ireland parties, then at variance at the turn of that decade—1980. Fifteen years on, a different mood prevails. There has developed a willingness to sink differences and to work together in practical ways on issues of real benefit. In local government, there is a tendency to put the interest of local communities before party advantage and, yes, sometimes even before the consideration of mayoral chains. What a sacrifice that entails.
  Belfast city council has elected a Unionist lord mayor and a Nationalist deputy lord mayor. Those developments are possible because of the growing self-confidence within the ranks of what I have termed "the greater number." I have to be generous and readily forgive the infringement of my copyright to that title. I welcome all those recruits after all the lonely years when I sat alone on that little rock proclaiming that message and began to assert that we in the Ulster Unionist party have a responsibility to represent and protect the interests of that greater number consisting of Protestants, Roman Catholics and those of no religion at all who, admittedly with varying degrees of enthusiasm, simply want to remain within the United Kingdom.
  480
  You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all our colleagues in the House have a still wider responsibility which springs from the fact that on the day that we were elected we took upon ourselves a duty to improve the lot of even those who do not share our attachment to the United Kingdom. We are responsible for looking after, representing and protecting the interests of those who vote for us, those who vote against us and those who do not bother to vote at all.
  I am optimistic about the future. By the time we come to this debate next year, or perhaps before that, we shall have recovered from the unease caused by what I would call the remaining capacity of terrorists to resume their campaign at the flick of a switch. Unease has been increased by what I can only call the devilish wording of the framework document. I hope that both of those will be erased in a year's time and that that war of nerves will be over. I hope that at that time our people will recognise the extent of the efforts of those who set out to destroy their morale and will step into the future with self confidence restored.
  The Secretary of State touched on the possibility of Sinn Fein eventually emerging at the end of all these rather tortuous talks as a bona fide democratic party. He will remember his right hon. Friend the Father of the House, the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir. E. Heath) addressing to him the proposition and painting the picture that would confront us all when that day came. I have rather facetiously rehearsed them to the amusement of certain audiences. Let us suppose that the day will come when the Secretary of State is able to say, "Yes Gerry, you have decommissioned all your weapons, you have surrendered all your Semtex, and you have refrained from all the other sordid acts of violence." As we sit here, the IRA and other terrorist movements are engaging in such acts.
  The Secretary of State will say, "You are now one of us, you are now clear. Sinn Fein can now become a democratic party and you stand for election." What is Mr. Adams's response? "Big deal. Secretary of State, I, Gerry Adams, was elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I did not represent, but I was there nominally as a Member for five years. I have councillors in practically every one of the district councils in Northern Ireland. Is that all that we are to get?"
  That was the question posed by the Father of the House, and it has been put to me in recent days by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I am putting it as a challenge, not only to the Secretary of State because it is a challenge to us all. That will be the testing time, the crunch issue. What could a Conservative or Labour Government give in addition to that which is given to the rest of us who represent democratic parties?
  There has been a recons tructed Government, and the Secretary of State was today confirmed in office, on which he is to be congratulated. As I seldom watch the news I am not certain about the status of his colleagues, but I take that for granted. They must set about, or at least make a start, on the restoration of accountable democracy, probably at a modest level to begin with.
  I am not ruling out more powers at a later stage. They must begin at a practical level at which there will be a role for all who are democratically elected and who are bona fide democrats. I do not rule out new methods of employing the talents and involving Northern Ireland Members of both Houses of Parliament.

  481
  As we debate here this evening, we cannot and dare not ignore the deep unease and frustration which grips the entire Northern Ireland community. It is slowly diminishing, but we have to work very hard to remove it in its entirety. The Government were elected to provide reassurance, confidence and sound administration for the whole of the United Kingdom and, with their authority restored yesterday—if we are to believe the news industry, which up to 5 o'clock yesterday was determined to destroy this Administration—they now have a bounden duty to remove all that uncertainty, and remove it now.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: I hope that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will forgive me if I do not take up the points that he has just made. I think brevity is commendable, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will comment as appropriate on the right hon. Gentleman's points. I shall make three points as I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that other hon. Members wish to catch your eye.
  The first point is with regard to the substantive business. Quite obviously, the order must be approved by the House. It would be utterly irresponsible not to do so and there is no sane alternative course of action. The Government of the Province would be plunged into chaos were the House to do anything other.
  Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hunter: I shall not give way because I believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that many other hon. Members wish to catch your eye. I shall proceed with great alacrity.
  I make the point again that I believe that it would be quite ridiculous to do anything other than approve the order. I appreciate the fact that hon. Members, perhaps especially those from Northern Ireland, will wish to take this opportunity to make wider and different points. I also acknowledge the fact that very many of us look forward to the time when the order can be consigned to history. We are not at that point yet and obviously the order must be approved.
  My second point arises from the opening comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. I hope that he appreciates the depth and strength of support throughout the country for the position that he and the Government have adopted and for his handling of his responsibilities. I see two primary reasons for that and the first takes me back to the debate of last year. I quote from Hansard, following the precedent set by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, and refer to my right hon. and learned Friend's speech of 30 June, in which he said:
  "the future of Northern Ireland lies in the hands of its own people. There will be no change in its constitutional status as an integral part of the United Kingdom save in accordance with the democratic wishes of its people, and no political settlement without the participation of the main parties in arriving at it and the widespread acceptance of the people of Northern Ireland to the outcome."
  With regard to the north-south body, a little later in his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
  "To impose … a structure against the will of the people of Northern Ireland would be incompatible with the principle of consent."—[Official Report, 30 June 1994; Vol. 245, c. 960.]
  482
  It-remains-the firm-opinion of many right-hon. and-hon. Members that that is the basis of our approach to this question and that is the reason for the support.
  A second reason for the continuing great support of my right hon. and learned Friend is the developments of the past year. No one who follows the situation can have any illusions whatever about the fragility of the ceasefires. The events of the past 48 hours or so have underlined and demonstrated that point. We have come a long way during the past 12 months, but there are still problems. The greatest is demonstrated by the orchestration of the unrest on the streets of the past few days. We know that the paramilitaries retain their structures, and that they continue to recruit, train and target. Nevertheless, the facts that exploratory dialogue has started, and that the Government seek to move rapidly to substantive talks, are great achievements, which deservedly win support.
  During the past 48 hours or so, the prisoners issue has been very much on the agenda. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State may add to his earlier comments on the subject. It remains the understanding of many of us that, although in due course this vital issue can feature on the agenda of talks, we are not yet at that stage. We must first clear the initial hurdle of the decommissioning of illegally held arms and weapons. When that has been cleared, when the paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican, have clearly committed themselves to the principle of decommissioning, when there has been agreement over the modalities of decommissioning and when there has been an acceptable start to that progress, the agenda can widen.
  It is, however, quite wrong for many well-intentioned people to argue that people who, quite unlike Private Clegg, set about their business with the direct purpose of murdering and maiming should be regarded in some way as "victims" of the troubles. They are not victims of the troubles; they were the orchestrators of them. It is to prostitute both reasoning and morality to say that people who took part voluntarily in terrorist activities are in some way victims of terrorism. That is not true, and we must reassert that point.
  The order must be approved. We have come a long way in 12 months, but let us have no illusions about the difficulties that face us. However, the broad strategy that the Government have followed, with exploratory dialogue continuing, one hopes, eventually to substantive dialogue, should command support.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Robert McCartney: On the occasion of my maiden speech, I pay tribute to my predecessor, the late Sir James Kilfedder, a man of kindness who was without peer as a constituency Member. It was entirely in character that his maiden speech should call for the accelerated payment of pension increases for the elderly. The aged and the disadvantaged are among the many who mourn his passing.
  I am honoured to be the Member of Parliament for North Down. It is perhaps the most truly representative constituency of pro-Union sentiment in Northern Ireland. Its electors span the entire social spectrum and its main town, Bangor, has been the scene of a number of major terrorist bombings. The people of North Down share an almost universal desire for peace, but in electing me, they

  483
  have elected someone who is an open opponent of both the joint declaration and the framework documents as workable mechanisms for achieving peace.
  I am proud, however, that the people of North Down endorse an inclusive, pluralist Union, free from the failed ascendency badges of the past. I am aware that a maiden speech is not supposed to be controversial. If it provokes a degree of intellectual or other energy, it may be allowed.
  Mr. Mallon: Humility
  Mr. McCartney: Well, some of us are more humble than others. This evening, the Government propose to extend—[Interruption.] I believe that I am not being offered the usual courtesies of the House.
  This evening, the Government propose to extend for another year a measure that was introduced more than 20 years ago as a temporary expedient. For 21 years, Northern Ireland has been governed, in the words of the distinguished Irish historian J. C. Beckett, like a half-alien dependency in a manner that would have been objectionable in a 19th century colony.
  Arbitrary unaccountable government has turned part of the United Kingdom into what can be described only as a bureaucratic paradise. In its original and temporary form, such provision was barely defensible as emergency legislation in trying circumstances, but at least then this Parliament was solely responsible for Northern Ireland's affairs. Today, that despotic unrepresentative government is shared with a foreign power, in circumstances without precedent. There is no like situation throughout Europe.
  The presence of a minority seeking union with another state is by no means unique, even within the European Community, and the present arrangement is in breach of international conventions and arrangements for dealing with similar problems. In Northern Ireland, 1.6 million British citizens are being jointly administered in secret, like a mandated territory, and not one of the Ministers from either the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland enjoys the benefit of having received a single vote from any person in Northern Ireland.
  It does not help to assert that the final executive decisions are taken by the British Government by right of their claim to nominal sovereignty, or that the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom will not change without majority consent. The truth is that the rights of each citizen in Northern Ireland are being systematically diminished by secret Executive action.
  The claim that Northern Ireland is different and must be governed differently is both morally and politically repugnant, and implies the form of political apartheid once condoned in the United States and the Republic of South Africa as "equal but separate". The British citizens of Northern Ireland know that their interests will always be made subservient to those of their fellows in Great Britain who have the means to turn a Government out of office.
  In Northern Ireland, the peace process is seen primarily as a mechanism for protecting Great Britain's economic interests rather than as one designed essentially to secure a democratic and permanent peace in Northern Ireland. The on-going discussions between scarcely rehabilitated—some might say dry cleaned—terrorists without any significant electoral support demonstrate the Government's true priority. Those same people are orchestrating the violence of the past few days.
  484
  The peace process is viewed as a disguise for marketing a political settlement acceptable to the two sovereign powers, regardless of how unpalatable it may be to the pro-Union majority. Indeed, the people of Northern Ireland believe that they, like the Czechs in 1938, are being asked to pay the price for England's peace.
  The pro-Union people from both communities desperately seek and desire peace and a permanent cessation of violence, but they could have had that 25 years and 3,000 deaths ago at the price currently on offer. Peace is not to be found in the byzantine complexities of the framework document, which is designed to effect a policy, not to achieve a peace. Its clearly recognisable bias in favour of the single solution of Irish unity makes it patently unworkable.
  Peace, I believe, can be found in the policy that I have entered this House to advocate. It is to be found in a cross-community, pro-Union majority which eschews sectarian triumphalism and embraces the principle of pluralism and socio-economic politics. It has a voice that is pro-Union, rather than Unionist, and advocates a cause that deserves to be heard. It spans both communities, and commands an expanding centre which can isolate the extremes of both terror and violent rhetoric. It redefines the Union in a way that includes everyone and excludes no one. It offers subscription to a political identity without the sacrifice of ethnic pride and cultural heritage.
  The bipartisan agreement between the Government and the Opposition has, paradoxically, not helped the cause of peace. It has been said that when this House is in tumult and filled with dissent, the real business of the people is receiving its attention, but that when this House is in pious and self-congratulatory agreement, the cause of liberty is often not well served. Those oppressed by the Government rightly rely on the Opposition to protect their rights and redress their grievances. When such help is not to be found, both freedom and justice suffer. Did I not, however, believe in the essential fairness of the British people as reflected in their representatives in this House, I should not have come here in the first place.
  The declared policy of the Government is to preserve the Union, but in reality they offer—in the opinion of many—a policy of covert institutional coercion into a united Ireland. The policy is designed to buy off terrorists who retain the means of damaging the British economy. It has been said that the discussions should continue between the Government and the representatives of Sinn Fein, who everyone knows are nothing more than the political front or aspect of a violent Provisional IRA.
  In this, as in many other matters, the British Government would perform the role of honest broker—some might say judge. But how can a judge deal with a situation impartially when he himself has an interest? The interests of the British Government are not, and never have been, entirely congruent with the interests of the British citizens of Northern Ireland. The policy is pursued against the will of a peaceful majority and of an entire community disgusted by the elevation of terrorist supporters to the role of statesmen.
  If there is one allegation or complaint made by the ordinary and decent people of Northern Ireland, it is an expression of disgust at seeing men and women, their hands still stained with the blood of innocents, being given an honoured place in discussions with representatives of Her Majesty's Government. There

  485
  seems to be no position that the Government say that they will defend to the end that the same Government do not retreat from within a matter of weeks.
  One of the more novel aspects of political life in Northern Ireland is the remarkable semantic athleticism displayed by members of the Government team. Parallel progress is one term which I heard this evening for the first time. I add it to parity of esteem and a working assumption of permanence. All those terms are difficult to understand.
  Parallel progress presumably means that there will be some equal movement in tandem by both sides to the argument. We have heard of troop withdrawals, roads being opened and observation posts being dismantled. Where is the parallel progress and balance being displayed by those terrorist organisations with whom the Government would seek to negotiate? They continue to train, to observe and monitor the whereabouts, the goings, the to-ings and fro-ings, of members of the security forces. They continue to test even more wicked and awful weapons of destruction.
  I am so recently elevated from the ranks of the governed—not to the ranks of those who govern, but to the ranks of those who observe that process a little more closely—as to be able to make some comment of, I believe, an objective kind upon what ordinary people think. The ordinary people of Northern Ireland do not, I venture to say, see matters relating to the peace process with quite the optimism of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  I should like to say something finally about the declared policy of new Labour, which is said to be unity by consent. I pose the Opposition this question: would they be equally dedicated to union by widespread consensus if that can be patently demonstrated? For my part, I believe that new Labour could be so persuaded, because I believe it to be a party of principle rather than expedience. [Interruption.] Yes, it is a party of principle because experience teaches those who live in Northern Ireland that the Labour party in office has given greater support to the maintenance of the Union than Her Majesty's Government of the Conservative party. That Government have been loyally followed through the Lobby over a lengthy period by my currently estranged colleagues of the Ulster Unionist party while the people of Northern Ireland have witnessed what they believe to be an on-going weakening of their constitutional position.
  The cause of democracy demands an end to secret government and requires the restoration of an accountable Administration, reflecting the will of the overwhelming majority of those representative of the entire community in Northern Ireland.
  10.7 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: It is not merely the exercise of the conventions of the House that encourages me to congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) on his thoughtful and challenging address. He is, after all, my Member of Parliament as a resident of North Down, at least until the boundary revisions take place.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman no doubt hopes to be my Member of Parliament after the next election.
  The hon. Member for North Down gave us a brief analysis of events in Northern Ireland, one with which I concur. That will not be a shock to the Secretary of State. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will make a valuable contribution to debates within the House. Many of us, having had a trailer this evening as he skirted the bounds of parliamentary convention, will look forward to the occasions when he can take the handbrake off and let loose in the House. My colleagues and I look forward to working closely with him in the years ahead. I believe that we can do so for the benefit of Ulster and its people and for the benefit of the Union that we cherish.
  On the one hand, the debate this evening appears to be something of a ritual and, on the other hand, it could be said to be something of a fraud. The Secretary of State said that it was the renewal of direct rule. Those of us who live in Northern Ireland know that we do not have direct rule in Northern Ireland; it is anything but direct. The Secretary of State might be able to make that remark technically and legally, but everyone knows that he is almost the servant of Dublin. He can take no major decision without going, cap in hand, to seek the permission of the Dublin Government.
  If that were not bad enough, the Secretary of State now finds himself further confined by having to take decisions within the parameters of Irish Republican Army acceptability. When the Government take decisions for domestic reasons that depart from that yardstick, they are quickly brought back into line by IRA-orchestrated violence. Some of us will hold our breath in the next few weeks as we wait to see what sops will be offered to Republicans in order to balance—if that is a fair description—the release of Lee Clegg.
  The Government have followed a Republican agenda. They have done so from 8 December 1980 when the former Prime Minister signed the Dublin communique, which put the totality of relationships within these islands on the table for discussion, and they have continued with the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985, the Downing street declaration and now the framework document. The framework document, signed with the approval of John Bruton, sets up an all-Ireland body with a single purpose: to grow and grow until it exercises executive authority over the whole island of Ireland. Tory Members should blush when they reflect on how their party in government has betrayed the Unionists of Ulster.
  After 25 years of terrorism, we are being induced to believe that the disease of terrorism has been cured because, by concession and capitulation, a means of achieving some moments of respite from the pain has been discovered. There is no inherent peace in such a process. It is a surrender package, varnished with a specious and a deceitful gloss. It contains nothing that answers its appearance. Behind the facade of continuing peace, Unionists are invited to yield and to relinquish their rights and liberties. Peace is offered on IRA terms and those who are not disposed to embrace it are branded as warmongers, wreckers and spoilers.
  Meanwhile, the Provisional IRA continues to target and to train. It keeps its organisation intact while it stockpiles and develops new weapons. The IRA tells us that there is not—to quote one of its leading spokesmen

  487
  —a "snowball's chance in hell" of its handing over its weapons. During Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister told us:
  "Prominent members of Sinn Fein were present at a number of those events. They are far from the only violent demonstrations organised by Sinn Fein in recent months. I think that everyone in Northern Ireland is aware of that fact".—[Official Report, 4 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 140.]
  Everyone in Northern Ireland is indeed aware of that fact, but the Government have made a working assumption that the IRA has ended its violent campaign permanently. I asked the Secretary of State when he made his statement whether he would review his position in the event of violence and he said that he would do that. I hope that in his concluding remarks he will let us know what revision he has made of the IRA's permanent peace.
  Meanwhile, the guiltless victims of IRA terrorism are despised and forgotten while their murderous oppressors are elevated and rewarded. Is it any wonder that we see around us in Northern Ireland a demoralised and alienated Unionist community that has been systematically and intentionally marginalised? Terrorists are promoted and, immune to the consequences of their actions, the Government pander to the tormentors of the community. They leave in their wake a community without faith in the political process, without trust in those who govern them, without belief that democratic methods can redress their grievances and, worst of all, without hope.
  Under the cover of the renewal tonight, the Government, along with their Dublin partners, continue to pursue their all-Ireland programme. The Government raise a smokescreen to mask the betrayal by promising that their intentions will be subject to democratic consent. They do that by means of what the Prime Minister described as a triple-lock mechanism. I recall that the first of those mechanisms was that the agreement of political parties in Northern Ireland was required for the framework document proposal.
  As 13 of the 17 hon. Members representing Northern Ireland oppose that framework document, as do the two main Unionist parties representing the majority of people in Northern Ireland, does not the Secretary of State accept that there is not and will not be widespread acceptance of the framework proposals and, therefore, if the triple lock is to be applied and not to be considered a sham, the framework document should be ceremoniously shredded?
  I believe that the Government have no intention of applying the triple lock or of giving the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to give or withhold their consent. The Government will learn that the principle of consent is not a device of political convenience to be offered and then denied. The principle of consent is more than a legal right. It is more than a political doctrine; it is a practical requirement. Without consent, Ulster cannot be governed and if the Government move to execute the framework programme the people of Northern Ireland will withdraw that consent.
  If, however, the Government wish to operate democratic principles in Northern Ireland and accept that consent does not exist for their framework proposals, they will find Unionists willing to work with them and co-operate in seeking arrangements that are capable of winning widespread power in the Province.
  My colleagues and I have already submitted to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State an alternative talks process and alternative proposals for the
  488
  constitutional future of Northern Ireland. We are keen to talk to the Government about those proposals. We will not, however, enter into talks based on the rejected framework process, but if the Secretary of State seeks to engage us in those proposals which are workable and can receive the consent of a widespread section of our community, we are certainly willing to engage him in dialogue.
  I conclude for the sake of saving time, as other hon. Members wish to speak. The Government's present policy and their policies over all the years were based on the false assumption that there would inevitably be a united Ireland. I do not know whether they were convinced because of demographic changes or because they believed that the political argument had swung in that direction, but there is no inevitability about a united Ireland.
  The strength of argument in Northern Ireland shows a growing support for the Union and a more inclusive support for it. There is nothing new about the concept of an inclusive Union; that was the concept of Carson to which every traditional Unionist should be adhering. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the people—Protestant and Roman Catholic—will continue to support the Union. Instead of basing their policies on the false assumption that the Union is to be overthrown and a united Ireland is inevitable, the Government should build policies based on the firm conviction that the Union will remain and determine how best Northern Ireland should be governed within that Union.
  10.19 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: It has been a rather uneasy House tonight for an Irish nationalist representative. Four elements of unionism have been heard—
  Mr. Trimble: They are all around you; you are surrounded.
  Mr. Mallon: We have heard not only the various strands of unionism which claim to represent all the people of the north of Ireland but the strand that emanates from the Government Front Bench. It has been an interesting pot pourri, and I have been trying to work out where all these strands of unionism coalesce. Of course they do not—for a very simple reason. There is no such thing as undiluted unionism, any more than there is such a thing as unadulterated nationalism. Tonight we have heard various attempts to define a form of unionism that best describes the mood and thoughts of the ordinary people of the north of Ireland.
  The ordinary people of the north of Ireland think many things. They have many philosophies and many objectives, and they have a very sensitive approach to the political process. But the one thing of which they are sure is that the most valuable part of their lives now is the peace that is on them. The most valuable part of their lives, based on that peace, is the principle of consent which, for the first time, has been accepted on the island of Ireland by every political party, by the Irish Government, by the British Government, by all the nationalist parties in the north of Ireland and by the Republic of Ireland. I do not yet speak for Sinn Fein's position, because it has not yet defined it in this regard.

  489
  If I may make so bold, I would point out what ordinary unionists and ordinary nationalists are thinking about at the moment. First, they are thinking about the absence of violence and killing; that is precious and it must be defended by us all. Secondly, they are thinking about the principle of consent which the British Government, along with the Irish Government, have written into the entire political equation: into the Anglo-Irish agreement, the joint declaration and the joint framework document. So the precious element of consent, which is the very contradiction of violence, is built into those three documents—which are opposed, we are told, by all elements of political unionism. One wonders who is reading unionism aright.
  I offer my congratulations to the new Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). I apologise for my little sedentary intrusion into his speech, but I do not think that it will be the last. I wish him well in this House, and I have no doubt that he will add to my confusion as to what real unionists in the north of Ireland think and want.
  10.23 pm
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: We have had a characteristically lively debate. A good many vintage vehicles have been brought out of the garage and, with more or less noisy exhausts, have contributed to an enjoyable concours d'élégance.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) on his election. His majority might have been a little less if the Conservative candidate had not rejected my offer to canvass for him. He began with a gracious tribute to his predecessor, Sir James Kilfedder, which all who are present in the Chamber will have appreciated. He has a great example to follow. Sir James was, as the hon. Gentleman said, a most remarkably dedicated constituency Member. I think that all of us will wish to try to attend his memorial service, which takes place in the Palace tomorrow.
  I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been a little light. He took that approach in extolling the virtues of his new constituency, as is the custom. I can put things right. I was in the hon. Gentleman's constituency not very long ago, in Bangor. After an enjoyable visit to the council, I walked about with the mayor, Mr. Roy Bradford. It took me an hour and a quarter to travel 150 yd, so eager were the hon. Gentleman's new constituents to shake my hand, wish me well and urge me to keep up the good work.
  Mr. Trimble: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: No. I have heard the hon. Gentleman.
  490
  I thank the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) for her welcome to me. As for the status of the team, it is well established and all its members are back. We all think ourselves very fortunate.
  I also thank the hon. Member for Redcar for the way in which she has responded to the Government's approach and the responsibilities of Opposition in the context of security in Northern Ireland. I hope that it will not do her a lot of damage if I say that I regard her attitude as highly responsible. I acknowledge that the hon. Lady is a doughty opponent on other matters of policy where she regards it as entirely right and proper to depart from the view that the Government are taking. That is an entirely proper line to take.
  We have said that in the lifetime of this Parliament we shall not proceed with the privatisation of water supply, not least because of the extremely Byzantine problems that are to be found in charging arrangements. We need not take further time about that.
  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is well known for not going overboard in responding to immediate changes. He is fairly canny, as most people would acknowledge with admiration. The right hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged that some 10 months have passed in which there has been an enormous reduction of terrorist violence. He might have acknowledged also that the economy has taken a pretty substantial turn for the better, that unemployment is falling fast and that employment is rising. I felt that he approached what he had to say in a negative way to which we are not accustomed. I am grateful, however, that he said that, looking to the future, he was optimistic. He was right to say that. I hope that the hon. Member for North Down will come also to share the optimism that—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [19 December].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  TRADE UNIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND)
  That the draft Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
PETITION

  Warley (Secure Unit)
  10.28 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I beg to present a petition on behalf of my constituents within the village of Warley within my constituency. The petition contains more than 1,300 signatures. It represents the majority of the village of Warley, which is concerned about the granting of planning permission to itself by Essex county council to construct a secure unit.
  The petition reads:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of residents of the Parliamentary Constituency of Brentwood and Ongar Declares that they are opposed to the erection of a secure unit at Boyles Court on the grounds of the erosion of the Metropolitan Green Belt, impact on a Grade II Listed Building, loss of several mature trees and on grounds of public safety.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to review the granting of Planning Permission to itself for the development of a Secure Unit at Boyles Court, Warley, Brentwood, Essex.
  And the Petitioners remain in duty bound to this honourable House.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Asthma Treatment (Leicestershire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  10.30 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I hoped—and still hope—to raise some of the problems facing asthma sufferers, but I had not bargained on having to make a speech just a day after a leadership challenge and on the night of a reshuffle. One's chances of getting some coverage in the newspapers tomorrow morning may be severely curtailed because of the remarkable events that have occurred.
  The background to the debate is simple. There are now more than 3 million asthma sufferers in Britain. Reports quote some 2,000 deaths nationally due to asthma every year, of which it is estimated that 80 per cent. are preventable. Research shows that 13 per cent. of children aged five to 17 have been diagnosed with asthma.
  The cost to the national health service in terms of prescriptions is astronomical—about £400 million a year—and the number of prescriptions has increased by more than three quarters in the past 10 years. In addition, the cost to the economy is something in the region of 7 million working days a year, £70 million in sickness benefit and £400 million in lost productivity.
  Why is the problem getting worse? Why is asthma the only treatable chronic condition in the western world which is increasing in frequency and severity? I suggest that there are various reasons. One that has been much in the news recently is house dust mites, which thrive in badly ventilated houses. We suspect that additional problems are caused by diet, smoking and traffic pollution with which I shall deal in a moment.
  There is a great deal of confusion among the public about the extent of the problem because conflicting messages are reaching them through the press. Many of those messages are scare stories. A recent report stated that asthma cases had doubled over the past 20 years and that one in five children suffered asthma symptoms after exercising. Another report said that 7 per cent. of boys and 8 per cent. of girls were taking medication for asthma. Those contentions need to be validated. My hon. Friend the Minister could do a lot worse than to commission studies enabling accurate statistics to be put across. Although I do not dispute the figures, the reports are evidence of great concern.
  In Leicestershire, a county of which I am proud to represent a part, an average of 20 people die from asthma each year, and there are approximately 50,000 sufferers there. A third of the people with asthma in Leicestershire have a substantial amount of time off work, and a third of asthmatic children are confined to bed for up to 10 days a year. A quarter of all the children with asthma have restricted sporting activity, and two thirds lose substantial time at school. In Leicestershire, we are addressing the problem through an asthma strategy group, which has been set up with the specific objective of increasing awareness through a guidelines pack, which is readily available, by supporting a school nurse asthma project for training nurses in schools, and by encouraging the development of parent support groups.

  493
  Leicestershire is at the forefront of counties which are addressing the problem of asthma, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that there are some lessons there that could be taken on board nationally. Leicestershire has made asthma a priority. The steering groups's developments include agreement for funding the appointment of a district asthma co-ordinator, the redistribution of £10,000 from the "Health of the Nation" budget, the development of a disease specification, which will be introduced in 1995–96, and the appointment of asthma nurse specialists in all acute units. The objectives in the local plan include a review of the adoption and implementation of clinical standards, asthma training for 90 per cent. of local nurses by 1995–96, and an audit of hospital admissions.
  Those initiatives, with the new nurse practitioner network and a community awareness and public education campaign, have greatly assisted the people who suffer from asthma in my constituency and elsewhere in the county to address the problem. Furthermore, in Hinckley, the main town in my constituency, there was sufficient concern about asthma for an asthma support group to be set up and for the mayor to choose asthma as her charity for the year. That demonstrates the concern on the ground. I have met parents in the Royal Infirmary in Leicester and in Hinckley who are members of that group and discussed their problems with them. Asthma is a terrifying experience for the parents of children who suffer from it.
  What is important about the support groups is that they help parents to understand the condition, to understand the treatment, why it is necessary, how to respond to the changes, the different uses for inhaled drugs, peak flow meters and the difference between preventive and symptomatic treatments. There is nothing more frightening than to have a child with asthma and not know what to do about it. I declare an interest as my own son has suffered from asthma and I speak from the heart when I say that it is a very frightening experience.
  Leicester city, which I do not represent, also has its own initiatives. Time prevents me from going into them in detail tonight, but pollution levels are certainly a concern. To my mind, pollution on the roads is one of the key problems that we have to address as we try to come to grips with this illness, which is on the increase. I believe that small-scale measures could achieve great effects. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench does not, as yet, represent the Department of Transport, but the need for measures to reduce the number of vehicles emitting diesel fumes is evident. There is scope for discussions with petrol supply and retail industries with a view to securing the introduction of stage II pump controls. There should be more research into the health effects of PM10s from diesel fumes. Anybody who drives along the M1, as my hon. Friend and I do many times when travelling to our constituencies, will be aware of the problems that those fumes cause.
  I referred to the issue of dust mites in the home. This is a little closer to my hon. Friend's Department. Not a lot is known about dust mites, but they cause problems for small children. These minuscule bugs live in eiderdowns and blankets. We must educate people about the problems caused to asthma sufferers by blankets that are not properly sterilised and cleaned. That could be done by means of an extended education programme.
  494
  I also believe—my hon. Friend will say that this is not his Department's responsibility, but he may wish to pass it on to his colleague at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that oilseed rape causes a problem, with those vast fields of yellow flowers that we see in the countryside nowadays. A couple of years ago my family stayed in a house surrounded by such fields, and I have no doubt that the gas, or scent. emanating from the flowers contributed to the respiratory problems that we experienced at the time—although I confess that my research in the Library was inconclusive.
  I have referred to some of the difficulties experienced by asthma sufferers, and some possible solutions. Westminster council has a welcome solution to the problem of traffic fumes: on-the-spot fines. A possible solution whose importance is underestimated, however, is alternative treatment. As my hon. Friend knows, I have been treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine for many years, and I believe that alternative medicine has a great deal to offer asthma sufferers. My son was treated by a homeopathic doctor. The Department of Health could do much worse than recognise the possibilities.
  I should say, in fairness to my hon. Friend the Minister, that his colleague Baroness Cumberlege recognises the need to integrate alternative medicine into the health service generally. I believe that a number of alternative treatments are relevant to asthma—not just homeopathy, but Chinese medicine and acupuncture. It is important for fundholding general practitioners and hospital doctors to understand the scope of the alternative treatments that are available. We should aim for integration of alternative and complementary medicine into the health service; my colleagues and I have campaigned for that for a long time. We also want health authorities and GPs fundholders to be free to purchase complementary therapies that would help asthma sufferers.
  As I have said, Leicestershire has been at the forefront in dealing with asthma. There are some very good support groups, such as the one in Hinckley, which help parents to understand the difficulties. There are two national requirements. First, there is poor co-ordination between the different groups responsible for asthma; voluntary groups do not have enough resources to co-ordinate their activities. My hon. Friend's Department could act decisively and effectively in that regard. Secondly, the Government could take a leaf out of Leicestershire's book and make asthma a priority in their programme. Leicestershire health authority has set aside additional resources, having reached an agreement on funding and redistributed resources from its budget.
  How effective it would be if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell us tonight that the Government will make dealing with asthma a "Health of the Nation" key objective. I believe that if he did so he would win many friends throughout the country. Asthma is perhaps the only illness of its kind that is on the increase, and affects people of all ages. We have much work to do. If my hon. Friend cannot give us an undertaking tonight to make asthma a "Health of the Nation" key objective, will he please consider the possibility in the near future?
  10.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on

  495
  raising this subject, and I commend Leicestershire health authority for the priority that it clearly attaches to asthma treatment. In doing so, it mirrors in an effective way the concerns of my Department about the burden that results from asthma, and about its increasing prevalence. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the dreadful effects that that condition can have for children, and, indeed, for their parents.
  As my hon. Friend knows, asthma is estimated to affect about 4 per cent. of the population sufficiently severely for them to require regular medical supervision. We would estimate that there are some 2 million sufferers in England, or perhaps 2.5 million sufferers in the United Kingdom. A broad range of statistics on asthma was brought together in "Asthma: An Epidemiological Overview", which was produced by my Department and which I launched on 22 March this year. Recently, I supplied my hon. Friend with a copy, and I hope that he found it useful.
  Asthma costs the national health service a vast sum. The figure is about £450 million a year, of which £380 million represents NHS prescriptions. General practitioner consultations, hospital admissions and prescriptions for drugs used in asthma treatment suggest that the prevalence has been on the increase for many years.
  We do not, of course, know the causes for certain, but it is likely that they are connected with both genetic and environmental factors. It has been suggested by the media and by some doctors that the recent rise in prevalence is related to increasing levels or changing patterns of exposure to air pollutants, particularly those related to motor vehicles.
  As yet, there is no proven relationship between such pollution and asthma. Increasing levels of asthma have been recorded in countries such as Sweden, Fiji and New Zealand, which do not suffer from high levels of air pollutants. Other factors would seem to be involved, including air quality, maternal smoking and diet.
  Episodes of poor air quality make the health of some people with asthma worse by increasing either the frequency or severity of asthma attacks, but trigger factors, as they are known, for asthma also include other substances in the environment which induce allergic reactions. As my hon. Friend has said, those include house dust mites, pollen, fungal spores, respiratory infections such as cold and flu, and events such as exercise, emotion and stress. Some trigger factors could clearly be more easily avoided, such as exposure to cold air, to which some asthma sufferers are particularly susceptible, pets and animals, some medicines such as aspirin, and cigarette smoke.
  I was interested to hear my hon. Friend's comments on the possible effects of road traffic emissions on asthma sufferers. I mentioned that the effect of traffic emissions on asthma remains uncertain. Although air pollution can exacerbate symptoms, the evidence suggests that air pollution is not the main factor triggering asthma attacks in those who are susceptible to them. Nevertheless, we remain concerned to investigate those issues further and to do what is reasonable to reduce undesirable effects of traffic emissions, which may have other effects, as well as those on asthma sufferers.
  As my hon. Friend mentioned, the Government have developed proposals for improved management of air quality, set out in the document "Meeting the Challenge",
  496
  which was published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier this year. That provides a framework within which effective policies can be developed to improve air quality, and some of the key legislation needed has been included in the Environment Bill.
  Public health policy for asthma is aimed at keeping sufferers free of asthma symptoms, to enable as normal a life as possible. That is achieved by sufferers knowing what their individual trigger factors are and how to avoid them, and knowing what practical steps and medicines they may take to control their symptoms. Asthma is combated by provision of health care resources to enable people to manage their own conditions as far as possible.
  It is, of course, a matter for the professions concerned, and the British Thoracic Society produced revised guidelines in March 1993 which included advice on how patients should manage their asthma. The Department of Health drew the guidelines to the attention of health authorities in December of that year. I remind the House that it is for local health purchasers to determine the priority to be given to asthma services for their own populations.
  The Department of Health has provided a national framework for the provision of primary care for asthma in the new arrangements for health promotion and chronic disease management which we introduced in July 1993. Asthma is one of the target areas of that programme. Under it, general practitioners are eligible for fixed payments for setting up and overseeing an organised programme of care for asthma. Over 90 per cent. of all GPs have been approved to run such a programme.
  The advisory group on the medical aspects of air pollution episodes has also examined the evidence relating to the effects of episodes of elevated concentrations of individual air pollutants upon normal and asthmatic individuals. Since the publication of its reports, new evidence has been continually reviewed by another committee, the Committee on Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, for a range of pollutants including ozone, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and particles.
  That committee has been asked for advice on links between asthma and exposure to low levels of air pollution. A sub-group was set up last year to examine the relevant evidence, and we expect its definitive advice in the autumn, after which a report will be published.
  Across Government more widely, my Department is working closely with the Department of the Environment and other Departments. The two Departments are organising a one-day conference in November on the causes of asthma and what everybody can do to alleviate its effects. In October last year, my Department, together with the Department of the Environment and the Medical Research Council, announced a major research initiative on air pollution and respiratory disease, including the possible links between air pollution and asthma. Over the next few years, a total of up to £5 million will be available if suitable high-quality projects are presented.
  Proposals were invited on a range of aspects, including the role of air pollutants, either individually or in combination, in respiratory disease, particularly asthma, and their possible interaction with other causes of respiratory disease. My hon. Friend referred, for example, to the role of factors such as house dust mites and tobacco smoke in asthma.

  497
  The effects of air pollution on health has also been identified as a priority area in the environmental health theme of my Department's programme, and a strategy for research is being developed. A number of relevant research projects are already being funded under the programme.
  The Health and Safety Executive, which is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, is responsible for policy on prevention of occupational asthma. I know that the HSE is giving a high priority to reducing the incidence of asthma in that field. Its "Breathe Freely" campaign has raised awareness of the dangers of respiratory sensitisers, which are substances that create an allergic reaction in the respiratory system.
  It has also reminded employers of their duty under the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations to control exposure to them. The HSE continues to focus on respiratory sensitisers under its management of health risks campaign which it launched on 1 May.
  Mr. Tredinnick: It is interesting to hear about the range of research that is taking place. Is my hon. Friend's Department co-ordinating that research? When the Medical Research Council work and the other projects are complete, will there be a publication in which the findings will be amalgamated, so that they may be readily available to those who are concerned about asthma?
  Mr. Sackville: The principal body for carrying out research is the Medical Research Council, but there is a centrally commissioned programme in my Department, and we work closely with the Medical Research Council. I take note of what my hon. Friend says about the need to bring all these matters together, so that there can be some readily understood document which will tell all those concerned what is being done and outline the level of success that has been achieved.
  I turn to the question of public information, which relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth has just said. More information certainly needs to be available to the public. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the marvellous work of the National Asthma Campaign—the leading voluntary organisation in the subject—in offering support and information to people with asthma and their families through its national network of 200 branches.
  The NAC publishes leaflets, publications and videos, and has an asthma help line staffed by specialist asthma nurses. I understand that the help line received 20,000 calls last year. My Department is giving the NAC a grant to fund a member of staff to co-ordinate its work for children with asthma.
  In that connection, the Department for Education is in the process of drawing up a draft circular on the management of medication in schools. Its officials have
  498
  been working closely with my Department on this and talking to interested outside bodies, including the National Asthma Campaign. We certainly favour children with asthma being encouraged to manage their own condition as early as is consistent with their development.
  My hon. Friend called on the Government to include asthma as a key area in "The Health of the Nation". The House will be aware that that is the subject of a recent early-day motion. I should say, however, that, although the White Paper designated asthma as a strong contender for key area status, it was recognised that research was needed into its causes and into what could be done to prevent it.
  There are three criteria for key areas status. First, the area should be a major cause of premature or avoidable ill health, which asthma clearly is. Secondly, the area should be one where effective interventions are possible. There are, of course, known interventions for asthma which can potentially improve the prognosis of people who already have asthma, but much less is known about the factors which lead to the disease developing in the first place.
  Thirdly, it should be possible to set objectives and targets and monitor the progress towards them. That is certainly the most difficult of the three criteria for asthma to meet. Mortality targets, which would be one measure, would be of limited value by themselves, as—fortunately—deaths from asthma are relatively uncommon. Morbidity targets based on routine statistics would be difficult to interpret. For example, improvements in service provision could lead to an increase in numbers treated. Clearly it is important to identify effective interventions and ways of monitoring outcomes before considering whether it is appropriate to set targets.
  An ad hoc expert group has recently reported to the chief medical officer on possible interventions and targets for asthma so that it might be reconsidered for key area status in "The Health of the Nation". I assure my hon. Friend that we shall give that report full and careful consideration, together with the further reports on asthma that I have already mentioned, which are expected shortly.
  I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that the Government take the problem of asthma extremely seriously. I mentioned the range of national initiatives, and I am pleased that they are being developed locally in his area of Leicestershire. He suggested the need for a co-ordinated national policy. I shall therefore summarise our policy, which is quite simple.
  We will continue to improve our knowledge of the causes of the disease and do everything that we can to make life as normal as possible for those who suffer from this very distressing condition.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TREASURY

  Manchester Ship Canal
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from Manchester city council about protecting the Manchester ship canal from the possible impact of proposals related to a proposed landfill tax; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement. [30995]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The leader of Manchester city council, Councillor Graham Stringer, who is also director of the Manchester Ship Canal Co., wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on 15 June about the effect of the landfill tax on dredging operations. I replied on 4 July. Copies of the correspondence have been placed in the Library.

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Government tax subsidy was being allowed to the Shell UK company in respect of the sinking of the Brent Spar oil platform; whether it will still be eligible if the platform is broken up on land; whether this tax subsidy will be available to other oil companies when they wish to dispose of their offshore oil rig platforms; and if he will make a statement. [31500]

  Sir George Young
  As with all other taxpayers, the tax affairs of Shell UK Ltd. are confidential between it and the Inland Revenue. Companies operating in the North sea can claim relief against petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax on the cost of decommissioning their offshore oil installations. In the case of Brent Spar, Shell has already announced publicly that it will forgo the tax relief on any additional cost if onshore disposal were to proceed.

  Information Technology Contracts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, column 263, if he will place in the Library details of those specific provisions designed to guarantee continuity of service in information technology contracts in the event of a transfer to another supplier or divert to the Department. [31849]

  Sir George Young
  I am unable, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, to place in the Library any details of specific provisions contained within the contract between Inland Revenue and EDS.

  The negotiation of the contract between Inland Revenue and EDS took place in full recognition of the importance of the various constituent elements that ensure the
  202
  continuity of service provided to the Inland Revenue and to taxpayers. Specific provisions have been made in the information technology service agreement to secure the computer equipment, software and expertise to ensure continuity of service throughout the contract period and beyond.

  Conditionally Exempt Works of Art
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average length of time that items from the register of conditionally exempt works of art spend out on loan to public galleries, museums and other similar places to which the public have access. [31870]

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not available as there is no statutory power to require owners to keep statistics of such of their conditionally exempt items as are on loan to public institutions to which the public has access.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many works of art which are conditionally exempted from inheritance tax or capital transfer tax are currently out on loan to public galleries and museums. [31872]

  Sir George Young
  The information requested is not available as there is no statutory power to require owners to keep statistics of such of their conditionally exempt works of art as are on loan to public galleries and museums.

  Council Tax Appeals
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many appeals lodged by council tax payers are still waiting to be dealt with for each district value office in England and Wales. [32326]

  Mr. Nelson
  The number of council tax appeals still outstanding as at 31 May 1995 with each listing officer in England and Wales is shown in the tables:

  Council tax valuation list Valid proposals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Region: Wales and West

  Local office

  Outstanding

  Bangor

  1,147

  Barnstaple

  951

  Bath

  1,372

  Bristol

  1,922

  Cardiff

  1,163

  Carmarthen

  2,186

  Exeter

  2,900

  Gloucester

  1,575

  Merthyr Tydfil

  547

  Newport

  331

  Plymouth

  2,131

  St Austell

  2,061

  Swansea

  700

  Taunton

  2,033

  Wrexham

  1,095

  Regional total

  22,114

  203

  Council tax valuation list Valid proposals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 National summary

  Region

  Outstanding

  Central

  22,991

  East

  24,785

  London

  20,787

  North

  13,018

  South

  34,593

  Wales and West

  22,114

  Total E and W

  138,288

  Council Tax valuation list Valid proposals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Region: Central

  Local office

  Outstanding

  Birmingham

  946

  Bolton

  845

  Burnley

  1,164

  Chester

  1,245

  Coventry

  835

  Crewe

  1,459

  Kidderminster

  856

  Lancaster

  981

  Lichfield

  912

  Liverpool

  1,364

  Manchester

  625

  Preston

  997

  Rochdale

  465

  Salford

  580

  Sandwell

  138

  Shrewsbury

  1,526

  Stockport

  862

  Stoke

  1,027

  Warrington

  1,442

  Warwick

  1,339

  Wolverhampton

  273

  Worcester

  3,110

  Regional Total

  22,991

  Council Tax Valuation List Valid Proposals Outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Region: East

  Local Office

  Outstanding

  Bedford

  1,361

  Cambridge

  1,319

  Chelmsford

  1,751

  Colchester

  2,695

  Derby

  1,262

  Grimsby

  1,153

  Ipswich

  2,113

  Leicester

  1,003

  Lincoln

  1,172

  Loughborough

  1,132

  Mansfield

  761

  Northampton

  1,138

  Norwich

  2,404

  Nottingham

  956

  Peterborough

  1,608

  St. Albans

  1,523

  Stevenage

  1,434

  Regional Total

  24,785

  204

  Council tax valuation List Valid proposals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Region: London

  Local office

  Outstanding

  Barking

  809

  Bromley

  2,895

  Camden

  1,173

  City

  1

  Ealing

  1,441

  Enfield

  3,638

  Greenwich

  1,771

  Harrow

  1,391

  Islington

  1,270

  Kensington

  1,517

  Lambeth

  1,616

  Redbridge

  1,215

  Tower Hamlets

  476

  Westminster

  294

  Wimbledon

  1,280

  Regional total

  20,787

  Council tax valuation list Valid proposals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Region: North

  Local office

  Outstanding

  Alnwick

  526

  Bradford

  1,382

  Carlisle

  734

  Doncaster

  577

  Durham

  560

  Halifax

  1,233

  Harrogate

  1,395

  Hull

  1,470

  Leeds

  868

  Middlesbrough

  483

  Newcastle

  317

  Sheffield

  454

  Sunderland

  352

  Ulverston

  1,030

  York

  1,637

  Regional total

  13,018

  Council tax valuation list Valid proposals outstanding as at 31 May 1995 Region: South

  Local office

  Outstanding

  Aylesbury

  2,260

  Basingstoke

  2,135

  Bournemouth

  2,216

  Brighton

  1,206

  Chatham

  1,470

  Dorchester

  1,481

  Eastbourne

  2,000

  Folkestone

  1,546

  Guildford

  1,456

  Oxford

  1,891

  Portsmouth

  965

  Portsmouth (IOW)

  651

  Reading

  2,558

  Reigate

  3,028

  Southampton

  2,077

  Swindon

  2,414

  Tunbridge Wells

  2,663

  Worthing

  2,576

  Regional total

  34,593

  205

  Biodiesel
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the reasons for the United Kingdom's opposition to EC draft 8205/94, calling for changes in excise duty on biodiesel. [32162]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  At the meeting of the Council of Economic Ministers—ECOFIN—in Luxembourg on 19 June, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor noted that the proposal has been considered by the Council from time to time without making any real progress, and he suggested that the Council should not expend further effort on it.

  The Government continue to find the proposal set out in EC draft 8205/94 unattractive for several reasons. We are opposed in principle to granting long-term tax subsidies to products which would not be financially viable without them. We are not persuaded of the agricultural, environmental or energy policy benefits of subsidising biofuels, and we remain concerned about the effect of tax subsidies on the market for by-products.

  World Bank and International Monetary Fund
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to progress the recommendations for reforms to the World bank and International Monetary Fund, as outlined in the background paper to the communiqué presented at the recent G7 meeting in Halifax, Canada. [32209]

  Mr. Nelson
  The proposals agreed at Halifax among the G7 for reform of the World bank and International Monetary Fund now need to be discussed by the entire membership of those institutions. The G7 recognises that changes will need broad support among the membership. The Canadian Finance Minister has written on behalf of the G7 to every governor of the two institutions, commending the proposals and seeking comments. The Government hope they will now be considered by the executive boards of the World bank and International Monetary Fund, and at the autumn ministerial meetings of the interim and development committees. The Government will also discuss the proposals in other forms, and bilaterally with other non-G7 countries. I hope, for example, that we will be able to have a useful exchange of views at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' conference in October.

  Investors' Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the investors' compensation scheme. [33089]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Treasury has today laid a minute to inform the House that the Treasury has issued a guarantee to the investors compensation scheme, ICS, for up to £17 million.

  This wholly exceptional course, which I very much regret the need to take, results from the current judicial review case brought by Sun Life. This challenges certain regulatory rules made by the Securities and Investments Board, SIB, and the Personal Investment Authority, PIA, which is one of the self-regulating organisations recognised by SIB under the Financial Services Act 1986. Mr. Justice Collins yesterday gave
  206
  Sun Life leave to proceed with the case, which will be heard on 23 to 24 August.

  Because of the uncertainty created by this case, the PIA has decided, after taking legal advice, that it would not be prudent to levy its members to provide finance for the ICS as it would normally do. For similar reasons, the ICS board has also decided not to levy PIA members direct. Without the Treasury guarantee, the ICS would be unable to borrow commercially because of the same uncertainty about its ability to raise funds to service and repay loans.

  The Treasury guarantee is for £17 million, slightly more than the £15.8 million ICS levy on the PIA, to cover interest which may be incurred and the legal costs associated with the court case.

  The Treasury will review the need for the guarantee when the judicial review case is resolved after the hearing in August. In the meantime, the ICS will continue to operate normally, making offers of compensation to investors who have lost as a result of defaults by investment firms, and declaring firms in default in order to trigger claims, as usual. Investors can be confident that this important safety net will continue to function properly, underpinning investor protection.

  Extra-Statutory Payments
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 339, if he will list the agreed specific delegation level agreed with each Department for authorising extra statutory payments. [28663]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The existing specific delegation levels agreed with the main Departments for authorising extra statutory and extra regulationary payments are set out. The limits reflect a number of considerations, including the nature of the payments that are likely to occur on a particular Department's programme and whether satisfactory ground rules can be agreed for dealing with them. The limits are kept under regular review.

  Department

  Delegation

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Full delegation

  Cabinet Office (including OPSS)

  £5,000

  Crown Prosecution Service

  Full delegation

  Customs and Excise

  Full delegation

  Ministry of Defence

  £250,000

  Department for Education

  1Full delegation

  Department of Employment

  £5,000

  Department of Environment —Local Government

  £10,000

  —Housing and other Environmental Services

  £25,000

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  £250,000

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  £5,000

  Home Office (including prisons)

  £20,000

  Department of Health (including NHS Executive)

  2Range from no delegation to full delegation depending on nature of expenditure item concerned.

  Inland Revenue

  Full delegation

  Intervention Board

  £100,000

  207

  Department

  Delegation

  Lord Chancellor's Department.

  Full delegation

  Department of National Heritage

  £25,000

  Northern Ireland Office

  £50,000

  Overseas Development Administration

  £5,000

  Property Holdings

  No delegation

  Property Services Agency Services

  No delegation

  Scottish Office

  Range from £750 to full delegation depending on programme.

  Department of Social Security

  3£250,000

  Department for Trade and Industry

  No delegation

  Department of Transport

  —National Roads

  £300,000

  —Other

  £1,000

  Treasury

  £1,000

  Welsh Office

  Range from no delegation to full delegation depending on programme.

  Notes

  1 Except on teachers' superannuation.

  2 Except payments made under Section 5(3) of the NHS Act 1977.

  3 Except the Child Support Agency.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Attorney-General how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95 and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31301]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service paid a grant of £20,000 to the Nuffield Foundation for its interpreter project in 1993–94 and a further grant of the same amount to the same organisation in 1994–95. The service entered into contracts with Shaw House and the Royal London Society for the Blind in 1993–94 under the sheltered placement scheme, the value to the organisations being the employment of disabled persons by the service.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts within (i) 1993–94; and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31307]

  Mr. Dorrell
  In 1993–94, my Department paid grants to 32 voluntary sector organisations. The total value of

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Independent

  Not known/other

  Male

  Female

  Appleby

  11

  1

  0

  0

  0

  6

  6

  Carlisle

  33

  19

  12

  3

  11

  44

  34

  Furness and District

  37

  8

  3

  3

  9

  34

  26

  Kendal and Lonsdale

  16

  6

  8

  2

  5

  22

  15

  Keswick

  5

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  4

  208
  these grants was £832.420. In 1994–95, the number of organisations was 31 and the total value of grants was £874,731. My Department has no contracts with voluntary organisations.

  Hotel Grading Schemes
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many hotels are included in the English tourist board's crown grading scheme; and how many are covered by the schemes operated by the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association. [32031]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The English tourist board crown classification and grading scheme covers 11,500 serviced establishments. This includes 3,500 hotels. The Automobile Association scheme in England covers approximately 5,500 serviced establishments, of which 3,019 are hotels. The Royal Automobile Club scheme includes some 5,200 serviced establishments throughout Britain, 3,400 of which are hotels.

  Travel Claims
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will detail the amount of travel claims at constant prices his Department in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95 broken down by (i) public transport, (ii) car mileage allowance and (iii) bicycle allowance. [32171]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: The information requested for the Department of National Heritage, including the Historic Royal Palaces Agency, Royal Parks Agency, Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts and Royal Commission on Historical Monuments of England is:

  1993–94£

  1994–95 £

  Car mileage allowance

  30,734

  23,452

  Bicycle allowance

  0

  0

  The amount of travel claims by public transport could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Justices of the Peace (Cumbria)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of justices of the peace on the bench in each of the divisions in the county of Cumbria by(a) political or non-political affiliation and (b) by gender. [32617]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The number of justices of the peace in each division of the county of Cumbria by(a) political or non-political affiliation and (b) by gender, on the latest information available, is:
  209

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Independent

  Not known/other

  Male

  Female

  South Lakes

  11

  2

  2

  0

  1

  7

  9

  Penrith and Alston

  8

  1

  5

  1

  3

  10

  8

  West Allerdale

  22

  8

  2

  1

  5

  23

  15

  Whitehaven

  12

  5

  3

  4

  5

  16

  13

  Wigton

  7

  1

  1

  0

  1

  6

  4

  Voluntary Organisations
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31299]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department paid grants to two voluntary sector organisations in 1993–94 and to two in 1994–95. The total value of the grants was £195,000 in 1993–94 and £188,000 in 1994–95.

  The Legal Aid Board, a non-departmental public body, paid grants to 10 voluntary sector organisations in 1993–94 and 60 in 1994–95. The total value of the grants was £942,000 in 1993–94 and £2,377,000 in 1994–95. In addition, one law centre and one advice agency with a solicitor received payments under franchise contracts on a case-by-case basis.

  Repossessions
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) proceedings were commenced to repossess homes and (b) homes were repossessed in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England in each year since 1979. [31597]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 5 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about repossession proceedings.
  The following charts show the total number of possession actions commenced in York County Court; North Yorkshire; Yorkshire and Humberside and England since 1987 (the earliest year for which data is available). As not all actions result in the issue and execution of a warrant of possession, I am unable to tell you how many properties were repossessed in this period. I have therefore included in the tables the number of possession orders made. I should add that the figures for 1994 are provisional and are consequently liable to revision to take account of any late amendments.

  York County Court

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1987

  335

  269

  1988

  327

  238

  1989

  368

  193

  1990

  505

  314

  1991

  577

  455

  1992

  456

  405

  1993

  346

  316

  1994

  358

  274

  210

  North Yorkshire

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1987

  637

  475

  1988

  527

  393

  1989

  661

  401

  1990

  1,030

  622

  1991

  1,430

  1,005

  1992

  1,119

  1,032

  1993

  845

  764

  1994

  764

  564

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1987

  7,777

  5,684

  1988

  7,304

  5,046

  1989

  7,380

  4,053

  1990

  10,434

  6,794

  1991

  14,146

  10,844

  1992

  10,280

  8,934

  1993

  8,447

  7,432

  1994

  7,619

  5,474

  England

  Actions commenced

  Orders made

  1987

  74,048

  45,836

  1988

  67,729

  44,711

  1989

  86,246

  50,267

  1990

  137,714

  98,546

  1991

  176,414

  135,490

  1992

  134,574

  119,805

  1993

  109,734

  99,388

  1994

  83,516

  73,943

  Asylum
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases relating to political asylum in the United Kingdom were heard at the immigration appeals tribunal; and how many such appeals were successful in each of the last five years. [31316]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Figures on asylum appeals were not kept prior to the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. A separate figure for appeals by the Home Office was not kept until January 1994. The table sets out the available information:
  211

  Immigration appeal tribunal: Political asylum appeals

  Year

  Heard

  Allowed

  Remitted for rehearing by a different adjudicator

  1993 (August-December)

  21

  5

  11

  Claimant

  Home Office

  Claimant

  Home Office

  1994

  285

  8

  3

  192

  13

  1995 (January-May)

  151

  11

  3

  90

  3

SCOTLAND

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total amount of funding allocated by his Department to Highlands and Islands Enterprise excluding objective 1 figures for development initiatives in(a) Argyll and Bute and (b) Kintyre for the years 1993–94 and 1994–95. [30446]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The allocation of funds to specific local enterprise company areas for economic and social development purposes is the responsibility of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what are the criteria which he applies to reschedule drug substances under the terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; how temazepam relates to these criteria; and if he will make a statement; [31395]

  (2) what further plans he has to reschedule temazepam; and if he will make a statement. [31383]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No rescheduling may occur under the 1971 Act except after consultation with, or on the recommendation of, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The council is required to have regard to misused drugs which are having, or appear to it to be capable of having, harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem. The council has recommended that temazepam should be controlled under schedule 3 of the relevant regulations rather than schedule 4. The Government's careful consideration of this recommendation is continuing.

  As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced on 10 May, we are taking steps to impose safe custody requirements on manufacturers and wholesalers, and are engaged in consultations with a view to banning the prescribing by general practitioners under the National Health Service of the soft gelatin gel-filled temazepam capsules.

  Health Care International
  Mr. Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he was informed that an employee of Scottish Enterprise had been given leave of absence to become international marketing director of Health Care International in Clydebank; what reports he received on the outcome of the appointment in terms of contracts for the hospital; and when he received these reports. [31347]
  212
  Mr. Kynoch
  The granting of leave of absence to an employee Of Scottish Enterprise was an operational matter for that body, in respect of which there was no requirement for my right hon. Friend to be informed or to receive reports.

  Mr. Stefan Kock
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from whom Strathclyde police have received representations on the firearms incident involving Mr. Stefan Kock in Scotland in January 1990. [32197]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Strathclyde police have received no representations in relation to this incident.

  A74
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will keep the name M74 when the A74 construction to motorway standard is completed; and if he will make a statement. [32613]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: My right hon. Friend announced in November 1991 that, on completion of the A74 upgrade, the new motorway will be designated as the M6. However, until the whole route is upgraded, the upgraded section of the route will retain the "74".

  My right hon. Friend recently announced that we intend to seek tenders later this year for the last section in Scotland to be upgraded between Cleuchbrae and Paddy's Rickle on a design, build, finance and operate basis and this should see the completion of the upgrade by the end of the century.

  Council Workers (Redundancy)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what maximum period of time compensation schemes for council workers made redundant by local government reorganisation operate. [32185]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The compensation scheme provided under the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy or Premature Retirement on Reorganisation) (Scotland) Regulations 1995 for any local authority employee made redundant as a result of local government reorganisation will be available until 31 March 1997. The period will, however, be subject to review in December 1996.

  Tongue School, Sutherland
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take in respect of the school board of Tongue school, Sutherland. [32657]
  213
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures apply when the parents of children attending a school indicate by a clear majority of all parents on successive occasions at a properly constituted meeting with the school board that they have no confidence in the board. [32677]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Under section 30 of the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988, whenever the requisite number of parents so request in writing, the school board must hold a meeting to enable parents to make inquiries and to discuss matters relating to the activities of the board and to make resolutions relating to the activities of the board. The board is required to consider any resolution passed at such a meeting. The requisite number of parents for the purpose of requesting a meeting is 30, or a number of parents equal to at least one quarter of those who were entitled to vote at the most recently held elections of parent members, whichever is the less.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to publish the report on the 10-year review of demands and resources for public water supplies in Scotland. [33091]

  Mr. Kynoch
  A report has been published today by the Scottish Office Environment Department describing the 214
  outcome of the Department's third long-term assessment of demands and resources for public water supplies in Scotland carried out during 1994, previous studies having been done in 1973 and 1984. I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library.

  The report shows that, at the national and regional levels, resources are more than sufficient to meet average demands for public water supplies beyond 2016, the period covered by the study.

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport Area
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what boundary he intends for the new Strathclyde passenger transport area following his recent consultation exercise. [33092]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following careful consideration of the responses received to the consultation exercise, we have concluded that the Strathclyde passenger transport area should cover the existing Strathclyde zonecard travel area, and the whole of the present Strathclyde supported rail network. This will ensure that the Strathclyde passenger transport authority and executive can carry out effectively its local transport responsibilities in Glasgow and the surrounding areas.

  I have placed maps illustrating the new area in the Library of the House. I am making arrangements to lay the necessary designation order before Parliament.
  215

ENVIRONMENT

  Pollution
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average proportion in poor quality air of pollution that comes from(a) car fumes and (b) industrial emissions. [31412]

  Mr. Atkins
  Each episode of poor air quality has its own individual characteristics, so it is not possible to directly attribute the relative contribution that road traffic or industrial emissions contribute to air pollution incidents across the UK. However, detailed emissions inventories of the overall pollutant contributions of the various sectors are available. The table shows the proportions for NOx, SO2, CO and black smoke for London in 1991.

  Percentage air emissions by sector for London in 1991 Figures are all rounded to one decimal place.

  Per cent.

  Pollutant

  NOx

  SO2

  CO

  CO2

  Black smoke

  Road transport

  75.4

  24.5

  98.6

  32.5

  95.2

  Domestic

  6.5

  0.7

  0.2

  31.4

  0.1

  Commercial and industrial

  11.8

  72.6

  0.2

  29.9

  2.4

  Other transport

  6.4

  2.1

  1.0

  6.3

  2.4

  Home Improvement Grant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has of the number of home owners wishing to take up a home improvement grant who are unable to do so because of inability to afford the temporary accommodation required while the work in question is carried out; what assistance is available to them; and if he will make a statement. [31906]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The legislation for house renovation grants makes no specific provision to cover the costs of temporary accommodation for applicants while works are in progress. Local authorities may rehouse applicants under their discretionary powers in the Housing Act 1985, but correspondence to my Department suggests that many grant applicants prefer to stay in their homes while the works are carried out.

  Ponds
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department takes to protect and clean ponds; and what is the budget for these projects. [32160]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department supports a number of environmental grant schemes, such as countryside stewardship, which include provision for the creation or restoration of ponds. Under the Countryside Act 1968, local authorities can carry out pond restoration and creation, and under the rural action scheme, which is sponsored by the three countryside agencies, grants are available for environmental improvements, including the 216
  clearing of ponds. With regard to water quality, many ponds will be subject to the general pollution control functions of the National Rivers Authority.

  Ponds are protected through a number of schemes and mechanisms, including some via the site of special scientific interest system under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is not possible to identify within the overall budgets the amount spent on protecting and clearing ponds.

  Landfill Waste Disposal
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the landfill waste disposal sites in Great Britain where environmental pollution problems have arisen in the last 10 years. [32439]

  Mr. Atkins
  Landfill waste disposal operations in Great Britain are regulated by the waste regulation authorities. Information about pollution incidents at individual landfill sites is held by the responsible authority. A sample study carried out in 1990 by the Association of County Councils identified 11 cases in the previous 15 years where remedial action to landfill sites was required by waste regulation authorities.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the guidelines followed by Government Departments in the use of asbestos or asbestos products in any building work taking place within Government-owned properties; and if he will make a statement. [32671]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment, through the Property Holdings central advice unit, formerly property advisory services division, provides Government Departments with guidelines in the "Guide to Estate Management Responsibilities" and the "Housekeeping Guide for Accommodation Managers".

  Drinking Water Inspectorate
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the fifth annual report of the Drinking Water Inspectorate will be published. [32850]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Drinking Water Inspectorate published its fifth annual report today. Once again, it shows that drinking water in England and Wales is of a very high quality. In 1994, 99.3 per cent. of the 3.5 million tests carried out by water companies on drinking water met the relevant standard, compared with 98.9 per cent. in 1993.

  The report provides a detailed picture of water quality in England and Wales which has been tested against the stringent criteria of the water quality regulations which incorporate the limits in the EC drinking water directive.

  The inspectorate also published today two leaflets for consumers. "How Good is Your Drinking Water?", summarises the main points of the report. "About Your Water Company" gives brief details of the quality of drinking water supplied by individual water companies.

  Copies of the report and leaflets have been placed in the Library of the House.
  217

  Manchester Ship Canal
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had from Manchester city council about protecting the Manchester ship canal from the possible impact of proposals related to a proposed landfill tax; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement. [30994]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The leader of Manchester city council, Councillor Graham Stringer, who is also a director of the Manchester Ship Canal Co., wrote to my right hon. Friend about the potential impact of the proposed landfill tax on the company's dredging operations on 15 June. I replied on Tuesday 4 July. Copies of the correspondence have been placed in the Library.

  Vanadium
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is estimated total annual United Kingdom emissions of airborne vanadium pentoxide: and what are the main sources. [32003]

  Mr. Atkins
  Emissions of heavy metals into the atmosphere are not speciated by individual chemical compound type. This is because of analytical difficulties in determining the composition of fly ash on other than an elemental basis. There is, therefore, no information available on emissions of V2O5. Emissions of vanadium are not yet included in the national atmospheric emissions inventory. However, the Department's research programme includes work on vanadium and the results will be reported later this year.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the World Health Organisation's guideline for the maximum permitted concentration of vanadium in the atmosphere; and what is the range of concentrations found near(a) power stations, (b) oil refineries and (c) other industrial sources of airborne vanadium. [32004]

  Mr. Atkins
  The WHO air quality guideline for vanadium for a 24-hour averaging period is 1µgm-3—1000 ng m-3.

  The Department of the Environment has been monitoring airborne concentrations of vanadium at three rural sites at Chilton, Oxfordshire; Styrrup, Nottinghamshire and Wraymires in Cumbria since 1972 and at one urban site in Central London since 1976.

  The results from the central London site are given as annual averages for each year since 1976. The results from the rural network are given in summary form with the central London site given for comparison.

  Annual average vanadium concentrations in air (µgm-3) in central London

  Year

  Central London

  1976

  50

  1977

  33

  1978

  48

  1979

  22

  1980

  20

  1981

  24

  1982

  23

  218

  Annual average vanadium concentrations in air (µgm-3) in central London

  Year

  Central London

  1983

  19

  1984

  32

  1985

  14

  1986

  14

  1987

  14

  1988

  16

  1989

  15

  1990

  20

  1991

  15

  1992

  12

  Vanadium concentrations in air (ng m-3) at urban and rural sites in the UK1

  London

  Chiltern

  Styrrup

  Wraymires

  mean 1972–81

  133

  11

  14.7

  7.2

  mean 1982–91

  18.4

  6.1

  8.1

  3.3

  1 "Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics" HMSO, No. 17, 1995.

  Tenants
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance is issued to local authorities concerning the method of consultation with representatives of their tenants; and if he will make a statement. [32221]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Guidance to local authorities about consultation with tenants is provided in:"Large-scale voluntary transfers guidelines", December 1993;
  "Tenant Involvement in Housing Management", March 1994;
  and
  "Housing Strategies: Guidance for local authorities on the preparation of housing strategies", 1995.

  Redundant Council Workers
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for what maximum period of time compensation schemes for council workers made redundant by local government reorganisation operate. [32186]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  In England, entitlement to payment of redundancy compensation arising from reorganisation can arise in the period from the date the relevant reorganisation order is made to 18 months after reorganisation takes place.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration is given by his Department to the location of large supermarkets in urban areas; what criteria are used in respect of car parking and the effects on other shopping areas; and if he will make a statement. [32357]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government's policy is to encourage supermarkets to locate in existing shopping centres in urban areas. Where this is not possible, an edge-of-centre site should be sought, within easy walking distance of the centre, to ensure it is accessible by a choice
  219
  of means of transport. Applications for out-of-centre supermarkets should be assessed in terms of their likely impact on existing centres, their accessibility by a choice of means of transport and their effect on overall car use. With regard to their impact on existing centres, they should be assessed in terms of its impact on trade, future investment in the centre and on the authority's strategy for the centre.

  Car parking standards for large supermarkets vary from authority to authority and reflect the location of the store. In London, suburban out-of-centre stores tend on average to have one space per 10 sq m of gross floor space; inner suburban out-of-centre stores one space per 13 sq m, whereas town centre stores can mange comfortably with 1 per 20 to 25 sq m gross floor space. This reflects their respective reliance on the car for access. The Government are proposing a general review of car parking standards, including those for large food stores.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those planning authorities whose standing orders make provision for members of the public to present their case in person during the discussion of planning applications. [32655]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Statutory Joint Authorities
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what circumstances the power to establish a statutory joint authority under section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992 will be available to him. [33090]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government's policy is that local authorities which are granted unitary powers should be capable of undertaking the full range of functions entrusted to them. Our guidance to the Local Government Commission reflects this aim and we have carried it through in our decisions.

  Under Section 14(5)(c) of the Local Government Act 1992, the Local Government Commission may recommend that joint arrangements are made in relation to local authority functions in an area affected by structural change. It has recommended joint arrangements for structure planning in a number of areas. We have endorsed those recommendations and look to the authorities concerned to make voluntary arrangements accordingly.

  Section 21 of the Local Government Act 1992 contains back-up powers for the Secretary of State to establish a statutory joint authority where voluntary arrangements have not been made, or have broken down. Previous ministerial statements about joint working have suggested that the power granted by this section may be exercised in any case where, having regard to the recommendations of the commission, the Secretary of State had requested authorities affected by a structural change order to carry out a function jointly and those arrangements had failed or had failed to materialise.
  220
  We are now advised that this power will be available only in those cases where joint working is to take place between authorities all of which have acquired the relevant function as a result of a structural or boundary change. It will not be available where, for example, a new unitary authority has been asked to work with an existing county council.

  This new understanding does not affect local authority powers to enter into voluntary joint arrangements. We continue to support the recommendations of the commission in respect of joint working on structure plans by unitary authorities and existing county councils. We look forward to the authorities concerned making suitable voluntary arrangements for the maintenance of an up-to-date strategic planning framework for each of the joint structure plan areas indicated. Following reorganisation, the Secretary of State's powers of intervention in the structure plan process under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 remain unchanged. He will consider the availability and use of those powers in the usual way in order to achieve effective strategic planning.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 22 and 23 June. [33218]

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Luxembourg held on 22 and 23 June. Agreement was reached, subject to a parliamentary scrutiny reserve, on four key measures.

  I was able to support the common position the Council reached on the proposal for integrated pollution prevention and control. This measure follows a UK initiative and will lead to an integrated approach to pollution control decisions taking into account emissions to all environmental media. Overall, the directive will raise environmental standards across Europe and help to provide a level playing field for UK industry.

  There was a short discussion of the proposal for a directive on ambient air quality assessment and management and a common position was agreed unanimously. I joined colleagues from all member states in welcoming the proposed directive which will help to tackle the problems of air pollution across Europe and is in line with existing UK practice.

  A common position was also achieved by unanimity on the proposal for the control of major accident hazards involving dangerous substances—amended Seveso directive. The proposal closely reflects UK philosophy and practice.

  The Council reached a common position unanimously on a new regulation to replace the existing Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species measures. I welcome the regulation which will require all member states to control trade in endangered species more effectively. The Council also agreed to a UK proposal to

  221
  retain the existing 1981 regulation banning commercial imports of whale products.

  Agreement was also reached on Council conclusions on the follow-up to the Berlin conference of the parties to the climate change convention. I made it clear during the discussion that the UK continued to oppose a mandatory EU wide carbon energy tax. There were discussions on many other issues, including the disposal of disused oil installations, motor vehicle emissions and the proposal for a directive on the ecological quality of water.

  Dounreay
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the explosion which occurred in May 1977 at the Dounreay nuclear power plant station near Thurso in Scotland; what is his assessment of the damage caused by the explosion; and what are the environmental consequences both then and now. [32431]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on 13 June 1994, Official Report, column 472, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) and the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 29 June 1995, Official Report, column 747.

HEALTH

  First-time Mothers (Publications)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals she has to alter the distribution and budget for the publications "Birth to Five" and "The Pregnancy Book". [32161]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Both the publications are published by the Health Education Authority and issued free to all first-time mothers.

  Foetuses
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 22nd June,Official Report, column 344, what action she will now take following the completion of research for her Department in May into foetuses feeling pain while being aborted. [32506]

  Mr. Sackville
  No action is called for.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to extend the current market testing programme to core clinical services. [32359]

  Mr. Sackville
  The selection of clinical services for market testing is a matter for local management. Guidance was set out in EL (95)29, issued in April, copies of which are available in the Library.
  222

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if physiotherapy is categorised as a core clinical service. [32220]

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service does not use the term "core clinical services". The nature of physiotherapy services required in hospital or community health services is a matter for purchasers to determine in collaboration with providers, taking account of appropriate professional advice.

  Suicides
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what records her Department keeps of the numbers of doctors and other health workers who commit suicide while working in the NHS, together with information on the causes of death. [32226]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures are in place to monitor the success rate for the detection of glaucoma; and if she will make a statement; [32351]

  (2) if she will make a statement as to what measures are planned to improve the detection rate of glaucoma. [32341]

  Mr. Sackville
  Although the Government recognise the importance of the early detection of glaucoma, this is primarily a matter for the medical and optometric professions. However, we are currently working with the relevant professional bodies to improve the quality of detection and referral of eye disease, including glaucoma.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence she has indicating whether there is a universal standard of testing for glaucoma by optometrists across the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [32353]

  Mr. Malone
  Screening for diseases of the eye, of which glaucoma is one, is part of the routine sight test procedure carried out by optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners. We have no reason to believe that standards of sight testing vary.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated for glaucoma, per family health service authority, for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [32350]

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures in the form requested are not available centrally.

  From "Morbidity Statistics from General Practice" it is estimated that, in England, about 101,000 patients suffering from glaucoma were treated by general practitioners during the 1991–92 financial year. Figures are not available for the other years requested.
  223
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that all people with a higher risk of developing glaucoma obtain all three available tests for the condition from an optometrist; and if she will make a statement. [32352]

  Mr. Malone
  Close relatives aged 40 or over of diagnosed glaucoma sufferers are automatically entitled to a free national health service sight test, to enable their eyesight to be monitored at no cost to themselves. The examination techniques used in carrying out a sight test are a matter for the clinical decision of the practitioner.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to empower health authorities and commissions to treat the causes as well as the effects of asthma; and if she will make a statement. [32346]

  Mr. Sackville
  The causes of asthma are unclear, but it is likely that both generic and environmental factors, including exposure to a range of possible allergens, are involved. Work on investigating possible causes is continuing. We have no plans to increase the powers of health authorities and commissions.

  National Blood Authority
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total amount being spent by the National Blood Authority on national new donor day. [32111]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority anticipates that the estimated expenditure on local publicity is likely to be around £15,000.

  NHS Ethnic Health Unit
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider funding the development of medical education materials for the ethnic health unit for use at both undergraduate and postgraduate level; and if she will make a statement. [32342]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service ethnic health unit was established to work with health authorities and trusts to secure greater benefit for people from ethnic minorities, from the implementation of national and local health strategies. The unit is not responsible for medical education and training. This is a matter for the General Medical Council, the medical royal colleges and the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice.

  Health Services (Access)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research she has commissioned or examined into racism as a factor in access to health services; and if she will make a statement [32344]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health and other Government Departments have funded the fourth national survey of ethnic minorities, which is being conducted by the Policy Studies Institute. The health section of the survey examines ethnic minorities' access to health services and factors which may facilitate or deter access. The experience of ethnic minorities will be compared with that of whites.
  224
  The Department of Health has also commissioned the Refugee Council to undertake a survey to identify the barriers that prevent access to health services for refugees in the United Kingdom.

  Multi-cultural Health Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will consider appointing to each national health service executive region mangers with responsibility for implementing and monitoring her Department's policy on multi-cultural health care; and if she will make a statement. [32343]

  Mr. Malone
  After abolition of regional health authorities, it will not be appropriate for public health functions to be managed directly by national health service executive regional offices. Ownership of these functions lies at local level, reflecting the responsibility of health authorities for the overall health of the population. The NHS ethnic health unit works with health authorities and NHS trusts to secure greater benefit for minority ethnic people from the health service.

  The priorities and planning guidance for 1996–97, published by the NHS executive in June 1995, requires health authorities and trusts to pay particular attention in seeking and addressing the concerns of those with special needs. The performance management arm of the NHS executive regional offices hold health authorities to account for the implementation of national policies, including the development of services for minority ethnic people.

  Medical Training
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what formal education in the health and health care of different cultural groups is available to the medical profession; and if she will make a statement. [32345]

  Mr. Malone
  The General Medical Council is responsible for the standard of undergraduate medical education. Its most recent recommendations, published in "Tomorrow's Doctors" in December 1993, recognise the need for matters concerning ethnicity to be addressed within the undergraduate medical curriculum.

  The medical royal colleges are responsible for the content of postgraduate medical training and education.

  The body responsible for general practice vocational training—the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice—expects general practitioners to be knowledgeable about the social, cultural and environmental factors which contribute to health and illness. The specific curricular arrangements to achieve these attributes are the responsibility of regional postgraduate organisations. Further training and experience are provided as part of the continuing education of practitioners.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received indicating an increase in emergency consultations by patients with general practitioners concerning dental problems; and if she will make a statement. [32347]
  225
  Mr. Malone
  Two general practitioners have written to the Department of Health on this subject over the past year. Under their terms and conditions of service, GPs are not required to provide dental treatment to their patients.

  Specialist Cancer Consultants
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on global supply and demand of specialist cancer surgeons. [32402]

  Mr. Malone
  Cancer is treated by doctors in a number of specialities. Consultants in the specialties of medical oncology, clinical oncology—radiotherapy— radiology/nuclear medicine, haematology and general surgery all treat cancer patients. However, they are not all involved full time in the treatment of cancer. In addition, other specialties are also involved in the treatment of cancer.

  The Government seek to ensure an adequate supply of appropriately trained doctors in each specialty, including those involved in the treatment of cancer. This involves planning the number of doctors in higher specialist training on a specialty by specialty basis. Employment of consultants is a matter for local employing bodies, which make medical staffing decisions in the light of competing priorities and the health care needs of the local population.

  On 24 April 1995, following wide consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced a strategic framework for the future development of cancer services based on the report "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services", copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Executive Headquarters (Staff)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) the number of staff who have been offered and accepted early retirement or voluntary redundancy at the national health service executive headquarters, Quarry house, Leeds, in 1995, (b) the cost of the voluntary redundancies and early retirements and (c) the initial costs of relocating the relevant staff to Leeds. [32529]

  Mr. Sackville
  Some 143 staff at the national health service executive headquarters, Leeds have been offered and accepted voluntary early severance or retirement. On redundancy and early retirement costs I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) on 25 May 1995, columns 759–60. On relocation costs, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 13 January, column 258.

  Rape Support Services
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organisations there are in London which provide support services for women and girls who have been raped or sexually assaulted; if she will list those organisations; and what is the current level of government funding for those services. [32530]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.
  226

  Edgware General Hospital
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will reconsider the closure recommendation made by the district health authority for the accident and emergency department of Edgware General hospital, Edgware, Middlesex, pursuant to the letter sent on 27 June by the hon. Member for Harrow, East to the Prime Minister. [32656]

  Mr. Malone
  No. I have nothing to add to the replies I gave my hon. Friend on 21 June, column 259.

  Clinical Negligence Scheme
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will provide a list, by region, of those trusts which(a) have joined and (b) not joined the clinical negligence scheme for trusts. [27902]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: This information will be placed in the Library.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many single-handed general practitioners' practices were in receipt of payments under part VI, paragraph 34, section 2(u) of the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 in(a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) in the current year; [28102]

  (2) what was (a) the lowest, (b) the highest and (c) the average payment made to single-handed general practitioners' practices under part VI, paragraph 34, section 2(u) of the NHS (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 in (a) 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and (d) in the current year. [28083]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The numbers in each financial year were as follows:

  1992–93: 5

  1993–94: 6

  1994–95: 5

  However, not all practices were in receipt of payments throughout the whole of each financial year.

  Information available centrally does not identify payments made to individual general practitioners.

  In 1994–95, the average payment was £19,057.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Orders in Council
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table showing for each of the last three years and the current year the number of Orders in Council applying to Northern Ireland under(a) affirmative, (b) negative and (c) emergency procedures. [32383]
  227
  Sir John Wheeler
  The information in respect of Orders in Council made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 is as follows:

  Year

  Affirmative

  Negative

  Emergency procedures

  1992

  12

  8

  nil

  1993

  12

  4

  nil

  1994

  12

  4

  1

  1995

  6

  nil

  nil

  RUC Reserve
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many recruits to the RUC full-time and part-time reserve will have training designed to improve community awareness and understanding; and if such training is available to longer serving officers in the RUC full-time and part-time reserve. [31048]

  Sir John Wheeler
  All new recruits to the RUC (full-time) reserve receive community awareness training. The training is currently under evaluation and it is proposed that it should be extended to the RUC (part-time) reserve.

  A programme of divisional training is provided to longer serving officers. During the present cycle of divisional training, one of the subjects covered is professional police ethics which deals with community awareness perspective.

  South Eastern Education and Library Board
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations have supported his proposals to abolish the South Eastern education and library board. [31421]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 26 June,Official Report, column 471.

  Making Belfast Work
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent by Making Belfast Work on administration in the last year, and what proportion of the total budget this represents. [31653]

  Mr. Moss
  The administrative costs of Making Belfast Work, including nine actions teams, in 1994–95 was £1,510,794. This represents 5.59 per cent. of the total MBW and action team budget for 1994–95.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will show, by type, the number of cases of fowl pest in each year since 1985. [32293]

  Mr. Ancram
  The term fowl pest includes both avian influenza—fowl plague—and Newcastle disease. Avian influenza has never occurred in Northern Ireland. Since 1985, Newcastle disease has been identified only in Northern Ireland in 1991 when six cases occurred.
  228
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of epizootic haemorrhagic virus disease occurred in each year since 1985. [32284]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy occurred in each year since 1985. [32375]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  1985: 0

  1986: 0

  1987: 0

  1988: 3

  1989: 30

  1990: 100

  1991: 170

  1992: 333

  1993: 487

  1994: 363

  1995: 88 (to 16 June)

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of African horse sickness occurred in each year since 1985. [32302]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of contagious equine metritis occurred in each year since 1985. [32281]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of rabies there were in each year since 1967. [32290]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of peste des petits ruminants occurred in each year since 1985. [32287]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give for each integrated school the sums expended on(a) capital expenditure, (b) running costs exclusive of teachers' salaries and (c) other running costs, (i) per school and (ii) per child; and if he will give the figure equivalent to (b) and (c) for (1) maintained, (2) controlled and (3) voluntary schools in (A) the primary and (B) the secondary levels, in the last year for which figures are available. [32434]

  Mr. Ancram
  Capital expenditure incurred by education and library boards on controlled integrated schools in 1994–95 was as follows:

  £

  All Children Together Primary

  2,614

  Carnhill Primary

  64,878

  Forge Primary

  38,277

  Brownlow College

  32,799

  229
  Capital expenditure approved by my Department for grant purposes in 1994–95 for each grant-maintained integrated school was as follows:

  £

  Primary Schools

  Braidside

  78,157

  Bridge

  64,882

  Corran

  504,717

  Enniskillen

  30,450

  Hazel wood

  172,914

  Millstrand

  36,598

  Oakgrove

  600,047

  Omagh

  46,406

  Portadown

  122,818

  Windmill

  4,964

  Secondary Schools

  Hazelwood College

  180,993

  Lagan College

  81,008

  The information on running costs is not available in the form requested, but I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) on 27 March, Official Report, column 484.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had about the peace process; and if he will make a statement. [29816]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have held bilateral meetings with the Ulster Unionist party and the Alliance party respectively, when there was an explanation of some issues that need to be addressed if there is to be a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement.

EDUCATION

  Independent Schools
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school age pupils resident in each local education authority area attend independent schools. [31899]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The numbers of pupils of compulsory school age in independent schools in each LEA area in England are shown in the table. Information about the LEA area in which pupils are resident is not collected centrally.

  Pupils of compulsory school age1 in independent schools in each LEA area in England: January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils

  Corporation of London

  1,233

  Camden

  4,516

  Greenwich

  1,318

  Hackney

  2,628

  Hammersmith

  2,771

  Islington

  194

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7,454

  Lambeth

  1,214

  Lewisham

  2,592

  Southwark

  4,444

  Tower Hamlets

  223

  230

  Pupils of compulsory school age1 in independent schools in each LEA area in England: January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils

  Wandsworth

  4,301

  Westminster

  4,170

  Barking

  0

  Barnet

  4,345

  Bexley

  493

  Brent

  1,634

  Bromley

  3,844

  Croydon

  6,898

  Ealing

  4,693

  Enfield

  1,000

  Haringey

  1,812

  Harrow

  3,609

  Havering

  528

  Hillingdon

  2,694

  Hounslow

  560

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,463

  Merton

  2,710

  Newham

  151

  Redbridge

  2,902

  Richmond upon Thames

  5,124

  Sutton

  1,356

  Waltham Forest

  1,184

  Birmingham

  4,772

  Coventry

  2,036

  Dudley

  247

  Sandwell

  104

  Solihull

  2,360

  Walsall

  446

  Wolverhampton

  1,372

  Knowsley

  0

  Liverpool

  2,529

  St. Helens

  554

  Sefton

  2,935

  Wirral

  3,623

  Bolton

  2,121

  Bury

  1,897

  Manchester

  4,497

  Oldham

  1,411

  Rochdale

  364

  Salford

  1,503

  Stockport

  3,812

  Tameside

  113

  Trafford

  2,969

  Wigan

  0

  Barnsley

  58

  Doncaster

  601

  Rotherham

  181

  Sheffield

  1,849

  Bradford

  3,624

  Calderdale

  971

  Kirklees

  1,448

  Leeds

  3,881

  Wakefield

  2,752

  Gateshead

  1,324

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  4,309

  North Tyneside

  822

  South Tyneside

  48

  Sunderland

  834

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  10,781

  Bedfordshire

  4,725

  Berkshire

  12,892

  Buckinghamshire

  6,503

  Cambridgeshire

  5,372

  Cheshire

  6,534

  Cleveland

  2,367

  Cornwall

  2,095

  Cumbria

  2,535

  Derbyshire

  4,313

  Devon

  8,674

  Dorset

  6,475

  Durham

  1,987

  231

  Pupils of compulsory school age1 in independent schools in each LEA area in England: January 1994

  LEA

  Pupils

  East Sussex

  9,060

  Essex

  9,349

  Gloucestershire

  5,800

  Hampshire

  15,827

  Hereford and Worcester

  8,434

  Hertfordshire

  14,164

  Humberside

  2,812

  Isle of Wight

  858

  Kent

  14,865

  Lancashire

  7,757

  Leicestershire

  6,762

  Lincolnshire

  3,352

  Norfolk

  5,135

  North Yorkshire

  6,862

  Northamptonshire

  5,193

  Northumberland

  647

  Nottinghamshire

  5,654

  Oxfordshire

  9,675

  Shropshire

  4,695

  Somerset

  6,973

  Staffordshire

  4,105

  Suffolk

  6,430

  Surrey

  26,273

  Warwickshire

  4,779

  West Sussex

  8,272

  Wiltshire

  4,697

  England

  421,108

  1 Pupils aged 5 to 15 as at 31 August 1993.

  "Superhighways for Education"
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many copies of her Department's brochure "Superhighways for Education" have been printed; where they have been distributed; and what is the cost of production and distribution. [32533]

  Mr. Boswell
  Of the total UK printing of the consultation paper "Superhighways for Education", 15,000 copies were for the Department for distribution in England.

  Copies have been sent to a range of interests in the higher education, further education and school sectors and local education authorities. Distribution was also undertaken to relevant industrial and commercial bodies including those which submitted evidence to last year's Trade and Industry Select Committee on optical fibre networks.

  The cost of production and distribution in England is estimated at some £54,800.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what specific advertising campaigns have been undertaken by her Department each year since 1979. [32472]

  Mr. Boswell
  Listed are the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by the Department for Education since 1990:

  (Financial year) 1990–91

  Teacher Recruitment Advertising Campaign

  Teaching as a Career

  Train to Teach in London

  232

  1991–92

  Teacher Recruitment Advertising Campaign

  Parent's Charter

  National Curriculum Tests

  Business Donations to Schools

  Teaching as a Career

  1992–93

  National Curriculum Tests

  Grant-Maintained Schools—Helpline

  Performance Tables

  School Inspector Recruitment

  1993–94

  Charters for Further and Higher Education

  Grant-Maintained Schools

  National Curriculum Tests

  1994–95

  Private Finance Initiative

  Details of advertising campaigns prior to 1990 are not readily available apart from costs which were given in a previous answer to the hon. Member on Tuesday 26 June 1995, Official Report, column 512.

  Standard Assessment Tasks
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the total cost of(a) marking the standard assessment tests, (b) publishing the results and (c) distributing the results for (i) seven-year-olds, (ii) 11-year-olds and (iii) 14-year-olds in 1994–95 and each academic year since 1989–90. [32471]

  Mr. Forth
  The tables give the available information relating to seven and 14-year-olds in financial years from 1991–92, the first year in which any pupils were statutorily assessed. The first statutory assessments of 11-year-olds did not take place until 1995.

  (a) Marking the standard assessment tests

  £ million

  Financial year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  7-year-olds

  20.04

  29.08

  23.06

  21.6

  14-year-olds

  —

  1.56

  2.28

  1.6

  The figures represent the costs of assessment audit; the cost of marking by teachers is not separately identifiable.

  (b) Publishing the results of 7 and 14-year-olds (£s)

  Financial year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  7 and 14-year-olds

  29,500

  30,400

  n/a

  29,400

  (c) Distribution of the results of 7 and 14-year-olds (£s)

  Financial year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  7 and 14-year-olds

  9,300

  15,400

  n/a

  11,400

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the number and percentage of three-year-olds in(a) maintained nursery schools and nursery classes, (b) infant classes in primary schools, (c) private or voluntary sector provision and (d) pre-school provision overall, at the latest available date. [32038]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on three-year-olds in schools in England in January 1994 is shown in the table. Information is not available for the private or voluntary sector.

  Pupils aged three years of age in schools in England: January 1994

  School type

  Pupils

  Percentage of population1

  Maintained nursery schools and nursery classes

  265,669

  41

  Infant classes in primary schools

  1,285

  2—

  Independent schools3

  20,964

  3

  All schools4

  290,458

  45

  1 Full-time and part-time pupils aged three years of age at 31 August 1993, including pupils who became four years of age by 1 January 1994, expressed as a percentage of the estimated population aged three at 31 August 1993.

  2 Negligible—less than 0.5.

  3 Includes pupils in direct grant nursery schools.

  4 Includes pupils in maintained nursery, primary and special schools, non-maintained special schools and independent schools.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure that the extension of nursery education to all four-year-olds does not lead to a reduction in places currently available to three-year-olds. [31952]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend will shortly announce the details of her policy to provide a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take it up. She has already made it clear that there will be new money to fund the expansion of places.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the cost of providing nursery education for(a) all three-year-olds and (b) all four-year-olds whose parents want it. [31976]

  Mr. Forth
  The aggregate cost would depend on parental preference and on local expenditure, where information is not collected separately for under-fives or for nursery schools.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by her, or ministerial colleagues in her Department, paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such overseas trips, which officials accompanied her and the total cost in each case, including that of officials, to public funds for each year since 1992. [32253]
  234
  Mrs. Gillian Shepherd
  The destination, duration and purpose of ministerial overseas trips involving public funds since 1992 are listed.

  Destination

  Duration (days)

  Purpose

  Germany

  1

  Bilateral meeting

  Spain

  2

  Bilateral meeting

  USA

  13

  Fact-finding

  Ireland

  2

  Bilateral meeting

  Belgium

  1

  EU Education Council

  Norway

  2

  Informal OECD meeting

  Belgium

  2

  EU Education Council

  Belgium

  1

  EU Youth Council

  Pakistan

  8

  Commonwealth conference

  France

  2

  Informal OECD meeting

  Russia

  3

  EU/Russian conference

  Finland

  4

  Bilateral meeting

  Germany

  3

  EU Informal Education Council

  Luxembourg

  2

  EU Education Council

  Luxembourg

  2

  EU Youth Council

  Bermuda

  6

  Women's Association of Bermuda

  Netherlands

  1

  Informal OECD meeting

  Malaysia and Singapore

  5

  Education Exports

  Greece

  3

  EU Informal Education Council

  Germany and Italy

  5

  Lecture and Presidency of European University Institute

  Switzerland

  2

  Speech at a multilateral symposium

  Slovakia

  3

  Visiting HE institutions

  Belgium

  2

  EU Education Council

  Germany

  3

  Bilateral meeting

  USA

  4

  Informal OECD meeting and Bilateral meeting

  Luxembourg

  2

  EU Education Council

  Germany

  1

  Visit a MOD service school

  New Zealand and Canada

  17

  Bilateral meeting

  Denmark

  2

  EU Informal Education Council

  France

  1

  Informal OECD meeting

  Belgium

  2

  EU Education Council

  France

  1

  Informal OECD meeting

  Luxembourg

  1

  EU Education Council

  Switzerland

  2

  Education Equipment Conference

  France

  3

  OECD Science meeting

  Mexico

  8

  Education Exports

  235
  Total departmental expenditure on foreign travel and foreign subsistence for 1991–92 to 1994–95 is listed:

  Financial year

  Expenditure £

  1991–92

  371,435

  1992–93

  308,158

  1993–94

  226,033

  1994–95

  156,803

  The additional information requested could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Retirements and Redundancies
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what was the cost for each local education authority of early retirement and redundancy packages in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Some of the information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Area Cost Adjustments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what factors were taken into account when deciding to include all salaries rather than education salaries in the determination of the area cost adjustment for the education standard spending assessment; [31947]

  (2) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 12 June, Official Report, column 417, what other expenses are taken into

  Expenditure on education other than at school

  A

  B

  C

  1993–94

  Gross expenditure on education other than at school £000

  Gross LEA expenditure£000

  A as a percentage of B Percentage

  Corporation of London

  70

  2,792

  2.5

  Camden

  2,103

  107,239

  2.0

  Greenwich

  3,930

  130,387

  3.0

  Hackney

  94

  130,965

  0.1

  Hammersmith

  2,959

  87,131

  3.4

  Islington

  n/a

  117,886

  n/a

  Kensington and Chelsea

  475

  64,095

  0.7

  Lambeth

  2,272

  147,135

  1.5

  Lewisham

  1,743

  129,582

  1.3

  Southwark

  9,295

  130,033

  7.1

  Tower Hamlets

  1,362

  137,526

  1.0

  Wandsworth

  4,270

  111,613

  3.8

  Westminster

  1,977

  95,812

  2.1

  Barking

  2,566

  71,871

  3.6

  Barnet

  136

  135,228

  0.1

  Bexley

  254

  87,566

  0.3

  Brent

  75

  126,662

  0.1

  Bromley

  2,559

  90,193

  2.8

  Croydon

  10,012

  145,168

  6.9

  Ealing

  2,007

  129,805

  1.5

  Enfield

  2,589

  122,282

  2.1

  Haringey

  269

  123,408

  0.2

  Harrow

  421

  99,083

  0.4

  Havering

  230

  87,409

  0.3

  Hillingdon

  164

  77,691

  0.2

  Hounslow

  176

  105,192

  0.2

  Kingston upon Thames

  541

  55,558

  1.0

  Merton

  1,583

  79,806

  2.0

  236
  account besides salaries and higher rates when calculating area cost adjustment difference percentages; [31977]

  (3) to what percentage of the education standard spending assessment the labour area cost adjustment is applied; and for what reason. [31949]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All education staff—teaching and non-teaching—are members of labour markets which include other employment groups. The general market earning levels of these groups are therefore reflected in the area cost adjustment. London weighting payments and average teachers' salaries do not represent the full costs of providing a standard level of service in London and the south-east. Further costs arise from lower levels of experience, higher vacancy, wastage and turnover rates and non-salary payments.

  The labour cost adjustment is applied to 80 per cent. of the education SSA since that represents the proportion which is intended to relate to employment costs —both direct and indirect and teaching and non-teaching.

  Local Education Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the amount and the percentage of its total education budget spent on provision for pupils out of school for each local education authority in each of the last five years. [31825]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows LEA expenditure on education other than at school, and as a percentage of total LEA expenditure, for 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. Figures disaggregating expenditure on education other than at school were not collected separately before 1993–94.
  237

  Expenditure on education other than at school

  A

  B

  C

  1993–94

  Gross expenditure on education other than at school£000

  Gross LEA expenditure£000

  A as a percentage of B Percentage

  Newham

  2,104

  123,745

  1.7

  Redbridge

  499

  110,514

  0.5

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,378

  67,346

  2.0

  Sutton

  643

  61,647

  1.0

  Waltham Forest

  167

  118,987

  0.1

  Birmingham

  2,707

  481,936

  0,6

  Coventry

  676

  155,060

  0.4

  Dudley

  830

  112,402

  0.7

  Sandwell

  2,966

  137,676

  2.2

  Solihull

  781

  90,603

  0.9

  Walsall

  822

  123,192

  0.7

  Wolverhampton

  157

  121,781

  0.1

  Knowsley

  97

  82,913

  0.1

  Liverpool

  334

  229,160

  0.1

  St. Helens

  62

  85,062

  0.1

  Sefton

  258

  128,750

  0.2

  Wirral

  882

  149,604

  0.6

  Bolton

  312

  116,752

  0.3

  Bury

  268

  79,172

  0.3

  Manchester

  n/a

  228,234

  n/a

  Oldham

  98

  114,020

  0.1

  Rochdale

  99

  91,563

  0.1

  Salford

  473

  95,098

  0.5

  Stockport

  6,328

  116,044

  5.5

  Tameside

  1,740

  91,012

  1.9

  Trafford

  191

  86,556

  0.2

  Wigan

  78

  131,580

  0.1

  Barnsley

  193

  89,309

  0.2

  Doncaster

  687

  137,447

  0.5

  Rotherham

  1,175

  118,246

  1.0

  Sheffield

  5,449

  198,400

  2.7

  Bradford

  n/a

  236,543

  n/a

  Calderdale

  348

  79,152

  0.4

  Kirklees

  1,124

  174,975

  0.6

  Leeds

  507

  303,660

  0.2

  Wakefield

  356

  130,009

  0.3

  Gateshead

  5,864

  88,358

  6.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3,383

  123,114

  2.7

  North Tyneside

  1,579

  83,108

  1.9

  South Tyneside

  2,146

  67,558

  3.2

  Sunderland

  801

  126,776

  0.6

  Isles of Scilly

  n/a

  1,325

  n/a

  Avon

  1,421

  395,791

  0.4

  Bedfordshire

  6,904

  238,055

  2.9

  Berkshire

  4,113

  286,230

  1.4

  Buckinghamshire

  934

  272,288

  0.3

  Cambridgeshire

  2,207

  251,033

  0.9

  Cheshire

  15,656

  423,757

  3.7

  Cleveland

  1,111

  256,574

  0.4

  Cornwall

  2,882

  193,145

  1.5

  Cumbria

  3,156

  188,098

  1.7

  Derbyshire

  2,236

  372,067

  0.6

  Devon

  1,401

  386,425

  0.4

  Dorset

  705

  219,426

  0.3

  Durham

  1,333

  256,604

  0.5

  East Sussex

  521

  256,923

  0.2

  Essex

  3,158

  498,636

  0.6

  Gloucestershire

  906

  175,559

  0.5

  Hampshire

  3,885

  581,475

  0.7

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,024

  257,975

  1.2

  Hertfordshire

  935

  412,363

  0.2

  Humberside

  n/a

  403,069

  n/a

  Isle of Wight

  326

  50,013

  0.7

  Kent

  31,152

  527,687

  5.9

  Lancashire

  3,599

  618,913

  0.6

  Leicestershire

  5,129

  400,635

  1.3

  Lincolnshire

  9,736

  202,982

  4.8

  Norfolk

  4,633

  283,294

  1.6

  North Yorkshire

  435

  290,381

  0.1

  238 239

  Expenditure on education other than at school

  A

  B

  C

  1993–94

  Gross expenditure on education other than at school£000

  Gross LEA expenditure£000

  A as a percentage of B Percentage

  Northamptonshire

  2,468

  220,838

  1.1

  Northumberland

  982

  137,770

  0.7

  Nottinghamshire

  1,119

  445,597

  0.3

  Oxfordshire

  n/a

  229,999

  n/a

  Shropshire

  409

  169,883

  0.2

  Somerset

  7,169

  193,130

  3.7

  Staffordshire

  1,677

  405,148

  0.4

  Suffolk

  1,379

  255,816

  0.5

  Surrey

  182

  361,684

  0.1

  Warwickshire

  324

  201,245

  0.2

  West Sussex

  593

  270,019

  0.2

  Wiltshire

  6,563

  218,048

  3.0

  Total

  237,057

  20,226,082

  1.2

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, (Mr. Blunkett) of 12 June,Official Report, column 417, if she will list separately for each inner, outer, and fringe London education authority and value per teacher of the London cost weighting allowance and the value of other incentives. [31978]

  Mr Robin Squire
  A teacher serving in the London area shall receive a London area allowance of:

  £1,950 per annum if he is serving in the inner-London area;

  £1,281 per annum if he is serving in the outer-London area; or

  £498 per annum if he is serving in the fringe area.

  The inner-London area means:
  Camden, City of London, Greenwich, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hackney, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth, Lewisham, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and Westminster and the areas of the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Brent, Ealing, Haringey, Merton and Newham;

  The outer-London area means:
  Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Croydon, Enfield, Harrow, Havering, Hounslow, Hillingdon, Kingston, Redbridge, Richmond, Sutton, Waltham Forest;

  The fringe area means:

  in Berkshire: the district of Bracknell, Slough and Windsor and Maidenhead;

  in Buckinghamshire: the Districts of South Buckinghamshire and Chiltern;

  in Essex: the districts of Basildon, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Harlow and Thurrock;

  in Hertfordshire: the districts of Broxbourne, Dacorum, East Hertfordshire, Hertsmere, St. Albans, Three Rivers, Watford and Welwyn Hatfield;

  in Kent: the districts of Dartford and Sevenoaks;

  in Surrey: the whole county; and

  in West Sussex: the district of Crawley;

  240
  A governing body may also award up to two points on the classroom teachers' pay spine, or three in inner London, to a teacher who is employed "to teach subjects in which there is a shortage of teachers" or "in a post which is difficult to fill". It is for the governing body to judge whether any teacher meets either of these criteria and, if so, whether to award one or more points. The value of points on the spine varies.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education which inner, outer, and fringe London education authorities, in compensating teachers for working in London, pay the inner-London supplement; and, which award extra points on the national wage scale for teachers' salaries. [31950]

  Mr. Squire
  New awards of the inner-London supplement—the discretionary additional supplement of £822 for teachers serving in the inner-London area—were discontinued from 1 September 1993 for classroom teachers and from 1 September 1994 for head teachers and deputies.

  Teachers in receipt of the supplement have a continuing entitlement to it for as long as they remain in the same post and provided they have not been awarded an extra point or points that overtake their current salary including the supplement.

  It is at the discretion of relevant bodies to decide whether to award an additional point or points. The relevant body in most cases is the governing body of a school with a delegated budget or a grant-maintained school. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of those governing bodies that have awarded such additional points.

  Capital Expenditure, Hampshire
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the average capital expenditure per pupil in Hampshire over each of the past four years in(a) local education authority schools and (b) grant-maintained schools. [31512]
  241
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Average capital expenditure per pupil in Hampshire in local education authority schools, for the last four years that information is available, is as follows:

  1990–91: £131.09

  1991–92: £113.85

  1992–93: £110.22

  1993–94: £129.65

  Average capital expenditure per pupil in Hampshire in grant-maintained schools is the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member with this information.

WALES

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what maximum period of time compensation schemes for council workers made redundant by local government reorganisation operate. [32184]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In Wales, the special scheme in part III of the Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy) Regulations 1994 will operate for all redundancies which occur in the period beginning on 1 January 1996 and ending on 31 March 1997 and which meet the conditions set out in the regulations.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the construction contract for the Cardiff Bay barrage. [32400]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I will arrange for a copy of the Balfour Beatty-Costain Construction contract documents, excluding commercially sensitive information and the support technical specifications and drawings, to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible. The contract document, specifications and drawings will also be available for inspection at Baltic house, Mount Stuart square, Cardiff, between 9 am and 5 pm Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays.

  NHS in Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members appointed and the vacancies remaining on the boards of(a) the UHW NHS trust in Cardiff, (b) the Cardiff Community Healthcare trust and (c) the University Dental Hospital trust, Cardiff. [32401]

  Mr. Richards
  The board members appointed and vacancies remaining are as follows:

  University Hospital of Wales Healthcare NHS Trust

  Mr. D. W. C. Morgan, chairman

  Mr. A. Stewart, chief executive

  Ms W. Hewitt-Sayer, executive director of nursing

  Mrs. M. K. Owen

  non-executive directors

  Mr. J. M. McLean

  Mr. T. Knowles

  Mr. D. J. E. Morgan

  Professor N. C. H. Stott

  Three executive director positions are vacant.
  242
  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. D. L. Crosby, chairman
  Five non-executive director and five executive director positions are vacant. An invitation for one of the non-executive positions has been issued.

  University Dental Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. A. S. Gould, chairman
  Mr. J. D. Griffiths non-executive director
  Professor S. R. Palmer non-executive director
  Two non-executive director and four executive director positions are vacant.

  Each trust has shadow executive directors in place where substantive appointments have yet to be made. Candidates for the remaining non-executive positions are now being interviewed and we hope to make announcements in the near future.

  Judicial Reviews
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applicants have been granted leave to apply for judicial review of his decisions in each of the last 10 years; how many have been unsuccessful; and what were the issues under scrutiny in each application. [32524]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: The information which can be given without disproportionate cost is as follows. Records show that, since 1986, there have been 28 cases involving applications for judicial review of the decisions of the Secretary of State for Wales. The applications mostly concern education, local government and the environment. It is not possible to say, without disproportionate cost, how many of these applications were unsuccessful.

TRANSPORT

  Manchester Ship Canal
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from Manchester city council about protecting the Manchester ship canal from the possible impact of proposals related to a proposed landfill tax; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement. [30996]

  Mr. Norris
  The leader of Manchester city council, Councillor Graham Stringer, wrote to my right hon. Friend about the effect of the proposed landfill tax on dredging operations on 15 June. My noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping replied on 3 July. Copies of the correspondence have been placed in the Library.

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if rail franchise holders will be permitted to increase seating capacity in order to meet Opraf specifications on load factor regulations for commuter trains; and if it will be permissible to do this by reducing seat pitch and leg room, or similar methods. [31900]

  Mr. Watts
  If a franchise operator amends the internal layout of his stock, the franchising director will reassess
  243
  its deemed capacity for the purposes of load factor regulation.

  Rolling Stock Companies
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the detailed description of long-term Government support which is to be made available to short-listed bidders to buy rolling stock companies. [31901]

  Mr. Watts
  Minutes describing undertakings in respect of mandatory modifications and of certain rentals, proposed to be made to the rolling stock companies, were laid before the House on 24 May. I shall arrange for copies to be placed in the Library.

  South West Trains
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many employees of South West Trains have been stood off awaiting selected work in each year since 1990; how many of those staff have subsequently been found employment in the railway service; and how many have left the railway service under ill health severance arrangements. [31902]

  Mr. Watts
  The information requested is not held centrally by the British Railways Board or South West Trains, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains his policy to franchise 51 per cent. of the rail passenger business by turnover by April 1996; and if he will list target dates for(a) invitations to tender, (b) submission of indicative bids, (c) short-listing of preferred bidders, (d) submission of definitive bidders, (e) completion of tender evaluation and (f) approval by Government, for each of the eight fast track franchises and for the west coast main line. [31898]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government have not changed their target. Invitations to tender in respect of Great Western, LTS Rail and South Wast Trains were issued on 17 May. Initial, non-binding bids are to be received by 28 July. Formal tenderers will be selected in September. The franchising director expects to award the first franchises in December. He will bring forward the remaining franchises as soon as they are ready. He aims to issue further invitations to tender later this year.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest assessment of the road safety of the A1 red route through Haringey and Islington; and if he will make a statement. [32224]

  Mr. Norris
  The assessment by the traffic director for London of the performance of the A1 pilot red route network continues to show that it has produced considerable safety benefits.

  Barking to Gospel Oak Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with Railtrack about the Barking to Gospel Oak line in respect of 244
  (a) track conditions, (b) frequency of train services and (c) the proposed new station at Tufnell Park; and if will make a statement. [32225]

  Mr. Norris
  I have travelled on the line with train operator management and Railtrack representatives, among others, to see how the service can be improved.

  As part of last year's transport policies and programmes settlement, I reserved £200,000 in supplementary credit approval for a consortium led by the London borough of Waltham Forest towards selective station improvements on the line.

  I understand that the consortium plans to use the SCA to take forward improvements at Leytonstone high road and Wanstead Park stations.

  Railway Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of(a) the former Regional Railways, (b) the former Intercity railways and (c) the former Network SouthEast were affected by speed restrictions for each year between 1984 and 1994. [32403]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack informs me that this information is not held centrally and would involve disproportionate cost to collect.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for transport what estiamte he has been given by the Highways Agency of the likely date of delivery to him of the final report on the A34 Newbury bypass. [32415]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell, on 5 July.

  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long, to the nearest week, he now expects his consideration of the case for proceeding with the A34 Newbury bypass to last. [33219]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Last December, I announced that, before construction work began on the A34 Newbury bypass, further consideration would be given to the proposed route. I had no doubt that the current situation on the A34 was intolerable and that there was strong economic justification for a bypass. But I wanted to be sure of the environmental balance between the principal route alternatives and to confirm that the route proposed was the best solution to the problems of congestion in Newbury.

  Congestion has got much worse since the public inquiry in 1988. Then there were about 40,000 vehicles a day on the A34 through Newbury. Recent counts show an increase of 25 per cent. in overall traffic levels. Forecasts suggest that traffic flows will reach between 65,000 and 78,000 vehicles per day by the year 2010. The inquiry heard evidence of peak hour delays of up to 30 minutes. Longer delays are not unusual now.

  A team of Highways Agency staff not previously associated with the scheme undertook this further consideration and has reported to me. I have placed a copy of its report in the Library.
  245
  As the report makes clear, the team examined both the background to the scheme and the changes in appraisal techniques, local circumstances and traffic and economic data that have occurred since the inquiry and the subsequent decisions of the Secretaries of State.

  Among these matters, the team gave attention to:

  the closure of Greenham Common air base, which opens up the possibility of a new Eastern route;

  the expected designation of new sites of special scientific interest in the valleys of the Rivers Kennet and Lambourn;

  protected species on the line of the announced route;

  new archaeological data and the heritage value of the site of the 1643 Battle of Newbury;

  the scope for induced traffic as a result of the bypass;

  all central route options through the built-up area of Newbury, despite the fact that the inspector at the public inquiry had unequivocally rejected a central route;

  lower levels of improvement of the existing road.

  I have carefully considered all the changes and other factors addressed in the team's report, the scope for alternative options to those examined at the public inquiry, and the balance between all the options. I have also taken into account all the advice that I have been given and representations I have received since this study was inaugurated.

  I agree with the team's assessments, and with its overall conclusion that the western bypass, for which statutory orders have been made and confirmed, is the most effective solution for Newbury. I now intend to move ahead speedily with the proposed scheme to bring much-needed relief to the town and its residents. On the basis of the team's report and the work leading up to the earlier decision, I can see no justification for further investigation or delay.

  Highway Code
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been(a) the annual sales of the road traffic regulations and (b) the annual sales of the Highway Code for each year since 1965. [32208]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Traffic Studies (A34)
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what grounds he decided not to publish the recent study into traffic on the A34 between Hinksey hill and the Peartree interchange. [32032]

  Mr. Watts
  Publication of the report could cause unnecessary anxiety about property blight.

  A1-M1 Link Road
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the estimated cost of the A1-M1 link road and the level of bids received. [31723]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked its chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  246
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Spellar, dated 5 July 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of States for Transport if he will make a statement on the estimated cost of A1-M1 link road and the level of bids received.The estimated cost of the scheme is £190m at 1992 prices excluding VAT and land. Details of the bids are commercially confidential.

  Atlantic Conveyor
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial contribution his Department made towards the lengthening of the Atlantic Conveyor in 1987. [31727]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Cunard Steamship Co., concerning the company's intention to sell off the Atlantic Conveyor to a foreign owner, replace the United Kingdom seafarers on board and remove it from the United Kingdom registry. [31909]

  Mr. Norris
  There have been no discussions with the Department.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what commitment his Department sought from Cunard Steamship Co. in respect of continued United Kingdom registration for the replacement vessel Atlantic Conveyor, prior to the Ministry of Defence making a financial contribution towards its construction. [31754]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list militarily useful modification required to be made to the replacement Atlantic Conveyor during construction to enhance its defence capability; and what is the cost of each. [31753]

  Mr. Soames
  I have been asked to reply.

  Militarily useful modifications made to the Atlantic Conveyor comprised: detached flight deck equipment and fittings, portable watertight bulkhead panels, aviation refuelling system, pipework to permit replenishment at sea, military communications equipment and PA system. The cost of the modifications were part of the contract with Cunard, details of which are commercially confidential.

  Sycamore Trees, Bramshott
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the destruction of the memorial avenue of sycamore trees at Bramshott on the A3 Portsmouth road. [31724]

  Mr. Watts
  The trees, planted as a memorial to Canadian service men, were removed in the interest of road safety and the long-term health of the roadside environment. The decision to remove the trees was taken only after extensive consultations with interested parties, including the Canadian high commission.
  247
  To ensure that a memorial was retained, new plantations of maple trees imported from Canada have been provided on both sides of the A3 at Bramshott common. All the replacement trees are visible from the trunk road and accessible to the public. Wood from the felled trees is being used to make seats which will be presented to local churches and the national memorial arboretum. A seat will also be placed within the newly planted area.

  The need to fell the trees was very much regretted but I hope everyone concerned will agree that the new memorial is an appropriate and fitting commemoration of those Canadians who lost their lives in the two world wars.

  Car Share Initiatives
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the car share initiatives being operated for employees within his Department. [31830]

  Mr. Norris
  While departmental staff may make private arrangements to share commuting journeys by private car, the only part of the Department of Transport that operates a scheme is the Driving Standards Agency. Its scheme covers one quarter of its management areas.

  A1 Upgrading
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was his Department's estimate of the cost of upgrading the A1 between Peterborough and Alconbury; and what have been the bids made under the design-build-finance operate scheme. [31722]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Spellar, dated 5 July 1995:

  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what was his Department's estimate of the cost of upgrading the A1 between Peterborough and Alconbury; and what have been the bids made under the Design-Build-Finance-Operate scheme.

  The project had an estimated construction cost of £144 million (excluding VAT) based on 1992 prices. Details of bids received cannot be divulged because they are commercially confidential.

  Road Protestors
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total cost to public funds of the recent operation to remove protestors from the last house in Fillebrook road, Leytonstone. [31944]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 5 July 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for London, Mr. Steven Norris, has asked me to write in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the costs to public funds of evictions from 135 Fillebrook Road, Leytonstone in connection with the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 Link Road.
  248
  The operation took place only on June 21st, and so far we have identified only the costs of the Under Sheriff and his Officers and of the Treasury Solicitor and their disbursements. These amount to £239,349.52 in total.
  This leaves the cost of security guards and I will let you have the figure as soon as we have been billed. The other major cost is of course for police resources, and as such not a matter for the Highways Agency.
  No additional HA or consultant staff were employed specifically for the purposes of the eviction, and so we have not attributed any of our overhead costs to it.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32478]

  Mr. Norris
  Expenditure is as follows:

  Year

  Total1

  DOT Road Safety Campaigns1

  DVLA (a)

  DVLA (b)

  1985–86

  5,655

  5,375

  0.280

  0

  1986–872

  9,267

  8,777

  0.490

  0

  1987–882

  9,435

  8,905

  0.530

  0

  1988–89

  3,294

  2,619

  0.675

  0

  1989–90

  4,255

  3,531

  0.724

  0

  1990–91

  3,879

  2,791

  0.649

  0.438

  1991–92

  5,832

  4,666

  0.676

  0.490

  1992–93

  6,996

  5,758

  0.746

  0.492

  1993–94

  5,814

  4,245

  0.870

  0.699

  1994–95

  6,008

  4,518

  0.890

  0.600

  Road Safety: advertising to reduce number of road accidents by specifically targeted campaigns against speeding and drink driving.

  DVLA (a): Enforcement of Vehicle Excise Duty—extensive localised publicity for raising public awareness to the penalties of vehicle excise duty evasion and to encourage motorists to relicense their vehicles.

  DVLA (b): Sale of Vehicle registration numbers scheme—publicity to increase awareness of the sales scheme and the different product ranges.

  1 All DOT advertising figures exclude VAT.

  2 Includes BA and BAA flotation advertising costs.

  Figures prior to prior to 1985 are not readily available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Patent Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how successful the marketing department of the Patent Office has been in recent years according to the Patent Office corporate plans; and if he will make a statement. [32358]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Since the Patent Office became an executive agency in 1990, the work of its marketing department has concentrated on spreading awareness of the importance of intellectual property rights—for example, through advertising campaigns and roadshows. Outputs have been monitored against budgets set, and quality assessed through feedback invited from customers. On both counts, the marketing department has consistently achieved its objectives. However, the effect of its work on demand for Patent Office services could
  249
  not be quantified, since it has not possible to differentiate it from other determinants such as the economic climate and changes in the speed of innovation cycles.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to contract out the work of the marketing department of the Patent Office, and if he will make a statement. [32348]

  Mr. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated in his announcement of the outcome of the Patent Office review on 14 December 1994,Official Report, column 657–58 that the office would be encouraged to contract out activities wherever this is compatible with its statutory role and good value for money. Consultants have been retained to explore market potential for Patent Office services, focusing on demand for non-statutory services such as commercial searches and technical advice, and means of realising it. Contractorisation of marketing and information work is therefore a possibility, but the consultants have not yet reported and no decisions have yet been taken.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what procedures are in place for the consultation with Patent Office employees concerning contractorisation and re-engineering within the office; and if he will make a statement. [32349]

  Mr. Taylor
  The chief executive of the Patent Office and other senior managers met all staff in small groups following the outcome of the Patent Office review, and discussed issues of contractorisation and reengineering at that time. Another round of discussion will take place later in the summer. The trade unions have been notified of the appointment of consultants to consider selected areas, and contract officers have been identified.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his most recent judgment concerning the eligibility of the Patent Office employees to make bids for work put to tender by the Patent Office; and if he will make a statement. [32356]

  Mr. Taylor
  Certain areas of work within the Patent Office are being considered to see whether—in principle—contracting out would be feasible. No tenders have yet been issued. Should tenders be invited, staff may enter a bid on the same basis as the private sector, with the corollary that they will cease to be civil servants if their bid is successful. Bids for contracted out services will be assessed against benchmarks for the forecast cost and quality of service from in-house provision, and so staff already have the opportunity to prove that they can match or beat the private sector if the services remain in-house.

  Official Receiver, Hull Office
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcy orders and winding up orders have been dealt with by the official receiver's office, Hull, in each of the last six years. [32508]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The total numbers of new bankruptcy orders and winding up orders dealt with by the official receiver, Hull office in each of the last six years were as follows:250

  Year ended 31 March

  Bankruptcies

  Winding ups

  1990

  168

  55

  1991

  322

  116

  1992

  555

  123

  1993

  645

  140

  1994

  579

  135

  1995

  488

  104

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many casual staff have been employed in the official receiver's office, Hull, in each of the last six years. [32509]

  Mr. Evans
  The numbers of casual staff employed at the official receiver, Hull office as at 1 April in each of the last six years were as follows:

  Year

  Number of casual staff

  1 April 1990

  0

  1 April 1991

  1

  1 April 1992

  2

  1 April 1993

  2

  1 April 1994

  2

  1 April 1995

  3

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many directors were disqualified under the Directors Disqualification Act 1986 in each of the courts covered by the official receiver's office, Hull, in each of the last four years. [32588]

  Mr. Evans
  The numbers of disqualification orders made under section 6 of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 in the Great Grimsby, Kingston-upon-Hull, Scarborough, Scunthorpe and York courts covered by the official receiver, Hull office in each of the last four years were as follows:

  Year ended 31 March

  Number of orders made

  1992

  2

  1993

  2

  1994

  3

  1995

  1

  Official Receiver
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to prevent the directors and shareholders of Shreeveport Ltd., or any of their associates, as defined by section 435 of the Insolvency Act 1986, from bidding for any of the contracts for privatising any of the functions of the official receiver.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The terms of the contract between Shreeveport Ltd. and the Insolvency Service prevent directors and shareholders of Shreeveport, or any of their associates, from bidding for any of the functions of the official receiver.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consideration he is giving to the recommendation of Stoy Hayward Consulting on using a pilot scheme to evaluate whether the contracting out
  251
  of the functions of the official receiver will give increased value for money. [32605]

  Mr. Evans
  The recommendation of Stoy Hayward Consulting was carefully considered, but it was concluded that a pilot scheme would not provide a sufficiently reliable indication of the likely value for money of contracting out across all official receiver's offices.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in what circumstances he will be prepared to contract out the investigatory function of the official receiver following the enabling order. [32598]

  Mr. Evans
  There is no intention to contract out any functions of the official receiver other than those currently being considered.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his policy in respect of the Stoy Hayward Consulting recommendation that the functions of the official receiver should be contracted out only to insolvency practitioners. [32586]

  Mr. Evans
  Stoy Hayward Consulting concluded from its work that insolvency practitioners were the most likely candidates for contracting out of official receivers' functions, but the invitation for expressions of interest was not restricted to insolvency practitioners.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the likely benefits he expects if the work of the official receiver is contracted out. [32582]

  Mr. Evans
  The decision to explore the viability of contracting out the functions of the official receiver was based on the potential for increased value for money and advice that contracting out would allow official receivers to concentrate more on their investigative effort.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, when a contractor becomes insolvent, the official receiver awarding the contract will become personally liable for any losses incurred, in the event of part of the function of the official receiver being contracted out. [32590]

  Mr. Evans
  Pursuant to the provisions of section 72 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, official receivers will remain liable at law for the proper discharge of their function.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how he intends to inform Insolvency Service staff of the developments towards contracting out functions of official receivers. [32507]

  Mr. Evans
  A communications strategy is in place within the Insolvency Service with the aim of keeping staff up to date with the progress of the contracting out exercise.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if contractors will be required to purchase or lease the LOIS computer system in the event of the functions of the official receiver being contracted out. [32511]

  Mr. Evans
  No, but there will be minimum mandatory requirements as to compatibility and interfacing between any office systems which providers propose to use and the Insolvency Service's system.
  252
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if indemnity, required from contractors awarded the work of official receivers, will include provision for any losses incurred by official receivers as a result of fraudulent behaviour by the contractor or a member of his staff. [32602]

  Mr. Evans
  Any form of indemnity required from contractors undertaking the functions of the official receivers would need to provide for all liabilities, however arising, falling on the official receiver in relation to those functions.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contingency plans he will have in place if, in the event of the privatisation of parts of the Insolvency Service, a contractor responsible for carrying out the functions of the official receiver becomes insolvent. [32604]

  Mr. Evans
  Any contracting out of official receivers' functions will proceed only where value for money is assured and any such calculation will take into account the financial standing of potential contractors. Contracting out to a number of contractors would enable alternate providers to be used in the event of one becoming insolvent.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the addresses of each official receiver's office or sub-office, showing whether the properties leasehold, rented or freehold and, where appropriate, the length of any remaining issue. [32581]

  Mr. Evans
  The addresses of the offices of official receivers, including sub-offices showing lease/freehold details are:

  Office

  Address

  Status

  Remaining lease

  Birmingham

  Commercial Union House, Martineau Square, Birmingham B2 4UP

  Leasehold

  24 June 2018

  Due to move later this year to

  Ladywood House, 45–46 Stephenson Street, Birmingham B2 4DQ

  Leasehold

  24 June 2018

  Bournemouth (sub-office of Southampton)

  3rd Floor, Bristol and West House, Post Office Road, Bournemouth BH1 1LH

  Leasehold

  28 September 1998

  Brighton

  69 Middle Street, Brighton East, Sussex BN1 1BE

  Leasehold

  27 July 2013

  Bristol

  3rd and 4th Floors, Intercity House, Mitchell Lane, Bristol BS1 6BD

  Leasehold

  24 December 2001

  Cambridge (sub-office of Northampton)

  2nd Floor, Abbeygate House, 164–167 East Road, Cambridge CB1 1DB

  Leasehold

  24 March 2012

  Canterbury (sub-office of Rochester)

  50 New Dover Road, Canterbury CT1 3DT

  Leasehold

  23 June 1995

  Cardiff

  3rd Floor, Hayes House, The Hayes, Cardiff CF1 2UG

  Leasehold

  28 September 2008

  253

  Office

  Address

  Status

  Remaining lease

  Chester (sub-office of Stoke)

  Dee Hills Park, Chester CH3 5AR

  Freehold

  —

  Croydon

  5th Floor, Sunley House, Bedford Park, Croydon CR9 1TX

  Leasehold

  18 September 2005

  Exeter (sub-office of Plymouth)

  3rd Floor, Finance House, Barnfield Road, Exeter EX1 1QR

  Leasehold

  28 August 2001

  Gloucester (sub-office of Bristol)

  21–23 London Road, Gloucester GL1 3HB

  Leasehold

  30 April 2017

  Hull

  Suite J, Anchor House, The Mailings, Silvester Street, Hull HU1 3HA

  Leasehold

  19 September 2016

  Ipswich (sub-office of Norwich)

  St. Clare House, Greyfriars, Ipswich IP1 1LX

  Leasehold

  31 July 2013

  Leeds

  2nd Floor, Savile House, Trinity Street Arcade, Leeds LS1 6QP

  Leasehold

  24 December 1995

  Leicester

  5th Floor, Haymarket House, Haymarket Centre, Leicester LE1 3YS

  Leasehold

  28 September 2004

  Liverpool

  2nd Floor, Cunard Building, Pier Head, Liverpool L3 1DS

  Leasehold

  30 September 2005

  London

  21 Bloomsbury Street, London WC1B 3SS

  Leasehold

  24 December 2013

  London Support Unit

  4th Floor, Somerset House, 37 Temple Street, Birmingham B2 5DV

  Leasehold

  30 September 2000

  Manchester

  Townbury House, 11 Blackfriars Street, Salford M3 5AB

  Leasehold

  26 July 2000

  Newcastle

  3rd Floor, Westgate House, Westgate Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1TU

  Leasehold

  24 March 2000

  Northampton

  90 Abington Street, Northampton NN1 2BX

  Leasehold

  28 September 1996

  Norwich

  Emmanuel House, 2 Convent Road, Norwich NR2 1PA

  Leasehold

  28 February 2021

  Nottingham (sub-office of Leicester)

  Severns House, 20 Middle Pavement, Nottingham NG1 7EP

  Leasehold

  23 June 1995

  Plymouth

  1st Floor, Prudential Building, 115 Armada Way, Plymouth PL1 1HW

  Leasehold

  29 September 1995

  Reading

  1st Floor, 47 Friar Street, Reading RG1 1RY

  23 March 2000

  254

  Office

  Address

  Status

  Remaining lease

  Rochester

  Gordon House, 15 Star Hill, Rochester ME1 1TX

  Freehold

  —

  St. Albans

  1st Floor, Trident House, 42–48 Victoria Street, St. Albans AL1 3HR

  Leasehold

  28 February 2016

  St. Annes

  Petros House, St. Andrews Road, North Lytham St. Annes FY8 2JB

  Leasehold

  24 May 2014

  Sheffield

  6th Floor, Don House, 20–22 Hawley Street, Sheffield S1 2EA

  Leasehold

  31 December 1997

  Southampton

  Western Range, 83–85 London Road, Southampton SO15 2SH

  Freehold

  —

  Southend

  2nd Floor, Tylers House, Tylers Avenue, Southend on Sea, Essex SS1 2AX

  Freehold

  —

  Stockton (sub-office of Newcastle)

  Bayheath House, Prince Regent Street, Stockton on Tees TS18 1DF

  Leasehold

  28 September 2001

  Stoke

  London House, Hide Street, Stoke on Trent ST4 1QN

  Leasehold

  24 March 1999

  Swansea

  5th Floor, Sun Alliance House, 166–167 St. Helens Road, Swansea SA1 5DL

  Leasehold

  24 March 2006

  None of the leaseholds are currently held by the Insolvency Service: the freeholds are held by the Crown.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many expressions of interest he has received after advertising the contracting out of the functions of the official receiver, distinguishing those received from insolvency practitioners and those received from other interested parties. [32585]

  Mr. Evans
  Some 149 expressions of interest were received, of which 117 were from insolvency practitioners.

  Gas
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what percentage targets of non-British Gas supply to both commercial and consumer markets his Department will assess the success of the Gas Bill by(a) 1998, (b) 2000 and (c) 2005; and if his Department will review (i) the competitive restrictions on British Gas plc and (ii) its relationship with British Gas TransCo if these targets are not met. [30088]

  Mr. Eggar
  The regulatory framework proposed in the Gas Bill and accompanying licensing regime is intended to give all gas suppliers the opportunity to supply the market on fair and equal terms. It is not consistent with this objective to set targets for the loss of market share by one particular supplier.
  255
  The regulatory framework we propose, together with normal competition law, provides mechanisms for the Secretary of State and the director general to consider, as necessary and in accordance with their respective roles, the appropriateness of particular licence conditions— whether standard or specific to British Gas—and the relationship of British Gas TransCo to the British Gas trading businesses.

  Ofgas
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if procedures and criteria by which decisions are arrived at by the Director General of Ofgas will be(a) published and (b) made available to those affected by the decision. [30071]

  Mr. Eggar
  The director general has adopted a policy of consulting where practicable before taking decisions and setting out in such consultation the basis of her proposed approach. This policy, executed within the framework of the director's statutory duties, is one which the Government supports.

  British Gas
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which companies will hold legacy transportation contracts with British Gas plc on 1 October; and when these contracts will expire. [30072]

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a commercially confidential matter for British Gas and its contractual partners.

  Economic League
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what information his Department receives from the Economic League; and if he will make a statement. [31680]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The DTI has had no dealings with the Economic League and has received no information from it.

  Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the use of recycled materials in the manufacturing processes of United Kingdom companies. [32455]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 22 May 1995,Official Report, column 423.

  British Airways
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with British Airways on its sourcing of aeroplanes and engines from non-European Union countries. [32453]

  Mr. Eggar
  None.

  Aircraft Engines
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the effect on the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the United States of America of the decision to buy Boeing 727 aircraft with United States rather than United Kingdom—manufactured engines. [32454]
  256
  Mr. Eggar
  None. The Boeing 727 aircraft, which first flew in 1963, were all powered by US manufacture Pratt and Whitney JT and D engines. No UK carriers ordered new Boeing 727s and thus there was no effect on the UK's balance of trade.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32479]

  Mr. Heseltine
  The Department of Trade and Industry works with the Central Office of Information, which manages media advertising on behalf of central Government.

  Expenditure since 1979 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, total advertising expenditure by the Department through the COI for the past five years is:

  Year

  1990–91: £5,496,898

  1991–92: £798,527

  1992–93: £1,120,539

  1993–94: £606,338

  1994–95: £501,146

  Major campaigns each year during this time have been as follows:

  1990–91

  Enterprise Initiative

  Single Market

  Queens Award

  1991–92

  Single Market

  SMART

  1992–93

  Business in Europe

  Export Services

  Queens Award

  SMART

  1993–94

  Business in Europe

  SMART

  Queens Award

  1994–95

  SMART

  Overseas Trade Services

  Queens Award

  RECHAR
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the east midlands RECHAR II decision document was due to be signed by the European Commission; what delays have occurred; what outstanding issues are yet to be resolved; what reasons are given by the Commission for any such delays; when he expects the decision document will be signed; and if he will make a statement. [31685]
  257
  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: In common with all the Community initiatives programmes sent by member states by the deadline of 31 October 1994 set in the relevant European Commission notice of 1 July, the east midlands RECHAR II programme should have been adopted by 30 April 1995. The process was delayed by the tardy initial response by the Commission to the programme. The Commission wrote on 13 February 1995. The Commission has, in discussions with officials, stated that delays are due to delays in the negotiations of member states' objective 2 and objective 5(b) single programme documents and Community support framework and the large number of Community initiative programmes sent by member states.

  I understand that there are no outstanding issues on the east midlands RECHAR II programme and the Commission expect to adopt the programme by the end of July.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made towards peace in the middle east. [30911]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) earlier.

  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Israeli foreign minister to discuss developments in the middle east peace process. [30924]

  Mr. Hogg
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Israeli Foreign Minister at the end of March when they discussed the peace process. He currently has no plans to meet Mr. Peres.

  Security Council Resolutions
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to improve the effectiveness of the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions as they relate to the former Yugoslavia. [30913]

  Mr. Hurd
  We are committed to the Security Council resolutions in relation to all countries of the former Yugoslavia. We are major contributors to UNPROFOR and are increasing its effectiveness by providing additional British troops to create a rapid reaction force. We are playing our full part in sanctions enforcement, and are providing a total of 26 monitors to the international conference on former Yugoslavia, ICFY.

  We are putting our full weight behind the peace process and welcome the appointment of Mr. Bildt as EU mediator. His appointment and the deployment of the rapid reaction force have created a window of opportunity. It is up to the parties to seize this moment and come to a negotiated settlement, accepting the contact group plan as a starting point.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be prepared to consider handing over any further powers to the European Union and its institutions as part of the negotiations during next year's intergovernmental conference. [30914]

  Mr. David Davis
  We see no case for any extension of Community competence at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.

  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about preparations for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. [30915]

  Mr. Davis
  We are continuing to develop Britain's approach to the intergovernmental conference. The study group which will prepare for the IGC has begun its work. Its next meeting is on 10 and 11 July.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the civil war in southern Sudan. [30916]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We fully support the peace initiative launched last year by the intergovernmental authority for drought and development, IGADD. I expressed concern about the civil war during a meeting with the Sudanese Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 22 May, and urged the Sudanese Government to persevere with the IGADD initiative.

  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Sudan. [30930]

  Mr. Hogg
  We continue to be concerned about the lamentable human rights situation in the Sudan. I raised this with the Sudanese Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in a meeting on 22 May.

  Japanese Diet (Apology)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the statement of apology recently discussed by the Japanese Diet; and if he will make a statement. [30918]

  Mr. Hurd
  We attach importance to the apology given to the Prime Minister in September 1993 by his Japanese counterpart, which included specific reference to prisoners of war. The recent statement by the Japanese Diet is a more general expression of "deep remorse".

  Cyprus
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Cyprus. [30919]

  Mr. David Davis
  The present division of Cyprus is unacceptable. We are actively supporting the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices which offers the best hope for a just and lasting solution.
  259
  Exploratory discussions between representatives of the two communities in Cyprus took place in London on 21 to 23 May. We are encouraging both sides in Cyprus to approach future negotiations positively and flexibly.

  Governmental Relations (Iran and Iraq)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British Government's relations with Iraq and Iran during the 1980s. [30920]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The UK's relations with both Iran and Iraq during the 1980s were difficult. The Iranian Government's policies after the 1979 revolution were hostile to our interests. We had a series of problems with Iraq. The Iran-Iraq war was a further complication.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Kashmir. [30921]

  Mr. Baldry
  The Indian Government have recently extended President's rule over the state of Jammu and Kashmir for six months from mid-July. They have made it clear that they will try to hold state elections within that period. We hope that such elections could provide a first step towards the genuine political process for which we have long called.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out Her Majesty Government's policy in respect of Kashmir. [30925]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our position is unchanged. We continue to believe that the best way forward on Kashmir should involve simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement, improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political process there and a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir. We stand ready to offer our good offices to help resolve the dispute if both sides so wish.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent review of monitoring of the BBC World Service. [30922]

  Mr. Baldry
  A review of BBC monitoring, the first in recent years, was carried out in 1994 by a joint team from the BBC, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. The review concluded that BBC monitoring continues to play a valuable role and should be retained, but recommended improvements to the marketing and distribution of its products. From 1997, BBC monitoring will no longer be funded from the grant in aid to the BBC World Service. Instead, official users will pay a subscription, based on their individual requirements. Monitoring will remain part of the BBC, as a fully trading business unit. The FCO will remain the sponsoring Government Department.

  These decisions have been agreed with the BBC.

  Angola
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Angolan Foreign Minister to discuss the situation in that country. [30923]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker had talks with Dr. Venancio de Moura during a visit to Angola on 19 to 21 June. She also had meetings with President Dos Santos, Prime Minister Moco, other Ministers and senior representatives of UNITA. All assured her of their commitment to a successful conclusion to the peace process.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the response to the Government's initiative to build up the Western European Union within the Atlantic Alliance. [30926]

  Mr. David Davis
  The proposals set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 1 March have been welcomed by WEU and NATO member Governments as a demonstration of our readiness to play an active and constructive role in this area. WEU Ministers, meeting in Lisbon on 15 May, welcomed our ideas, together with those put forward by other nations, as a significant contribution to the forthcoming debate at the intergovernmental conference.

  Arms Exports
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on arms exports. [30927]

  Mr. David Davis
  It is our policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. We observe strict responsibility in our defence exports. We consider applications for licences to export defence equipment on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria including the international guidelines to which we are committed.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with that part of the former Yugoslavia comprising Serbia and Montenegro. [30928]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We do not recognise the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). We will review our position in the light of developments in the peace process.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he has obtained from the Chinese Government that press freedom and trade union rights will be respected in Hong Kong after 1 July 1997. [30929]
  261
  Mr. Baldry
  Under the Sino-British joint declaration, the Government of the future Hong Kong special administrative region shall maintain the rights and freedoms provided for by the laws previously in force in Hong Kong. The declaration explicitly protects freedom of the press, freedom to form and join trade unions, and freedom to strike.

  Russia
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met members of the Russian Government to discuss human rights in that country. [30931]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend last met Foreign Minister Kozyrev on 7 June when he made clear our concerns about human rights abuses in Chechnya. There was a detailed exchange on the general human rights situation at official level in Moscow in April. A further such exchange with the Russians will take place here in July.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Britain's relations with Russia. [30898]

  Mr. Hurd
  Russia, and our relationship with Russia, have been transformed in the last six years. We are now dealing with a Russia where democracy is putting down strong roots, where the press is free and where the rules of the market increasingly prevail. Russia has become a valued partner in tackling some of the international problems which confront us.

  Britain has played a central role in this process of change. We helped redesign Europe's security arrangements, through the 4+2 process, after the collapse of the Berlin wall. We have pressed for a strong and productive relationship between Russia and NATO, which led to Russia joining the partnership for peace process in May. We have worked together closely over Bosnia, as members of the contact group. We have supported Russian involvement in the annual economic summits.

  Britain has offered practical support for Russian reform through the know-how fund—widely regarded as the best of its kind. We have also led the debate in Europe on the need to open our markets to Russian exports. I hope this will be crowned by the signature of the interim agreement later this month.

  Our relations with Russia have never been better in this century. They have been strongly reinforced by the Prime Minister's close personal relationship with President Yeltsin and by Her Majesty the Queen's dramatic state visit to Russia last year.

  Gibraltar
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Administration of Gibraltar in respect of the United Kingdom's requirements in relation to the Gibraltar banking system. [30932]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have discussed with the Chief Minister, Mr. Bossano, the importance of Gibraltar's banking and financial services industry having the highest 262
  reputation of honesty and probity if it is to flourish and make the important contribution to Gibraltar's economy which both he and I want to see.

  European Institutions
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what powers he seeks to repatriate from European institutions. [30917]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are still considering our approach on a range of issues for next year's inter-governmental conference, including the possible limitation and repatriation of Community competences.

  Arms Control
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals have been put forward to date, and what new proposals are planned, to fulfil the commitment made in the chairman's statement from the G7 summit in Halifax, at paragraph 5 of the sections on arms control and disarmament, to work with other G7 nations to strengthen systems of control, accounting and physical security of nuclear materials and the International Atomic Energy Agency. [31874]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UK has discussed the problems of nuclear smuggling on a number of occasions with G7 partners and Russia. In our view, it is important to ensure adequate systems of nuclear materials accountancy and control and physical protection. We have offered bilateral assistance to a number of countries in this area. At the Halifax summit, it was agreed that a nuclear safety conference should be held early next year which is likely to consider what further role the G7 and Russia can play in this.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32484]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Figures for total expenditure on promotional material and recruitment advertising in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—diplomatic wing and ODA—are as given in my written answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 13 February 1995. The FCO produces most of its advertising and publicity material in-house. Details of expenditure incurred on advertising agencies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the involvement of the United Kingdom in Bosnia has so far cost the United Kingdom. [32445]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have so far contributed over £271 million in aid to the former Yugoslavia—£136 million bilaterally and £135 million through the European Union—and incurred net costs of £292 million for our contribution to UNPROFOR and the Sarajevo airlift. Our commitments to NATO's Deny Flight operation and to
  263
  Operation Sharp Guard have been £33 million and £1 million respectively. In addition, we have contributed £10.9 million towards the European Community monitoring mission and £1.1 million to the international conference on former Yugoslavia.

  There have been other costs to our involvement in the former Yugoslavia, but this information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Opt-outs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many opt-outs for the United Kingdom have been agreed with the European Union. [32037]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: Under protocol No. 11 of the treaty on European union, the United Kingdom is not obliged or committed to move to stage three of European monetary union. Under protocol No. 14 of the same treaty, the member states can agree that all except the United Kingdom could, under a separate agreement between themselves, take acts and decisions to give effect to their agreement on social policy. No such act would be applicable to the United Kingdom, nor would the United Kingdom bear any consequent budgetary burden other than administrative costs of the institutions.

  Consular Fees
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase consular fees. [33124]

  Mr. Baldry
  An Order in Council, the Consular Fees Order 1995, made on 28 June, provides for increases between 17 per cent. and 100 per cent. in certain consular fees with effect from 20 July, 1995. A new entry clearance fee for multiple entries, valid for one year, will be introduced on the same date. It is Government policy that the cost of the consular services should be borne by users as far as possible.

  Libya
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the granting of visas to citizens of Libya. [30892]

  Mr. Baldry
  I can confirm that Libyan nationals are required to obtain visas before they can enter the UK. All applications are considered under the immigration rules HC 395.

  Apart from transit passengers, remaining airside, and business visitors previously issued with visas in the past six months, all applications received from Libyan nationals are referred to the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. Applicants over the age of 16 are required to sign a declaration of non-violence before being granted a visa.

  Libyan nationals can be granted only single entry visas.

  The British interests section in Tripoli offers a limited visa service and accepts applications from diplomats, officials and urgent medical and family reunion applications from close family members. Applicants for
  264
  visit visas can apply at any other British overseas mission designed to issue visas. Applicants for other categories should apply to Valletta. A list of designated posts is held in the Library of the House.

  East Timor
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, columns 382–83, what meetings there have been between the British embassy staff and representatives of the East Timorese people; which leaders they met; and if discussions were conducted about the export of British arms to Indonesia. [32618]

  Mr. Goodlad
  A member of the British embassy staff last visited East Timor on 27–29 June 1995. He had meetings with a number of East Timorese leaders, covering the range of Timorese opinion.

  We have regular meetings with East Timorese representatives in East Timor, in Indonesia and elsewhere. For instance, I met Ramos Horta and Abilio Araujo, at their request, earlier this year in London.

  South Africa
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given by Her Majesty's Government to the encouragement of multi-party democracy and good community relations in South Africa. [30896]

  Mr. Hurd
  South Africa's transformation to full democracy is one of the most welcome developments of recent years. Britain's support for the new South Africa was shown by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit last September, and by Her Majesty the Queen's dramatic state visit in March. South Africa will be warmly welcomed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November, after 33 years' absence from the Commonwealth.

  Britain is helping the new South Africa through promotion of trade and investment, strengthening of scientific, defence, cultural and sporting links, and through development assistance. We helped with preparations for the elections of April 1994, and will help with the local elections in November this year. I also welcome strengthening parliamentary links—including the visit by a delegation of hon. Members in April, and the plans by Madam Speaker to visit in August. I look forward to growing co-operation between Britain and South Africa in the years ahead.

DEFENCE

  Maintenance Group Defence Agency
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key management targets of the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency for the financial year 1995–96. [33125]
  265
  Mr. Soames
  The RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency's key management targets for 1995–96 concentrate on three principal objectives:

  (a) The effective performance of the group.

  (b) the economic use of resources.

  (c) The introduction of management initiatives.

  The group's targets are:

  (a) To achieve at least 98 per cent. of the specified aerosystems maintenance task to standard and on time.

  (b) To achieve the joint service publication 336 "Defence Supply Manual" speed of issue and pipeline targets for at least 95 per cent. of the depot supply task.

  (c) to keep within the group's allocated budget.

  (d)To reduce the cost per unit of output by 2.5 per cent.

  (e) To issue the invitation to tender, under the "Competing for Quality" initiative, for the designated functions at RAF Sealand by 31 October 1995 and at RAF St. Athan by 1 March 1996.

  (f) To continue the comprehensive rationalisation of functions within the agency by:

  (1) Completing the transfer of all active stock from RAF Carlisle by 31 March 1996, thereby enabling the closure of the unit by 31 March 1997.

  (2) Cease the operation of RAF Quedgeley as an independent unit by 31 March 1996, thereby enabling the closure of the unit by 31 March 1997.

  Net Pingers
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the contribution net pingers could make to the safe interaction of dived submarines and fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement. [33126]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department takes its responsibility for ensuring that fishing vessels can operate safely in areas of submarine activity very seriously. The use of net pingers as a means of enhancing the safe interaction of dived submarines and fishing vessels is one of a number of measures we have carefully considered during extensive consultation with the fishing industry. However, both the Royal Navy and fishermen's representatives have major reservations about the effectiveness of net pingers and, in particular, are concerned that the absence of pinger soundings can never mean that no fishing is taking place. I have, therefore, concluded that, in accordance with the firm views expressed by fishermen's representatives and the Royal Navy, the trial announced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) on 15 June 1992,Official Report, column 425, should be discontinued.

  I am confident that the comprehensive package of measures that we have introduced in recent years, including the code of practice which governs the conduct of dived submarines in waters frequented by fishing vessels, and the SUBFACTS broadcast system, provides for the safe co-existence of submarines and fishing vessels. Notwithstanding this, we will continue to monitor closely the effectiveness of these measures and to consider any proposals on how safety might be further enhanced.

  Helicopter Accident
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what standing instructions were in force on 2 June 1994 concerning preferred routes for Aldergrove-based helicopters flying at low level to Fort George or Inverness; and what changes have been made to those instructions. [31637]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no such instructions in place. The crew would have selected the most appropriate route.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the authorising officer at RAF Aldergrove, who approved the flight of Chinook ZD576 from Aldergrove to Fort George on 2 June 1994, was given special instructions relating to the high security status of the personnel travelling on the flight. [31635]

  Mr. Soames
  No special instructions were required.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what altitude restrictions due to the possibilities of icing were in force for Chinook flights from Northern Ireland to the north of Scotland at the time of the flight of Chinook ZD576 on 2 June 1994. [31631]

  Mr. Soames
  There were no specific altitude restrictions in place for that particular flight. The aircraft icing limitation was +4° Celsius and the crew would have sought to avoid flight above the +4° celsius isotherm in cloud because of the potential icing hazard.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the minimum authorised altitude for the flight of Chinook ZD576 from Aldergrove to Fort George on 2 June 1994; and by whom this minimum altitude was laid down. [31623]

  Mr. Soames
  The minimum authorised altitude of 50 ft. above ground or sea level was in keeping with No. 1 group support helicopter air staff orders, authorised by the Air Office Commanding.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the latitude and longitude of(a) the first and (b) the second planned turning points after leaving Aldergrove on the route of Chinook ZD576 to Fort George on 2 June 1994; and if they were known to the board of inquiry into the aircraft's accident. [31639]

  Mr. Soames
  The board of inquiry determined that the latitude and longitude of the planned turning points were(a) N55° 18.5' WOO5° 48' and (b) N56" 43' WOO5° 14'.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the global positioning system equipment on board Chinook ZD576 was found to have been(a) serviceable and (b) in use at the time of the crash on 2 June 1994. [31627]

  Mr. Soames
  (a) Yes. (b) Yes.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many hours each of the two pilots of Chinook ZD576 on 2 June 1994 had flown(a) in total and (b) on Chinooks. [31633]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is as follows:

  Captain of the flight: (a) 3,165 hours (b) 683 hours

  Co-pilot: (a) 2,867 hours (b) 1,492 hours

  267
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the height above sea level of the initial impact of Chinook ZD576 on 2 June 1994. [31625]

  Mr. Soames
  Eight hundred and ten feet above mean sea level.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the flight of Chinook ZD576 from Aldergrove to Fort George on 2 June 1994 was found to have been properly authorised(a) at station level and (b) by RAF West Drayton. [31636]

  Mr. Soames
  (a) Yes (b) Yes.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the planned en route ground speed of Chinook ZD576 for its flight to Fort George on 2 June 1994; and what was the estimated speed of the aircraft at impact. [31624]

  Mr. Soames
  The planned ground speed was 120 knots and the estimated ground speed at impact was 150 knots. The weather indicated a tailwind component.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours had been flown by each of the two pilots killed in the Chinook crash on 2 June 1994(a) on previous flights on the day of the accident and (b) during the 30 days up to 2 June 1994. [31640]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is as follows:

  Captain of the flight: (a) 5 hours 40 minutes (b) 59 hours

  Co-pilot: (a) 5 hours 40 minutes (b) 20 hours

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if each of the two pilots of Chinook ZD576 on 2 June 1994 had been given special clearances to fly passengers of high security status. [31628]

  Mr. Soames
  No such clearances were required.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the crew of Chinook ZD576 were informed of the high security status of their passengers from Aldergrove to Fort George on 2 June 1994 prior to planning their route for the flight. [31634]

  Mr. Soames
  Yes.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Chinook ZD576 was equipped with any form of electronic map or route display for its flight on 2 June 1994. [31626]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Chinooks carry automatic chart displays in the cabin to provide secondary information to the loadmasters on the position of the aircraft. The board of inquiry was unable to establish whether the automatic chart display was in use during the flight.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the sortie planning for the flight of Chinook ZD576 from Aldergrove to Fort George included, at any stage, consideration of a flight at medium altitude. [31630]

  Mr. Soames
  Yes, but this was rejected because of the poor weather forecast.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what magnetic compass heading the Chinook ZD576 was flying immediately prior to impact; 2 June 1994; and what evidence there was that the aircraft had altered its heading in its last few minutes of flight. [31638]
  268
  Mr. Soames
  The compass heading at impact is not known. The board of inquiry determined that the magnetic track, which indicates the actual direction flown across the ground, was 025° at impact. There was no evidence of any significant heading change prior to impact.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what revisions have been made to the syllabus for training of Royal Air Force Chinook aircrew as a result of lessons learned from the inquiry into the crash on 2 June 1994. [31338]

  Mr. Soames
  Existing poor weather abort instructions have been reinforced and issued to all helicopter aircrew to remind them of the procedures to follow in weather conditions where it is unsafe to continue flying under visual flight rules.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes have been made to RAF procedures for authorising officers to scrutinise route plans for low level helicopter sorties since 2 June 1994. [31629]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations governing the lookout duties of loadmaster crew on RAF Chinooks during personnel transport flights at low level in bad weather. [31632]

  Mr. Soames
  Where their primary duties in the aircraft cabin permit, loadmasters on RAF Chinooks are required to maintain a look out in their field of view.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum permitted altitude for air defence aircraft carrying out interceptions of ground attack aircraft flying at 100 ft above ground level in tactical training areas. [31334]

  Mr. Soames
  Two hundred and fifty feet minimum separation distance subject to prior approval by headquarters military air traffic operations.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the mandatory westward flow control for low-flying military aircraft in Glencoe includes the area between Glencoe village and the Ballachulish bridge. [31341]

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Tartan Warrior
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties were flown during the recent exercise Tartan Warrior; how many of these were by ground attack aircraft; and what was the minimum permitted altitude for the ground attack aircraft involved in the exercise. [31336]

  Mr. Soames
  A total of 289 sorties were flown during the exercise, of which 200 were by ground attack aircraft. The minimum permitted altitude for the majority of the low-level sorties flown by ground attack aircraft was 250 ft minimum separation distance with a small proportion of sorties permitted down to 100 ft minimum separation distance.
  269
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advance information was given to the media concerning Exercise Tartan Warrior; and if he will list those media organisations to whom the information was sent. [31340]

  Mr. Soames
  Exercise Tartan Warrior was a small-scale squadron training exercise and in the circumstances advance information was not given to the media about all of the activity involved. Details of the use of Tain air weapons range were provided to Moray Firth Radio and to Aberdeen Journals Ltd.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the ground attack sorties during exercise Tartan Warrior involved carriage of live weapons. [31339]

  Mr. Soames
  Five sorties involved carriage of live weapons for practice ground attacks on Garvie Island weapons range.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the aim of the recent Tartan Warrior exercise; how many aircraft and of what types took part; and what plans he has for further exercises in this series. [31335]

  Mr. Soames
  The aim of the exercise was to provide both routine squadron training, and work-up prior to Exercise Air Warrior in the USA, for No. 41 Sqn RAF Coltishall. The following aircraft took part:

  Ten Jaguar GR1As

  Six Tornado GR1s

  Eight Tornado F3s

  Eight USAF F15s

  A further exercise in the headquarters No. 1 group Tartan series involving No. 6 Sqn RAF Coltishall is planned for October 1995.

  Uists and Benbecula (Military Personnel)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the connection between the presence of military personnel on the Uists and Benbecula and the planned disposal of the Brent Spar. [32377]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military personnel were present on the Uists and Benbecula on 20 June; and if any were members of the special forces. [32372]

  Mr. Soames
  The only military personnel present on the Uists and Benbecula on 20 June were those permanently attached to the Royal Artillery Range Hebrides and RAF Benbecula, and a unit of the RAF Regiment which was participating in a two-week training exercise on Benbecula. This exercise had been arranged some time in advance.

  Dartmouth Royal Regatta
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the French Government which resulted in sending a French naval warship to the Dartmouth royal regatta; and what plans he has for informing hon. Members of the proposals. [32597]
  270
  Mr. Soames
  I understand that a French Navy navigational training ship will be visiting Dartmouth at the time of the Dartmouth royal regatta. This has been arranged through the usual naval channels which apply for visits of ships from other NATO navies. I am pleased to say that, due to changed operational requirements, it will be possible for HMS Orwell, a River class minesweeper which is the Dartmouth navigational training ship, to visit Dartmouth during the royal regatta.

  Welfare Grants
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many voluntary sector organisations his Department has(a) paid grants to or (b) entered into contracts with in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what was the total value of these grants and contracts. [31315]

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1993–94, my Department paid approximately £19 million to 34 voluntary sector organisations or bodies through grants for services related to welfare work for the armed forces and their families, and in the area of education and training. In addition to this it paid approximately £900,000 towards the cost of running organisations such as help, information, volunteer exchanges-HIVES-and homestart bureaux at numerous armed forces' bases in the United Kingdom and abroad.

  For 1994–95, the figures were approximately £18 million to 34 organisations and £1 million to bureaux.

  Defence Research Agency
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries for which work has been carried out in each of the last three years by Defence Research Agency. [31366]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 5 July 1995:
  In today's written answer the Secretary of State for Defence advised you that I would respond to your question about which countries for which the Defence Research Agency (DRA) has carried out work in each of the last three years since I am the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), which now includes the DRA.
  I have listed below the countries with which the DRA has had contracts in the last three years. The excludes countries or organisations with which we have collaborative agreements on scientific and technical work and with which we may have cooperated in the period.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Denmark

  Australia

  Australia

  France

  Bahrain

  Bahrain

  Germany

  Brunei

  Brunei

  Italy

  Canada

  Canada

  Japan

  Denmark

  Republic of China

  Netherlands

  France

  Denmark

  Portugal

  Germany

  France

  Saudi Arabia

  Italy

  Germany

  Spain

  India

  Hong Kong

  Sweden

  Japan

  Hungary

  Switzerland

  Netherlands

  India

  USA

  New Zealand

  Italy

  Norway

  Japan

  271

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Pakistan

  Malta

  Peru

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  Norway

  Republic of Ireland

  Pakistan

  Saudi Arabia

  Portugal

  Singapore

  Saudi Arabia

  Spain

  Singapore

  Sweden

  Spain

  Switzerland

  Sweden

  USA

  Switzerland

  USA

  Kenya
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military advice source support has been given to the Government of Kenya during each of the last three years. [31370]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not normally our practice to disclose precise details of military assistance given to any particular country as these are regarded as confidential between Governments. Over the past three years, military assistance to Kenya has mainly taken the form of places for Kenyan military personnel on training courses in the United Kingdom.

  Atlantic Conveyor
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he made of the importance of the former Atlantic Conveyor to the Falklands campaign. [31720]

  Mr. Soames
  The Atlantic Conveyor played an important role in the Falklands conflict. The ship ferried vital naval Sea Harrier and RAF Harrier aircraft to the aircraft carriers. Her subsequent loss, with that of a number of naval and RAF helicopters and much urgently required stores still embarked, was a severe blow.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between his Department and Cunard Steamship Company concerning the defence implications of the company's intention to sell the Atlantic Conveyor. [31732]

  Mr. Soames
  No discussions have taken place between my Department and the Cunard Steamship Company.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements were made for the availability to his Department of the Atlantic Conveyor since 1982. [31719]

  Mr. Soames
  The agreement between the Cunard Steamship Company and my Department covering the availability of the Atlantic Conveyor for defence purposes expired in January 1995. It is not my Department's policy to release the details of such agreements.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department was first notified by Cunard Steamship Company about its intention to sell the Atlantic Conveyor to a foreign owner. [31731]

  Mr. Soames
  The Cunard Steamship Company formally notified my Department of its intention to sell the Atlantic Conveyor in a letter dated 2 June 1995.
  272
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the financial contribution made by his Department towards the building of a replacement for the Atlantic Conveyor lost in the Falklands War. [31733]

  Mr. Soames
  The financial contribution made by my Department is commercially confidential.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department has made to ensure the continued availability of the Atlantic Conveyor for Britain's armed forces following her intended sale to a foreign bidder. [31718]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each of the last three financial years(a) those activities which have been subject to market testing and (b) those activities where an in-house bid has not been allowed. [32183]

  Mr. Freeman
  The following table lists, for each of the last three reporting periods,(a) those activities which have been subject to market testing that included a bid from the respective in-house organisation; and (b) those activities where an in-house bid was not allowed, that is, where the activity was strategically contracted out.

  Winning bid by In-House Bid Team

  1992–93

  Gardening, Royal Marines, COMMACHIO Group

  Gardening, Royal Marines, Lympstone

  Gardening, Royal Marines Units, Poole

  RAOC Print Section, Northern Ireland

  Air Weapon Range, RAF Cowden

  Support services, Gateway House, RAF Brize Norton

  Aircraft Support Services, Boscombe Down

  Elements of Experimental Flying Programme, Bedford/Boscombe Down

  1993–94

  Mechanical Handling Equipment, (repaid and maintenance), Devonport

  18 Base Workshop, Army Base Repair Organisation, Bovington

  1994–95

  Financial Accounting, Defence Evaluation and Research Agency

  Activity contractorised following a Market Test with In-House Bid

  1992–93

  Tailoring, Northern Ireland

  Ration delivery service, Northern Ireland

  Air Weapon Range, RAF Holbeach

  Flight checking, 115 Squadron, RAF Benson

  Inspectorate of Recruitment Exhibition Production Flight, RAF Henlow

  IT Processing DIGITS Operators West, Devizes

  Property Management, Central London

  Mess catering, Boscombe Down

  TRIDENT in-service support

  273

  1993–94

  Second Line Engineering Support, Flag Officer Naval Aviation, Yeovilton

  Industrial Mess (Catering and Stewardship function) Defence Postal and Courier Service, Mill Hill, London

  Airfield services, RAF Gibraltar

  1994–95

  Nimrod Major Servicing Unit, RAF Kinloss

  Activity contractorised (No In-House Bid)

  1992–93

  Gardening, Royal Marine School of Music, Deal

  Harrier Aircraft Service Support, H.M.S. HERON

  Helicopter Maintenance and Engineering Support, H.M.S. OSPREY, H.M.S. HERON and H.M.S. SEAHAWK

  Simulator Helicopter Control Operations, H.M.S. OSPREY

  Bielefeld bakery

  Works Services, H.M.S. SEAHAWK

  Works Services, H.M.S. DOLPHIN

  Central Engineering Resources, Plant Hire, Long Marston

  Food distribution in BAOR

  Food distribution in rear combat zone (BAOR)

  Line of Communications—Freight Service, (Low Countries)

  Engineering and Supply (multi-activity contract), RAF Scampton

  RAF/RN Elementary Flying Training, RAF Topcliffe

  Domestic Services, MOD Police, Wethersfield

  Works Service Maintenance, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, Belize

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston

  Combat Systems Information Management Team

  Guarding, Abby Wood

  Relocating Reconnaissance Visits, Bristol

  1993–94

  NAAFI food study

  Verbatim Court Recorders, Salisbury

  Catering strategy study, UK Land Forces

  Air Weapons Range, Rosehearty

  Electronic Warfare training tasks, 360 Sqn, RAF Wyton

  Government Pipleline and Storage System, (Operation and Maintenance)

  Parachute Transport Flight, RAF Hullavington

  Station Engineering Management Aid, (Maintenance Analysis and Computing Division), RAF Swanton Morley

  Furniture repair, British Forces, Hong Kong

  School Bus service, British Forces Hong Kong

  Support entry, Met Office, Bracknell

  1994–95

  Wireless Stations (Operations and Maintenance), Inskip and Crimond)

  Freight Service, Germany

  Mobile Civilian Artisan Groups, Germany

  Support for Parachute Training

  The Queens Flight, (engineering support) RAF Northolt

  Repaid of Defence Accommodation Stores, RAF Quedgeley

  Curtain manufacture, British Forces Hong Kong

  Food supply, British Forces Hong Kong

  Support services, British Forces Hong Kong.

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 717, when the long-standing collaboration between the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and the Institute of Aviation Medicine began. [31963]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 16th March, asking when the long-standing collaboration between the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) and the Institute of Aviation Medicine (IAM) began, has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), which now includes both these establishments.
  2. There was significant collaboration on the development of protective equipment for air crew from the early 1950's. It is possible that earlier collaboration between the precursor establishments of both CBDE and IAM on protection against the threat posed by chemical weapons occurred but we have been unable in the time available to trace record of this.
  3. I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, columns 713–14, what were the conclusions of each of the 21 safety audits carried out by his Department's Safety Services Organisation; and if he will place the reports of each of these audits in the Library. [31956]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your letter to the Secretary of State for Defence asking, pursuant to his answer of the 16 March, about the conclusions of the safety audits and for the reports to be placed in Library of the House of Commons, has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its divisions.
  2. Safety audits carried out since 1987 found that CBDE is a highly safety oriented organisation with a workforce and management committed to ensuring a safe and health work environment.
  3. In the most recent general safety audit the documentation and procedures were considered to be very good, particularly in the so-called high risk areas. Only minor deficiencies were identified and these were concerned with more general safety measures such as routine inspection of electrical equipment and the care and storage of personal protective equipment.
  4. Safety audit reports contain some classified information, particularly in relation to the nature of the work being carried out at CBDE. It is not, therefore, considered to be appropriate to release copies.
  5. I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which pieces of new equipment have been tested by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1980 in studies involving service
  275
  volunteers to assess the ability of service personnel to function with the equipment. [31970]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question asking the Secretary of State for Defence which pieces of new equipment have been tested by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) since 1980 in studies involving Service volunteers has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, includes the CBDE as one of its divisions.
  2. Items of new equipment under development which are tested in studies involving Service volunteers are subject to both defence security and commercial sensitivities. I am therefore limited in what I can say on this matter. However, I can tell you that the new individual protective equipment comprising of the No. 1 Mark IV NBC suit and the S10 respirator has been trialled in studies involving Service volunteers since 1980.
  3. I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who has served as director or head of the Chemical and Biological Warfare establishment at Porton Down since 1965; and in which years each individual served as director or head. [31974]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the directors of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's (CBDE) since 1965 has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, has included CBDE as one of its divisions.2. CBDE's role is to carry out research to ensure that the United Kingdom Armed Forces are provided with effective and safe protective measures against the threat posed by chemical and biological warfare agents. From the late 1950s the work has been on purely defensive measures. The Establishment has had eight directors since 1965:

  Mr. E. E. Haddon: 1961–1968

  Mr. G. N. Gadsby: 1968–1972

  Mr. T. F. Watkins: 1972–1974

  Dr. R. G. H. Watson: 1974–1983

  Dr. A. Bebbington: 1983–1984

  Dr. G. S. Pearson: 1984–1995

  Dr. G. D. Coley: 1995–3.

  3. I hope this information is helpful.
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the annual report and accounts for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment for 1994–95 is due to be published. [31973]

  Mr. Freeman
  We expect the National Audit Office to complete its audit of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment's 1994–95 accounts shortly. Subject to this, it is intended to lay a copy of the annual report and accounts before the House before the summer recess. Copies will be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Porton Technical Papers
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many scientific papers in the series called Porton technical papers were produced by the chemical warfare establishment at Porton Down since 1965; in which years these papers were produced; and how many of them are unclassified. [31967]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking about the scientific papers in the Porton Technical Papers series produced by the Chemical Warfare Establishment (CBDE) since 1965, has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  2. The role of CBDE is to provide safe and effective protective measures to the United Kingdom Armed Forces against the threat of chemical and biological weapons. The United Kingdom unilaterally abandoned its offensive chemical and biological weapons capability in the late 1950's. Research at CBDE since this time has been concerned solely with providing a defence against chemical and biological warfare agents.
  3. The Porton Technical Papers series closed in 1969. A total of 63 papers were published between 1965 and 1969. Seventeen of these 63 papers held at CBDE are unclassified. I regret that it would involve disproportionate costs to identify the exact years in which each of the papers was published and the present classification of the remainder.
  4. I hope the information that I have been able to provide is helpful.

  S6 Respirator
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 718, in which years the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment carried out studies on the protection afforded by the S6 respirator when worn by human beings; what these studies entailed; what was the conclusion of these studies; which chemical warfare agents were used in these studies; and when the S6 respirator was issued for and withdrawn from use by the armed forces. [31961]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking, pursuant to his Answer of 16th March, about work at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) on the S6 respirator, has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  2. The S6 respirator development programme commenced in the early 1950's. During this time a number of user trials were conducted by Service Units. These user trials were, however, not under the control of the then Chemical Defence Establishment (CDE) although personnel from CDE provided general advice on planning the trials and, on occasion, assisted the Unit personnel in conducting the trial. During these acceptability trials the respirator fit was assessed using the Unit's exposure chamber in which chloroacetophenone, a tear gas, was routinely employed. No studies

  277
  involving the use of chemical or biological warfare agents were conducted to assess the protection afforded by the S6 respirator.
  3. In addition, to the user acceptability trials conducted by Service Units, studies were carried out between 1954 and 1964 at CDE using Service volunteers wearing the S6. These studies involved the use of simulant materials such a Bacillus globigii, a common organism found in hay and grassland throughout the UK and judged to present no hazard to health; common salt aerosols; and CS, a tear gas. Further studies measured the ingress of nitrogen into the respirator.
  4. The S6 respirator was first issued to the Armed Forces in 1966 and its withdrawal from service began in 1986.
  5. I hope this information helpful.

  Nerve Agents
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 711, what amount of BZ was given to the service volunteers; what tasks or exercises the volunteers undertook after they were given BZ; and how long these lasted, whether these were the first studies with BZ involving service volunteers; what medical countermeasures have been developed by CBDE against BZ; and when was the last time service volunteers were assessed to check whether or not the BZ studies have had any long-term effects. [31964]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter form J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of Defence asking, pursuant to his Answer of 16 March, various questions about the studies undertaken with the psychotropic drug BZ and Service volunteers has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Agency CBDE) as one of its divisions.
  2. The volunteers were given dosages of BZ which equated to 7µg per Kg of body weight. The study was carried out under full medical supervision to identify the symptoms arising from exposure to BZ and no tasks or exercises were performed by the volunteers. The effects of exposure to BZ were of short duration and were completely resolved within three days in all cases. The volunteers were examined by the resident Army psychiatrist before and after their participation in the studies.
  3. These studies were part of a series of investigations carried out in the early 1960's to determine the effects of exposure to BZ. A total of 21 Service volunteers were involved. No medical countermeasures to the effects of the psychotropic drug BZ have been developed CBDE.
  4. I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, column 709, what was the conclusion of the research work at Nancekuke to develop a specification for the material used in the preparation process of the nerve agent GB; when this conclusion was reached; and when the results of this research were exchanged with the United States of America, Canada and Australia. [31965]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.
  278
  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 16 March, about specifications for the production of the nerve agent GB and the dates of release of this information to the members of the technical collaboration panel, has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its divisions.
  2. The specification for the materials to be used in the production of the nerve agent GB was arrived at through systemic process chemistry studies at laboratory and pilot plant stage. The specification was arrived at by January 1956. At this time the United Kingdom decided unilaterally to abandon its offensive chemical warfare programme and the pilot plant was filled with decontaminant in 1956.
  3. The materials which were involved in the specification are listed below:

  Isopropanol

  Hydrogen Fluoride

  Methane

  Triethylamine

  Sodium Hydroxide

  Aluminium turnings

  Aluminium chloride

  Phosphorus trichloride

  Methyl chloride

  Oxygen

  Sodium Chloride

  Nitrogen

  The research data from the development programme was shared with the United States, Canada and Australia over a number of years extending from 1945 to 1956.
  4. I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research has been carried out on the nerve agent GE at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since the closure of the nerve agent plant at Nancekuke; what quality of the nerve agent GE has been used in this research at Porton Down; when the results of this research were exchanged with other countries; and under which defence agreement these results were exchanged. [31966]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for information of the work conducted with the nerve agent GE since the closure of CDE Nancekuke has been passed to me to reply as the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its divisions.
  2. No research involving the nerve agent GE has been carried out at CBDE since the closure of CDE Nancekuke in 1979 as far as we are aware
  3. I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests and studies have been carried out at the chemical warfare establishment at Porton Down on service volunteers with mustard gas since 1965; what was
  279
  the purpose of these tests; how the gas was administered to the volunteers; what was the conclusion of the tests and studies; when these tests were carried out; how many service volunteers were involved in these experiments; and where and on what dates the results of these tests were published in open literature. [31972]

  Mr. Freeman
  This a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence requesting information on the studies involving the chemical and biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) since 1965 has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  2. The United Kingdom unilaterally abandoned its offensive Chemical and Biological Warfare capability in the late 1950's. Since then the role of the CBDE has been to provide safe and effective protection to the UK Armed Forces against the threat of chemical and biological weapons.
  3. From 1965 studies with Service volunteers involving the use of the vesicant agent mustard were undertaken to determine the effectiveness of decontamination procedures and protective measures. Mustard agent, which is an oily liquid, was applied as small drops in patch tests. It would involve disproportionate costs to determine the exact number of volunteers exposed to mustard agent in the past thirty years. Our best estimate, however is that about 70% of volunteers in the late 1960's and 1970's were involved in studies of this nature. Research with Service volunteers and mustard agent ceased in the 1970's when reliable laboratory tests which did not require the use of this type of testing were developed. The results of the studies were not published in the open literature because of the defence sensitivity of this work.
  4. I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, columns 714–15, which CW agents were used in the studies into the mark IV NBC suit involving service volunteers. [31958]

  Mr. Freeman
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have therefore asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 5 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking, pursuant to his Answer of 16 March, about which Chemical Warfare agents were used in the studies into the Mk IV NBC suit involving Service volunteers has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Establishment (DERA) which, since April, includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its divisions.
  2. No chemical warfare agents were used in studies involving the Mk IV NBC suit and Service volunteers. The protection afforded by the Mk IV NBC suit against chemical warfare agents was evaluated using laboratory techniques which did not require the use of Service volunteers.
  3. I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the quantity of the nerve agent GB which is considered medically safe to be used in experiments involving service volunteers at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; when this limit was set; and by whom. [31968]
  280
  Mr. Freeman
  All studies involving the use of human subjects must be approved by the independent ethics committee before the study can begin. The committee must be satisfied that the study involves no harm to the health of the volunteers and that there is a military requirement for the investigation. The most recent studies involving the nerve agent GB with service volunteers used levels of nerve agent which produce meiosis in the volunteer. Meiosis is a well-known short-term effect of exposure to nerve agent vapour and there is no evidence that the volunteers experienced any long-term effects. The specific amount of nerve agent GB required to produce this level of response is a defence sensitive matter.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what details of Britain's past chemical warfare activities have to be disclosed to the relevant authority if Britain is to ratify the chemical weapons convention; to whom and when this information has to be disclosed; how many of his Department's staff are helping to prepare the document disclosing such past activities; where these staff are based; what records are being used to prepare such a document; and if he will make a statement. [31969]

  Mr. Freeman
  The United Kingdom will be required to make declarations of its past chemical weapons activities to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in accordance with article III of the chemical weapons convention not later than 30 days after it enters into force for the UK. MOD and other Whitehall officials, supported by CBDE staff, are currently formulating the draft declaration. Information has been collected from historical official documents, periodicals and visits to the sites concerned.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advance information he received from the French about their decision to resume nuclear weapon testing; and what was his response. [32089]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not our normal practice to reveal whether or not confidential advice has been received from other Governments.

  Ballistic Missiles
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 25 May, to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark),Official Report, column 658, what is the nature of the assumed threat to European security which necessitates the development of a ballistic missile system; and what is his estimate of the cost. [32087]

  Mr. Freeman
  In common with our NATO allies, we are concerned about the emerging risk posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. We are currently engaged in work, both nationally and with allies, to determine our response. We await the outcome of the UK pre-feasibility study for advice on options and costs associated with ballistic missile defence. No procurement decisions have been taken.
  281

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisons (Segregated Visits)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what criteria prisoners are allowed only segregated visits; how many prisoners are affected by this provision; and if it extends to legal and parliamentary visits. [32222]

  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. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 5 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the criteria by which prisoners are only allowed segregated visits; the number of prisoners affected by this provision; and if it extends to legal and parliamentary visits.
  A policy of closed visits for all exceptional risk category A prisoners was introduced on 19 June. Our assessment was that this was a necessary security measure for visits to prisoners in the highest security category. There are currently thirteen such prisoners. The policy applies to all visits including legal and parliamentary visits. Visits under open conditions may be allowed in the most exceptional circumstances with the agreement of an operational director of the Prison Service.
  In addition, prison governors have discretion to impose closed visits for any prisoner in any other security category where control or security considerations make them necessary.

  Danny McNamee
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received a submission on the case of Danny McNamee requesting referral to the Court of Appeal; and when he expects to be able to make a statement. [32223]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The submission enclosed with the hon. Member's letter of 7 September to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was received on 12 September. I shall write to the hon. Member once consideration of this case has been completed.

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, columns 92–94, what percentage of remand prisoners transferred to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was (a) convicted and (b) received a custodial sentence in each of the last 10 years. [31220]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 June 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 A. J. Butler to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what percentage of remand prisoners transferred to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were (a) convicted and (b) received a custodial sentence in each of the last 10 years.The attached table gives the information requested for remand prisoners transferred to prison under section 48 of the Mental Health
  282
  Act 1983. All prisoners transferred under section 47 of the Act have been convicted and sentenced. The relevant breakdown of 1994 data is not yet available.

  Percentage of remand prisoners transferred to hospital under S.48 of The Mental Health Act 1983, between 1985 and 1993, who were (A) convicted and (B) received a custodial sentence1

  Convicted

  2Custodial sentences

  Year

  Total admissions

  Total

  Percentage

  Total

  Percentage

  1985

  41

  34

  83

  1

  2

  1986

  53

  33

  62

  0

  —

  1987

  77

  64

  83

  1

  1

  1988

  85

  68

  80

  7

  8

  1989

  100

  79

  79

  9

  9

  1990

  181

  116

  64

  9

  5

  1991

  264

  175

  66

  9

  3

  1992

  380

  241

  63

  16

  4

  19933

  486

  251

  52

  24

  5

  1 This table covers all persons who were admitted to hospital on remand and subsequently disposed of at court.

  2 Excludes restricted hospital orders.

  3 In 1993, 24 persons were disposed of at court where the outcome was unknown.

  Note:

  1. In 1985, 1988, 1989 the admission figures include a small number of unrestricted patients, as given in the answer of 18 April. The convictions and custodial sentence figures, however, relate to restricted patients only. There is therefore a slight understatement in the percentages for these years.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, columns 92–94, what percentage of (a) male and (b) female prisoners were transferred to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last 10 years. [31219]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 June 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 A. J. Butler to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the Office, to reply to your recent Question asking what percentage of (a) male and (b) female prisoners were transferred to hospital under section 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last 10 years.The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Percentage of male and female prisoners transferred to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of The Mental Health Act 1983 between 1985 and 1994

  Male prisoners

  Female prisoners

  Year

  Transferred1

  Percentage of average population2

  Transferred1

  Percentage of average population2

  1985

  119

  0.3

  22

  1.4

  1986

  139

  0.3

  21

  1.3

  1987

  181

  0.4

  23

  1.3

  1988

  185

  0.4

  21

  1.2

  1989

  207

  0.5

  24

  1.4

  1990

  304

  0.7

  33

  2.1

  1991

  422

  1.0

  35

  2.3

  1992

  553

  1.3

  57

  3.6

  1993

  718

  1.7

  58

  3.7

  19941

  733

  1.6

  59

  3.3

  1 Provisional figures still under revision.

  2 Source of population figures: "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1993" table 1.5, and "Home Office Statistical Bulletin", 8/95, table 1.

  283
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, columns 92–94, what was the average length of stay in hospital for prisoners transferred to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (a) before sentence and (b) after sentence in each of the last 10 years. [31221]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 June 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 A. J. Butler to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 5 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average length of stay in hospital for prisoners transferred to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (a) before sentence and (b) after sentence in each of the last 10 years.Information is only readily available for restricted patients since 1994. Based on those prisoners transferred to hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the 1983 Mental Health Act in the hospital population at the end of 1994, the average length of stay on remand was seven and a half months and the average length of stay under sentence was three years.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases of women currently imprisoned as a result of conviction for(a) murder and (b) manslaughter of a male partner there was a recorded history of domestic violence. [31271]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 29 June 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 A. J. Butler to Ms Clare Short, dated 5 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking in how many cases of women currently imprisoned as a result of conviction for (a) murder and (b) manslaughter of a male partner there was a recorded history of domestic violence.The cases of four women serving life sentences for murder are known to relate to domestic violence. I regret that no information is recorded centrally about the circumstances of manslaughter cases.

  Prison Staff Pay
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what considerations have been given to establishing new pay determination procedures for prison governors and prison officers under section 128 of the Criminal Justice and Public order Act 1994; and if he will make a statement. [32992]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  With the agreement of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I propose to establish pay procedures which are based on direct negotiation between management and the recognised staff representative organisations. This form of pay bargaining would support the need for management and unions jointly to develop the implement pay arrangements which reflect the unique range of duties undertaken in the respective prison services and the changing demands on staff and available resources. I also 284
  propose to make available two supplementary procedures in the event that all efforts to reach a negotiated settlement were unsuccessful. First, the services of an independent conciliator would be made available. Secondly, if conciliation did not lead to renewed negotiations, provision would be made for either party to request that the issue in dispute was considered by a mediation panel which would make formal recommendations to the parties. These mediation arrangements would require the creation of one or more standing bodies, independent of the three prison services and the unions.

  Representative organisations and staff are being consulted on these proposals. Subject to the outcome, consideration will be given to laying before Parliament appropriate regulations under section 128 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.

  Visitors (Gulf States)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors to the United Kingdom in 1994 came from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar; and how much they spent in the United Kingdom. [32202]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Exact figures are not available, but it is estimated that the number of visitors given leave to enter the United Kingdom in 1994 were:

  Nationality

  Number of admissions of visitors

  United Arab Emirates

  25,000

  Bahrain

  13,000

  Qatar

  10,000

  The other information requested is not available.

  Detainees
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 135 which expensive ad hoc accommodation is now being used less to hold Immigration Act detainees; and if he will provide relevant comparative figures relating to the use of such accommodation in the current and previous two financial years. [32069]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The accommodation referred to includes short-term accommodation—up to five days, seven days if removal is to be effected within that period—provided by various private companies at ports of entry to the United Kingdom and police cells.

  It is not possible without disproportionate effort to disaggregate the costs of such accommodation from overall detention costs. However, an average cost of a night's detention in police cells is £289, whereas a night in an immigration detention centre costs some £80.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department expects to spending in total on detaining persons under Immigration Act powers in the current financial year. [32053]

  Mr. Baker
  The immigration service estimates that it will spend some £13.725 million on detaining persons
  285
  under Immigration Act powers, including escorting and related costs, this year. Some of that cost will be recovered from carriers.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) length of detention, (d) place of detention and (e) immigration status at the time of application. [32071]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As at 3 July 1995, a total of 690 persons who had at some stage sought asylum were detained. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figure, 199 had been in detention less than one month, 109 between one and two months, 255 between two and six months, 113 between six and 12 months, and 14 had been detained for longer than 12 months.

  Information on the gender, immigration status, nationality and location of those detained as at 3 July 1995, is provided in tables 1 to 3.

  Table 1: Number of people detained on 3 July 1995 who has sought asylum, by immigration status and gender

  Immigration status

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Port case

  320

  37

  357

  Illegal entrant case

  273

  7

  280

  Deportation case

  49

  4

  53

  Total

  642

  48

  690

  Table 2: Number of people detained on 3 July 1995 who had sought asylum, by nationality

  Number

  Albania

  10

  Algeria

  75

  Angola

  6

  Bangladesh

  14

  Bulgaria

  4

  Cameroon

  1

  China

  77

  Colombia

  5

  Cyprus

  3

  Czech Republic

  4

  Dominica

  1

  Equador

  1

  Egypt

  2

  Ethiopia

  2

  Gambia

  5

  Georgia

  1

  Ghana

  59

  Guinea-Bissau

  1

  India

  94

  Iran

  8

  Iraq

  1

  Ivory Coast

  3

  Jamaica

  7

  Jordan

  1

  Kenya

  5

  Lebanon

  3

  Library

  6

  Liberia

  5

  Mauritius

  1

  Morocco

  6

  Nepal

  1

  Niger

  1

  Nigeria

  123

  Pakistan

  24

  286

  Table 2: Number of people detained on 3 July 1995 who had sought asylum, by nationality

  Number

  Peru

  1

  Poland

  3

  Romania

  23

  Russia

  8

  Rwanda

  1

  Sierra Leone

  2

  Somalia

  3

  South Africa

  3

  Sri Lanka

  23

  Sudan

  1

  Tanzania

  8

  Togo

  1

  Tunisia

  1

  Turkey

  19

  Uganda

  5

  Former Yugoslavia

  12

  Zaire

  11

  Zambia

  1

  Nationality not known

  4

  Total

  690

  Table 3: Number of persons detained who have claimed asylum as at 3 July 1995, by place of detention.

  Place of detention

  Number detained

  Prisons/YOIs

  HMP Rochester

  104

  HMP Haslar

  97

  HMP Winson Green

  45

  HMP Greenock

  26

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  9

  HMP Bristol

  5

  HMP Belmarsh

  3

  HMP Brixton

  3

  HMYOI Brinsford

  2

  HMYOI Feltham

  2

  HMP Holloway

  2

  Other HM Prisons1

  25

  Total

  323

  Other places of detention

  Campsfield House

  151

  Harmondsworth

  90

  Gatwick Detention Centre

  41

  Dover Harbour Board

  18

  Queens Building

  17

  Newhaven

  12

  Stansted

  8

  Manchester Airport Detention Suite

  2

  Police Cells

  28

  Total

  367

  Grand total

  690

  1 May also include HM prisons already listed.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measurable benefit has been achieved by the increased use of Immigration Act powers of detention in asylum cases since 1993; at what financial cost; and if he will make a statement. [32052]

  Mr. Baker
  It is not possible to identify separately the cost of detaining asylum seekers as no distinction is made between these cases and others where a person is detained under Immigration Act powers. However, the overall cost of running the immigration detention estate, including escorting and related costs, was:

  1993–94 financial year—£7.46 million; and

  1994–95 financial year—£11.35 million.

  287
  These figures reflect the greater number of places available in the immigration detention estate since the opening in November 1993 of Campsfield House.

  The use of detention is an important factor in ensuring effective immigration control and its cost is offset by reclaiming money from carriers in appropriate cases.

  Mr. Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 382, what was the period in working days between receipt of the appeal and promulgation of the determination of the appeal in (a) without foundation cases and (b) substantive cases in the first quarter of 1995; and if he will provide the corresponding figures for each quarter of 1994. [32068]

  Mr. Baker
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Average time taken1 (in working days) to determine appeals against refusal of asylum, by type of refusal, January 1994 to March 1995

  Without foundation appeals

  Substantive appeals

  1994

  January—March

  34 days

  54 days

  April—June

  42 days

  58 days

  July—September

  40 days

  80 days

  October—December

  45 days

  92 days

  1995

  January—March

  40 days

  116 days

  1 The time period referred to is the number of working days between the date the appeal is sent to the Independent Appellate Authority and the date of its determination. It does not include the time taken by the Home Office to process and despatch the appeal to the IAA.

  Forged Immigration Documents
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to make greater use of computer technology to aid the detection of forged immigration documents. [32207]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Computerisation of the warnings index for arriving passengers has permitted machine readable passports to be checked against lists of stolen documents by swiping them through a reader. All ports of entry are supplied with forgery detection equipment, but the principal methods of detection still rely on light sources—ultra violet and infra red—and microscopes rather than computer technology.

  The Immigration Service uses computer technology in a variety of ways in the development of sophisticated document examination techniques. In co-operation with five other countries, the United Kingdom is involved in the introduction of an image retrieval system providing a comprehensive database of the world's travel documents on optical disk. The service also uses photophone technology to transmit high-definition, stored images of travel documents along telephone lines.

  Prisons (Drug Counsellors)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many specialist drug counsellors are working in prisons in England and Wales. [31701]
  288
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 5 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about how many specialist drug counsellors are working in prisons in England and Wales.
  The Prison Service does not keep central records of the number of specialist drug counsellors working in prisons. A survey of 130 prisons conducted during December 1994 showed that 102 prisons provided specialist individual counselling for prisoners with drug misuse problems.
  Individual counselling services are provided by community drug agencies, probation officers, prison psychologists and prison officers with counselling qualifications or experience.
  This year the Prison Service is expanding the number and type of treatment programmes available to drug misusers. These include therapeutic communities; 3-month treatment programmes; detoxification units; intensive counselling and education services; and community-linked throughcare programmes. The first phase is being implemented in thirteen establishments with a further twelve by April 1996. The majority of these programmes will be provided by outside drug agencies under contract to the Prison Service. This initiative will increase the level of specialist drug counsellors working in prisons and will provide live training opportunities for prison staff.
  In addition, all establishments are reviewing their local drug strategies with the aim of improving the coordination of local services for drug misusers.

  Family Law
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals have been made, or studies sanctioned, by the Council of Ministers of the European Community concerning a convention on family law, including issues relative to custody of children following divorce. [31595]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

  In June 1994 the Council of Ministers instructed a working group of experts to prepare a draft convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters. In June 1995, the Council considered a progress report on this exercise and agreed that work on it should continue under the Spanish presidency and that the working group should continue to look into the possibilities of the convention covering custody orders made ancillary to divorce proceedings.

  Drugs Prevention Teams
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total level of public funding available in real terms to each drug prevention team in Merseyside since the inception of the drugs prevention initiative in 1990; and what will be the total level of public funds available for the new Merseyside drug prevention team for each of the next four years. [31541]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The total level of public funding available to each drugs prevention team in Merseyside since the inception of the drugs prevention initiative in 1990 was as follows:

  289

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Liverpool

  46,500

  188,000

  196,009

  193,908

  206,627

  Wirral

  —

  86,770

  185,974

  186,597

  200,436

  The Liverpool team began on 10 December 1990, and the Wirral team began on 30 September 1991.

  The total level of funding available to the new Merseyside drugs prevention team will not be known until its programme of work has been settled later this year.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of estimated savings in each category of running costs that can be realised by merging the Wirral and Liverpool drugs prevention teams. [31578]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The objective in merging the Liverpool and Wirral drugs prevention teams was to make the benefits of the drugs prevention initiative available to many more people, not to make savings in running costs. Independent reviews of the initiative had recommended that the former teams be replaced by larger teams covering wider areas, to increase the opportunities for wider-reaching drugs prevention projects. The new Merseyside team covers all five boroughs of the county.

  The comparative running cost figures are:

  Liverpool and Wirral teams (combined) 1994–95 £

  Merseyside team 1995–96 £

  Staff costs

  153,537

  151,228

  Accommodation

  24,389

  32,500

  Other running costs

  59,225

  39,805

  Grants

  149,871

  1—

  1 The level of funding available for grants will not be known until the team's programme of work is settled later this year.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the total level of savings that will be achieved in each of the next four years by merging the Wirral and Liverpool drugs prevention teams. [31579]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: The level of funding which the new Merseyside drugs prevention team will have available for making grants will not be decided until its programme of work is settled later this year. It is not therefore possible to estimate at this stage the extent to which there may be savings as a result of merging the Wirral and Liverpool drugs prevention teams.

  Kani Yilmaz
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter of 10 April from the hon. Member for Woolwich in respect of Kani Yilmaz; and if he will make a statement on the issues raised. [24924]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 18 may 1995]: I have written to the hon. Member today.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if his departmental assistance with loans for home improvements are deemed to be housing costs in respect of paragraphs 5(4) and 5(5) of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987. [31864]

  (2) what representations he has had in regard to difficulties experienced by home owners whose mortgage interest payments are being met by his Department, who have had to temporarily move to alternative accommodation while extensive renovation work is being carried out and who are deemed ineligible for housing benefit. [31907]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Home improvement loans which attract assistance from this Department are not considered to be housing costs for the purpose of determining entitlement to housing benefit. I have received no representations about home owners in these circumstances.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly by him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28490]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is in the table.

  Session

  Number of questions

  Percentage replied to by agencies

  1992–931

  3,305

  10.86

  1993–941

  2,365

  14.08

  1994–951.2

  2,046

  9.77

  Notes:

  1 These figures have been provided using the POLIS database. It is not possible to guarantee that this is a truly comprehensive figure.

  2 Up to Monday 26 June 1995.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what increase in family credit payments is expected in the first year of the jobseeker's allowance as a result of the allowance encouraging self-employment. [31661]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Consultants
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all consultants who have been retained by his Department in the past three years to advise on any aspect of(a) the reduction in state protection for mortgage interest payments and the encouragement of a private insurance market for mortgage protection, (b) the introduction of incapacity benefit or (c) the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [32051]
  291
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department of Social Security has retained the services of the following consultants to advise on the issues raised by the hon. Member:

  Issue

  Company

  Number of consultants

  (a) The reduction in state protection for mortgage interest payments and the encouragement of a private insurance market for mortgage protection.

  No consultants retained

  nil

  (b) The introduction of incapacity benefit

  Andersen Consulting

  88

  CSS Trident

  25

  (c) The introduction of the jobseeker's allowance

  Coopers and Lybrand

  1

  PA Consulting Group

  2

  Andersen Consulting

  5

  Computer People

  55

  Cray Systems

  5

  ICL

  3

  NESCO

  72

  SEMA Group

  15

  Taskforce

  3

  Incentives To Work
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish further details of his plans to improve incentives to work for people in lower-paid employment; and if he will make a statement. [33088]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has today published a consultation paper, "Piloting change in Social Security—Helping people into work". This sets out the Government's proposals to test out in eight pilot areas a new in-work benefit. The benefit is designed to make work more rewarding for those with limited earnings power, by enhancing their earnings. It is called earnings top-up.

  It will be directed towards people without dependent children and will complement family credit, which already helps some 600,000 lower paid workers with children.

  The proposed earnings top-up will increase the rewards of work by an average of about £23 a week for a couple without dependent children and about £19 for a single person of 25 or over. The Government propose to test the effectiveness of two different rates in the pilot areas. The maximum level of help could be up to £54 a week.

  The proposals mark the first occasion in the UK in which a social security benefit will be tested out on a pilot basis. The extension of in-work benefits to all people on low incomes would be a major step. There is no experience from any other country on which to draw. So it is right to establish its effectiveness by testing it on a local basis before deciding whether or not to develop a national scheme. Such a decision would only be taken if the pilot scheme proves its worth.

  The pilot scheme will cost about £75 million over three years, before taking account of behavioural effects. Parliamentary approval for expenditure on the scheme will depend on the Appropriations Act via an appropriate reference in the departmental estimates. Introduction of a new benefit on a local and temporary basis does not require express statutory authority. The scheme will be
  292
  subject to detailed rules governing conditions of entitlement, claiming and other matters normally covered in regulations. These will be set out in a publicly available document and Parliament will be given an opportunity to discuss its principle and details. If it is decided to proceed from a temporary pilot to a permanent national scheme, the Government will introduce the necessary primary legislation.

  The Government believe that there is a case for extending in-work benefits in this way, but it is not yet proven. People with limited skills and experience may have earning power not much above the level of their out-of-work benefit entitlement. As a result, the net reward for, and incentive to, work is not great.

  To forbid employers to pay less than a minimum level of pay would merely mean that anyone unable because of their limited skills, aptitudes and experience to contribute more in value than that minimum would no longer be able to find employment. The ideal solution is, of course, to increase people's earning power by improving their skills, educational attainments and experience. All the Government's education and training reforms are geared to that objective. But most valuable skills and experience are obtained at work. Social security can, therefore, help by making it more rewarding to work, thereby enabling people to get on the first rungs of the ladder of employment, climbing further as they acquire experience and skills.

  The consultation document sets out the criteria on which we propose to define and select the eight pilot areas in which earnings top-up will be paid, together with four control areas. It includes a shortlist of 28 areas from whcih the final selection is likely to be made, subject ot the outcome of the consultation. Since the decision on whether or not to proceed to national implementation will be governed by the outcome of the pilot, we attached great importance to getting the pilot areas right and establishing a robust framework for evaluation.

  Our present plans are to pay earnings top-up in the pilot areas in the same way as other social security benefits. But we propose also to discuss with employers the feasibility of paying the top-up alongside the wage package, in order to make clearer to recipients the increased gain form working. Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the pilot scheme may be enhanced to test out how this might work in practice. Participation by employers in such a scheme would be voluntary.

  The decision to pilot a new benefit locally before deciding whether to introduce it nationally represents a radical departure for social security policy. It will increase the openness and effectiveness of policy making. It is also a major step in seeking solutions to the problems of unemployment, work incentives and the dispersion of earnings power affecting the least skilled. These are problems which every developed country faces. The UK is already a pioneer in its successful use of in-work benefits such as family credit to improve work incentives. We now aim to explore whether to go further.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated cost to local government of refusal of social fund applications on housing revenue accounts. [32227]
  293
  Mr. Roger Evans
  None.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the running costs of the social fund as a proportion of annual net payments for each of the last three years. [32228]

  Mr. Evans
  Social fund administration costs are met separately from expenditure from the regulated and discretionary fund. In 1992–93, the social fund cost £208 million to administer and £270 million in 1993–94. Details of the administration costs for 1994–95 are not yet available and will be published in the next departmental report.

  The ratio of social fund administration costs to net payments from the discretionary and regulated fund was 0.98 in 1992–93 and 1.18 in 1993–94. It is more valid to relate administrative expenditure and gross expenditure, including recoveries, and on the basis the ratio was 0.35 in 1992–93 and 0.41 in 1993–94.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total net cost of the social fund for each of the last three years and the total cost of the single payment system for the last three years of its operation. [32229]

  Mr. Evans
  The total net cost of the regulated and discretionary social fund was £212 million in 1992–93; £229 million in 1993–94 and £217 million in 1994–95.

  The total cost of single payments was £308 million in 1985–96; £370 million on 1986–87 and £198 million in 1987–88

  The figures quoted are given in cash prices for the relevant years.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for assistance from the social fund at Doncaster and Mexborough benefit offices were made in the year 1994–95; how many were accepted; how many were refused; and what was the figures for the previous year. [31093]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Ian Magree, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 4 July 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about claims to the Social Fund in the Doncaster and Mexborough benefit offices for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  With the creation of the Benefits Agency in April 1991, offices were grouped into Districts. Information has therefore been supplied for the Doncaster and the Rother and Dearne Districts Mexborough Branch Office is one office within the Rother and Dearne District and figures for it cannot be given separately.

  Information regarding Funeral Payment (FP) and Maternity Payment (MP) refusals is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. This is because the precise data could only be gathered by a special scan of the Social Fund Computer System. However, I have provided estimated figures for your information.

  Information for the Doncaster District is provided at Annex A and for Rother and Dearne at Annex B.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  294

  Annex A: Number of applications, awards and refusals, Doncaster district: 1993–94 and 1994–95

  Application type

  Applications

  Awards

  Refusals

  1993–94

  Budgeting loan

  9,695

  5,809

  3,925

  Community care grant

  6,767

  1,511

  5,334

  Crisis loan

  4,948

  3,810

  964

  Funeral payment

  597

  404

  193

  Maternity payment

  1,605

  1,386

  219

  1994–95

  Budgeting loan

  9,302

  5,828

  3,909

  Community care grant

  7,156

  1,784

  5,547

  Crisis loan

  5,404

  4,144

  1,129

  Funeral payment

  520

  348

  172

  Maternity payment

  1,594

  1,350

  244

  The refusal figures for FP and MP have been approximated by deducting awards from applications. No account has been taken of withdrawn applications.

  Annex B: Number of applications, awards and refusals, Rother and Dearne district 1993–94 and 1994–95

  Application type

  Applications

  Awards

  Refusals

  1993–94

  Budgeting loan

  11,867

  6,847

  4,487

  Community care grant

  9,237

  3,167

  6,015

  Crisis loan

  3,969

  2,902

  959

  Funeral payment

  847

  595

  252

  Maternity payment

  2,083

  1,823

  260

  1994–95

  Budgeting loan

  11,394

  7,378

  4,592

  Community care grant

  9,144

  3,153

  6,211

  Crisis loan

  4,012

  2,839

  1,027

  Funeral payment

  779

  502

  277

  Maternity payment

  2,121

  1,762

  359

  The refusal figures for FP and MP have been approximated by deducting awards from applications. No account has been taken of withdrawn applications.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many staff he has devoted to ensuring that employers are properly paying national insurance contributions in respect of those they employ. [31273]

  (2) how many cases for recovery of (a) underpayment and (b) non-payment of national insurance contributions his staff have pursued in each of the last three complete years; how much extra revenue for the national insurance fund was recovered; in how many cases formal action through the courts was undertaken. [31274]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of the national insurance scheme is a matter for Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 4 July 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency and the National Insurance (NI) scheme.

  295
  I have been asked to reply to your questions about the numbers of staff ensuring employers are paying National Insurance contributions (NICs) and about details of recovery of underpayment and non-payment of NICs. In view of the nature of the questions I have combined the responses.
  Unfortunately the information is not available exactly in the form that you have requested.

  One of the Agency's main aims is to ensure compliance with the law in respect of NICs. The operational area in regular face-to-face contact with employers is Field Operations, whose NI inspectors visit over 100,000 employers each year to monitor their compliance with NI law. There are currently 3,440 staff in post in Field Operations, including as at 31 March 1995 1,780 staff holding Inspectors' Warrants.

  In addition to the Agency's Field Operations inspectorate force a number of our other operational sections, centrally based on Tyneside, are also concerned with correcting errors made by employers in their payment of NICs and pursuing collection of any arrears identified.

  As far as the pursuit of arrears of NICs from employers is concerned, separate statistics are not kept that allow us to differentiate between cases where NICs have not been paid, rather than underpaid. Whenever inspectors survey (visit) an employer they will ensure that action is taken to correct any mistakes. In cases where earlier tax years are concerned the inspector will arrange to collect any arrears due or refer the case to Inland Revenue Audit, under liaison arrangements, for them to arrange collection.

  Details of the numbers of surveys undertaken in the three years 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94, together with the number where errors were discovered and the sums subsequently collected are given in the table I am attaching as Annex 1. Results for 1994/95 have not yet been finalised.

  In general, self-employed people have a liability to pay Class 2 NICs unless they hold a certificate of exception from payment on the grounds of low earnings. During 1994/95 the Agency pro-actively identified 50,748 persons with an immediate requirement to pay Class 2 contributions. Similar figures for earlier years were not kept.

  The table in Annex 2 shows the number of cases in which a summons or writ was issued by either the Agency or the Department's Solicitor's office in each of the last three years. Figures are also given for the number of cases where summonses were issued by the Scottish Office on behalf of the Agency.

  The table in Annex 3 shows the number of cases authorised for criminal prosecution in each of the last three years. Records have not been kept of the number of these cases which finally resulted in a Court Hearing. Not all cases in which criminal prosecution was authorised relate to non-payment or underpayment of NICs; some will have resulted from other offences against the NI Acts, and separate figures are not kept.

  I regret that I have been unable to answer the precise questions that you have raised, but I hope that my reply proves helpful. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

  Results of contributions agency surveys

  Year

  Number of surveys

  Number where errors found

  Amount of NIC's collected by CA £ million

  IR1 £ million

  1991–92

  106,422

  48,546

  5.00

  6.31

  1992–93

  118,038

  467,899

  8.78

  10.61

  1993–94

  131,634

  656,145

  15.69

  11.30

  1 Under Liaison arrangements some arrers of national Insurance contirbutions identified on survey are collected by Inland Revenue.

  296

  Annex 2: Number of Civil Proceedings Cases

  1Number of Summons/Writs Issued

  Year

  CRS

  Solicitors

  Scotland

  1992–93

  36,929

  3,451

  1,780

  1993–94

  58,409

  2,467

  2,256

  1994–95

  71,368

  1,213

  2,172

  1 The figure for Solicitor's Office includes cases where formal action was commenced on Insolvency or Bankruptcy procedures.

  Annex 3: Criminal proceedings cases

  Year

  Number of cases authorized

  1992–93

  81

  1993–94

  53

  1994–95

  13

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Graham Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many asylum seekers there were in May in each year since 1988; how many of those who applied in each such month have been granted asylum in the United Kingdom; how many are still in the United Kingdom; and what was the annual cost to his Department of asylum seekers in each of the years specified. [32070]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is given in the table. Figures for years prior to 1992 are not available.

  It is not known how many of those granted either asylum or exceptional leave have remained in the United Kingdom.

  Decisions1 on applications1 for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, submitted in May of each year from 1992 to 1995

  May 1992

  May 1993

  May 1994

  May 1995

  Asylum applications2

  1,370

  1,865

  2,650

  3,450

  Decisions2 on those applications

  605

  920

  835

  nya

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  40

  35

  20

  nya

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave to remain3

  285

  160

  150

  nya

  Total refused4

  280

  720

  665

  nya

  Applications withdrawn

  105

  80

  60

  nya

  Applications undecided

  660

  865

  1,755

  nya

  Average cost per case for year quoted5

  —

  £175

  £185

  £165

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5 with '..' = not available and 'nya' = not yet available.

  2 Figures exclude information on applications made overseas.

  3 Usually granted for a year in the first instance, subject then to further review.

  4 Including refusals on third country grounds and refusals under paragraph 340 of Immigration Rules.

  5 Cost of asylum determination staff per initial asylum decision.

  6 Average for January to May 1995.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Milk
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to what use money paid by British farmers in fines for overproduction of milk is put. [31667]

  Mr. Jack
  Money collected in the form of a levy on over-quota milk is used to stabilise the market in milk and milk products and to help offset the costs of storing and disposing of surplus milk within the European Union.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the standards of calibration in milk tests for British farmers. [31669]

  Mr. Jack
  A number of representations have been received linking calibration standards to the outcome of butterfat test results. There are, however, a large number of factors which can cause variations in butterfat test results, of which calibration is only one.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on British farmers of current practices in the testing of milk in relation to farmers in other EEC countries and their methods of testing milk. [31671]

  Mr. Jack
  The EEC Commission's chemical experts' group in milk and milk products has issued a questionnaire to all member states covering the calibration of instruments, inter-laboratory comparisons within member states and inter-laboratory comparisons between member states. Returns are being considered and I would not wish to pre-empt the Commission's findings.

  Beef
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the nature of the irregularities in the UK beef intervention system which are to result in the European Commission imposing a fine on the United Kingdom Government; and if he will make a statement. [31941]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: The Commission's special inquiry into the arrangements applying to the intervention of beef in several member states highlighted a number of control weaknesses. Before and during the time of the inquiry, the UK authorities uncovered irregularities concerning substitution and theft of beef destined for public storage, which were reported to the Commission. Improved procedures are now in place and action for the recovery of the relevant costs for these irregularities was taken. The level of financial correction proposed by the European Commission has not yet been finalised.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his estimate of the amount of substandard beef held in intervention stocks in the United Kingdom in each of the last six years(a) in tonnes and (b) as a percentage of United Kingdom intervention stocks; [32354]

  (2) how much beef currently in intervention in the United Kingdom is considered to be substandard (a) in tonnes and (b) as a percentage of United Kingdom intervention stocks. [32355]
  298
  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Intervention Board became aware in 1991 of the presence in store of beef which was not of intervention standard. Subsequent investigations, which included a box by box examination of boned beef, have revealed a total of 404 tonnes which did not meet the intervention standards. The beef in question was taken into store in the period June 1990 to November 1993, the last month in which there was intervention buying of beef in the UK. Over that period total intake of beef was 261,000 tonnes, the ineligible quantity representing 0.15 per cent. of that figure. Current stocks total 9,354 tonnes of which about 2,000 tonnes are still being examined and may include further ineligible quantities. The full value of the ineligible beef has either been recovered or will be sought from the companies responsible for boning and packaging it for intake to the intervention stores.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of contagious equine metritis occurred in each year since 1985. [32298]

  Mrs. Browning
  Two cases of contagious equine metritis were reported in England—both in 1986.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will show, by type, the number of cases of fowl pest in each year since 1985. [32294]

  Mrs. Browning
  Fowl pests includes both Newcastle disease and avian influenza. One case of avian influenza was reported in England in 1992; the last reported case of Newcastle disease was in 1984.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of peste des petits ruminants occurred in each year since 1985. [32296]

  Mrs. Browning
  No case of peste des petits ruminants has ever been reported in England.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy occurred in each year since 1985. [32371]

  Mrs. Browning
  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy was first identified in November 1986. Information on the incidence of the disease prior to this date is not recorded.

  The following is a table of the number of confirmed cases of BSE in England up to 30 June 1995. The cases prior to 21 June 1988 are recorded by date of clinical onset of disease and the cases thereafter are recorded by date of restriction:

  Year

  Number

  1986

  7

  1987

  402

  1988

  2,256

  1989

  6,422

  1990

  12,612

  1991

  21,990

  1992

  31,115

  1993

  28,536

  1994

  20,300

  1995

  5,005

  299
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to test imported cattle for bovine immunedeficiency virus. [32246]

  Mrs. Browning
  None, since such testing is not required under EC rules. Furthermore, no routine reliable serological test is currently available for BIV.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of African horse sickness occurred in each year since 1985. [32299]

  Mrs. Browning
  African horse sickness has never been reported in England.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of rabies occurred in each year since 1967. [32295]

  Mrs. Browning
  Since 1967 there have been cases of rabies in the following years only:

  1968: 1 (in quarantine)

  1969: 4 (3 in quarantine)

  1970: 1

  1983: 1 (in quarantine)

  1990: 1 (in quarantine)

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, how many cases of epizootic haemorrhagic virus disease occurred in each year since 1985. [32297]

  Mrs. Browning
  No case of epizootic haemorrhagic virus disease has ever been reported in England.

  Oilseeds
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals his Minister has made at the seminar on industrial markets for United Kingdom oilseeds on 13 June in respect of the rates of excise for biodiesel; and if he will make a statement. [32159]

  Mr. Jack
  At the seminar on industrial uses for UK oilseeds on 13 June, in response to a question about the possibility of relief from excise duties for biodiesel, my right hon. Friend said that pump-priming support, such as duty relief, was not ruled out, although much would depend upon work going on to establish the environmental benefits of biodiesel.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of statutory instruments dealing with food hygiene in(a) manufactures' packers and processors, (b) retailers and (c) cooked food retailers during 1994 and for 1990 to the present. [32163]

  Mr. Jack
  For England and Wales, the number of statutory instruments dealing with food hygiene manufacturers' packers and processors during any part of 1994 was 28, and for retailers and cooked food retailers 14.

  The number of statutory instruments dealing with food hygiene in manufacturers' packers and processors during any part of 1990 to the present was 38, and for retails and cooked food retailers 15.
  300
  Information on the statutory instruments is given in the following tables:

  Table 1: Statutory Instruments dealing with Food Hygiene in Manufacturers' Packers and Processors

  Regulation

  SI Number

  Revoked (date given) or current

  A—LAID DURING 1994

  Poultry Meat

  The poultry meat, farmed game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1994

  1994/1029

  1 April 1995

  Meat Products

  The Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1994

  1994/3082

  Current

  Fishery Products and Live

  Bivalve Molluscs

  The Food Safety (Live Bivalve Molluscs and Other Shellfish) (Import Conditions and Miscellaneous Ammendments) Regulations 19941994/2782Current

  1994/2783

  Current

  The Food Safety (Fishery Products) (Import Conditions and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1994

  1977/1805

  1 January 1993

  B—IN FORCE DURING 1990 TO THE PRESENT

  Fresh Meat

  The Slaughterhouses (Hygiene) Regulations 1977

  1977/1805

  1 January 1993

  The Slaughterhouses (Hygiene) (Amendment) Regulations 1987

  1987/2235

  1 January 1993

  The Meat Inspection Regulations 1987

  1987/2236

  1 January 1993

  The Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1987

  1987/2237

  1 January 1993

  The Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) (Amendment) Regulation 1990

  1990/2493

  1 January 1993

  The Meat Inspection (Amendment) Regulations 1990

  1990/2495

  1 January 1993

  The Slaughterhouses (Hygiene and Meat Inspection) (Amendment) Regulations 1991

  1991/984

  1 January 1993

  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992

  1992/2037

  1 April 1995

  The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection ) Regulations 1995

  1995/539

  Current

  Poultry Meat

  The Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976

  1976/1221

  1 May 1994

  The Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Amendment) Regulations 1979

  1979/693

  1 May 1994

  The Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Amendment) Regulations 1981

  1981/1168

  1 May 1994

  The Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Amendment) Regulations 1992

  1992/2036

  1 May 1994

  The Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Amendment) Regulations 1993

  1993/209

  1 May 1994

  The Poultry Meat Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection 1995

  1995/540

  Current

  Fishery Products and Live Bivalve Molluscs

  The Imported Food (Peruvian Feedingstuffs) Regulations 19911

  1991/370

  Current

  The Imported Food and Feedingstuffs (Safeguards Against Cholera) Regulations 19911

  1991/2486

  Current

  301

  Table 1: Statutory Instruments dealing with Food Hygiene in Manufacturers' Packers and Processors

  Regulation

  SI Number

  Revoked (date given) or current

  The Imported Food and Feedingstuffs (Safeguards Against Cholera) (Amendment) Regulations 19911

  1991/2934

  Current

  The Imported Food (Safeguards Against Paralytic Toxin) (Pectinidae from Japan) Regulations 1992

  1992/1122

  Current

  The Food Safety (Fishery Products) (Derogations) Regulations 1992

  1992/1507

  Current

  The Food Safety (Live Bivalve Molluscs) (Derogations) Regulations 1992

  1992/1508

  Current

  The Imported Food (Bivalve Molluscs and Marine Gastropods from Japan) Regulations 1992

  1992/1601

  Current

  The Imported Food and Feedingstuffs (Safeguards Against Cholera) (Amendment) Regulations 19921

  1992/2364

  Current

  The Food Safety (Fishery Products) Regulations 19921

  1992/3163

  Current

  The Food Safety (Live Bivalve Molluscs and Other Shellfish) Regulations 1992

  1992/3164

  Current

  The Food Safety (Fishery Products on Fishing Vessels) Regulations 1992

  1992/3165

  Current

  Milk and Milk Products

  The Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations 1959

  1959/277

  Current

  The Milk and Dairies (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1977

  1959/277

  9 May 1995

  Milk and Dairies (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1977

  1977/171

  9 May 1995

  Milk and Dairies (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1979

  1979/1567

  9 May 1995

  The Milk-Based Drinks (Hygiene and Heat Treatment) Regulations 1983

  1983/1508

  9 May 1995

  The Milk and Dairies (Heat Treatment of Cream) Regulations 1983

  1983/1509

  9 May 1995

  Milk—based Drinks (Hygiene and Heat Treatment) (Amendment) Regulations 1986

  1986/720

  9 May 1995

  Milk and Dairies (Heat Treatment of Cream) (Amendment) Regulations 1986

  1986/721

  9 May 1995

  The Milk and Dairies (Semi-skimmed and Skimmed Milk) (Heat treatment and Labelling) Regulations 1988

  1988/2206

  9 May 1995

  The Milk and Dairies (Semi-skimmed and Skimmed Milk) (Heat treatment and Labelling) (Amendment) Regulations 1989

  1989/2382

  9 May 1995

  The Milk (Special Designation) Regulations 1989

  1989/2383

  9 May 1995

  The Milk and Dairies (Semi-skimmed and Skimmed Milk) (Heat treatment and Labelling) (Amendment) Regulations 1990

  1990/2491

  9 May 1995

  The Milk (Special Designation) (Amendment) Regulations 1990

  1990/2492

  9 May 1995

  The Milk (Special Designation) Regulations (Amendment) Order 1992

  1992/1208

  9 May 1995

  The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995

  1995/1086

  Current

  302

  Table 1: Statutory Instruments dealing with Food Hygiene in Manufacturers' Packers and Processors

  Regulation

  SI Number

  Revoked (date given) or current

  Egg Products

  The Liquid Egg (Pasteurisation) Regulations 1963

  1963/1503

  14 October 1993

  The Egg Products Regulations 1993

  1993/1520

  Current

  1 Also controls imports of other products.

  Table 2: Statutory Instruments dealing with food hygiene in retailers and cooked food retailers

  Regulation

  SI Number

  Revoked (date given) or current

  A—LAID DURING 1994

  n/a

  n/a

  B—IN FORCE DURING 1990 TO THE PRESENT

  Milk and Milk Products

  The Milk and Dairies (General) Regulations 19591

  1959/277

  Current

  Milk and Dairies (General) (Amendment) Regulations 19771

  1977/171

  9 May 1995

  Milk and Dairies (General) (Amendment) Regulations 19791

  1979/1567

  9 May 1995

  The Milk and Dairies (Heat Treatment of Cream) Regulations 19831

  1983/1509

  Current

  Milk and Dairies (Heat Treatment of Cream) (Amendment) Regulations 19861

  1986/721

  9 May 1995

  The Milk (Special Designation) Regulations 19891

  1989/2383

  Current

  The Milk (Special Designation) (Amendment) Regulations 19901

  1990/2492

  9 May 1995

  The Milk (Special Designation) Regulations (Amendment) Order 19921

  1992/1208

  9 May 1995

  The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 19951

  1995/1086

  Current

  Eggs

  The Ungraded Eggs (Hygiene) Regulations 1990

  1990/1323

  Current

  General Food Hygiene

  The Food Hygiene (Docks, Carriers, etc.) Regulations 19602

  1960/1602

  Current

  The Food Hygiene (Markets, Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations 19662

  1966/791

  Current

  The Food Hygiene (Markets, Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulations 19662

  1966/1487

  Current

  The Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 19702

  1970/1172

  Current

  The Food Hygiene (Ships) Regulations 19822

  1982/1727

  Current

  The Food Hygiene (Revision of Penalties) Regulations 19822

  1982/1727

  Current

  The Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 19902

  1990/1431

  Current

  303

  Table 2: Statutory Instruments dealing with food hygiene in retailers and cooked food retailers

  Regulation

  SI Number

  Revoked (date given) or current

  The Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations 19912

  1991/1343

  Current

  The Food Premises (Registration) Regulations 19912

  1991/2825

  Current

  The Food Safety (Amendment) (Metrication) Regulations 19922

  1992/2597

  Current

  1 Insofar as these apply to producer/retailers and distributors (eg milk roundsmen).

  2 These regulations are due for revocation under the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 and the Food Temperature Control Regulations 1995, when these are laid before Parliament later this Session.

  Common Agricultural Policy Fraud
  Dr. Gavin Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many cases of CAP fraud in the United Kingdom have been confirmed in each of the last six years(a) for each agricultural commodity and (b) in total; [32386]

  (2) how many cases of intervention fraud in the United Kingdom have been confirmed in each of the last six years (a) for each agricultural commodity and (b) in total. [32385]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Fraud is difficult to define, being a matter of criminal intention. However the UK, along with all other member states, is required to report cases of irregularity in CAP schemes, exceeding 4,000 ECUs, to the Commission. An irregularity is an overclaim on the part of the claimant, either deliberately or through error. The information for the six years in question is as follows:

  Number of cases

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Farm based schemes

  135

  167

  72

  80

  78

  84

  Beef special premium

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  Suckler cow premium

  114

  154

  52

  28

  33

  20

  Sheep annual premium

  18

  12

  11

  26

  27

  30

  Arable crops and setaside

  —

  —

  1

  21

  9

  22

  Oilseeds

  —

  —

  —

  5

  7

  1

  Linseeds

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  4

  Milk outgoers schemes

  3

  1

  8

  0

  —

  —

  Environmentally sensitive area

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  1

  Intervention (Beef)

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  Other market support measures

  21

  21

  35

  24

  46

  65

  Beefmeat

  3

  7

  13

  9

  3

  4

  Sheepmeat

  16

  3

  7

  1

  0

  0

  Cereals

  1

  9

  13

  10

  16

  6

  Oils and fats

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Protein crops

  0

  1

  1

  0

  5

  2

  Fruit and vegetables

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Milk and milk products

  0

  1

  1

  3

  20

  51

  Pigmeat

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Potato starch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  304

  Number of cases

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Export refunds

  4

  1

  13

  20

  45

  74

  MCA on Intra community trade

  3

  0

  11

  4

  9

  4

  Totals

  163

  189

  131

  131

  179

  228

  Source:

  UK CAP scheme irregularities reported under Commission Regulations 283/72 and 595/91.

  1989: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 283/72

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value reported recovered £000

  Farm based schemes

  135

  292

  284

  Beef special premium

  —

  —

  —

  Suckler cow premium

  114

  246

  241

  Sheep annual premium

  18

  38

  35

  Arable crops and set-aside

  —

  —

  —

  Oilseeds

  —

  —

  —

  Linseeds

  —

  —

  —

  Milk outgoers schemes

  3

  8

  8

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  —

  —

  —

  Intervention

  0

  0

  0

  Other market support measures

  21

  861

  670

  Beefmeat

  3

  434

  425

  Sheepmeat

  16

  372

  217

  Cereals

  1

  52

  25

  Oils and fats

  0

  0

  0

  Protein crops

  0

  0

  0

  Fruit and vegetables

  0

  0

  0

  Milk and milk products

  0

  0

  0

  Pigmeat

  1

  3

  3

  Sugar

  0

  0

  0

  Export refunds

  4

  11

  11

  MCA on intra community trade

  3

  4,306

  6

  Totals

  163

  5,470

  971

  1990: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 283/72

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value recovered £000

  Farm based schemes

  167

  340

  311

  Beef special premium

  —

  —

  —

  Suckler cow premium

  154

  305

  284

  Sheep annual premium

  12

  22

  14

  Arable crops and set-aside

  —

  —

  —

  Oilseeds

  —

  —

  —

  Linseeds

  —

  —

  —

  Milk outgoers schemes

  1

  13

  13

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  —

  —

  —

  Intervention

  0

  0

  0

  Other market support measures

  21

  1,934

  1,893

  Beefmeat

  7

  19

  17

  Sheepmeat

  3

  989

  987

  Cereals

  9

  890

  853

  Oils and fats

  0

  0

  0

  Protein crops

  1

  0

  0

  Fruit and vegetables

  0

  0

  0

  305

  1990: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 283/72

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value recovered £000

  Milk and milk products

  1

  36

  36

  Pigmeat

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  0

  Export refunds

  1

  1

  1

  MCA on intra community trade

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  189

  2,275

  2,205

  1991: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 595/91

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value recovered £000

  Farm based schemes

  72

  246

  208

  Beef special premium

  —

  —

  —

  Suckler cow premium

  52

  135

  125

  Sheep annual premium

  11

  33

  30

  Arable crops and set-aside

  1

  10

  10

  Oilseeds

  —

  —

  —

  Linseeds

  —

  —

  —

  Milk outgoers schemes

  8

  68

  43

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  —

  —

  —

  Intervention

  0

  0

  0

  Other market support measures

  35

  1,898

  1,497

  Beefmeat

  13

  70

  65

  Sheepmeat

  7

  65

  55

  Cereals

  13

  1,594

  1,365

  Oils and fats

  0

  0

  0

  Protein crops

  1

  12

  12

  Fruit and vegetables

  0

  0

  0

  Milk and milk products

  1

  157

  0

  Pigmeat

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  0

  Export refunds

  13

  1,121

  740

  MCA on intra community trade

  11

  975

  770

  Totals

  131

  4,240

  3,215

  1992: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 595/91

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value recovered £000

  Farm based schemes

  80

  444

  339

  Beef special premium

  —

  —

  —

  Suckler cow premium

  28

  148

  97

  Sheep annual premium

  26

  157

  142

  Arable crops and set-aside

  21

  115

  80

  Oilseeds

  5

  24

  20

  Linseeds

  —

  —

  —

  Milk outgoers schemes

  0

  0

  0

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  0

  0

  0

  Intervention

  3

  1,079

  529

  Other market support measures

  24

  1,845

  1,297

  Beefmeat

  9

  25

  20

  306

  1992: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 595/91

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value recovered £000

  Sheepmeat

  1

  4

  4

  Cereals

  10

  1,406

  1,273

  Oils and fats

  1

  106

  0

  Protein crops

  0

  0

  0

  Fruit and vegetables

  0

  0

  0

  Milk and milk products

  3

  304

  0

  Pigmeat

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  0

  Export refunds

  20

  2,355

  1,621

  MCA on intra community trade

  4

  71

  50

  Totals

  131

  5,794

  3,836

  1993: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 595/91

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value recovered £000

  Farm based schemes

  78

  508

  366

  Beef special premium

  2

  0

  0

  Suckler cow premium

  33

  191

  162

  Sheep annual premium

  27

  241

  157

  Arable crops and set-aside

  9

  39

  18

  Oilseeds

  7

  37

  29

  Linseeds

  0

  0

  0

  Milk outgoers schemes

  —

  —

  —

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  0

  0

  0

  Intervention

  1

  Value being assessed

  —

  Other market support measures

  46

  1,350

  887

  Beefmeat

  3

  28

  17

  Sheepmeat

  0

  0

  0

  Cereals

  16

  241

  239

  Oils and fats

  2

  19

  12

  Protein crops

  5

  35

  35

  Fruit and vegetables

  0

  0

  0

  Milk and milk products

  20

  1,027

  584

  Pigmeat

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  0

  Export refunds

  45

  944

  753

  MCA on intra community trade

  9

  111

  105

  Totals

  179

  2,913

  2,111

  1994: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 595/91

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value recovered £000

  Farm based schemes

  84

  624

  414

  Beef special premium

  6

  18

  14

  Suckler cow premium

  20

  111

  75

  Sheep annual premium

  30

  217

  142

  Arable crops and set-aside

  22

  242

  150

  Oilseeds

  1

  3

  3

  Linseeds

  4

  26

  23

  Milk outgoers schemes

  —

  —

  —

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  1

  7

  7

  307

  1994: Irregularity cases reported under Regulation 595/91

  Sector/Commodity/Scheme

  Numbers of cases

  Value reported £000

  Value recovered £000

  Intervention

  1

  20

  0

  Other market support measures

  65

  1,500

  986

  Beefmeat

  4

  40

  15

  Sheepmeat

  0

  0

  0

  Cereals

  6

  359

  51

  Oils and fats

  0

  0

  0

  Protein crops

  2

  49

  45

  Fruit and vegetables

  1

  0

  0

  Milk and milk products

  51

  1,025

  875

  Pigmeat

  0

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  0

  Potato starch

  1

  36

  0

  Export refunds

  74

  6,570

  498

  MCA on intra community trade

  4

  419

  9

  Totals

  228

  9,133

  1,907

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many serious irregularities in the intervention regimes are currently under investigation in the United Kingdom for each agricultural commodity. [32387]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The serious irregularities in the intervention regimes currently under investigation in Great Britain are shown in the table and cover all internal support schemes. The details for Northern Ireland will be sent separately to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Scheme

  Number of cases

  Beef intervention processing

  1

  Beef intervention purchases

  2

  Fruit and vegetable withdrawal

  1

  Surplus food

  6

  Seed production aid

  1

  Milk quotas

  47

  School milk

  1

  Total

  59

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many investigations into intervention fraud in the United Kingdom have taken place in each of the last six years(a) for each agricultural commodity and (b) in total. [32384]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The number of completed investigations into intervention fraud in GB for each support scheme is provided in the table. The details for Northern Ireland will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Scheme

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1. Beef intervention purchases

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  1

  —

  2. Cereals intervention purchases

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  308

  Scheme

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  3. Fruit and vegetables withdrawals

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  4. Surplus food

  1

  —

  1

  —

  6

  16

  4

  5. NPO butter

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  6. Butter for manufacture

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Sheep variable premium

  19

  4

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cereals corep levy

  4

  3

  14

  15

  3

  2

  —

  Beef special premium

  53

  15

  15

  12

  11

  —

  —

  Linseed

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  2

  —

  Peas, beans and lupins

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Milk supplementary levy

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  9

  2

  School milk

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  Whisky refunds

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Conc. butter for direct consumption

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Aid for dehydrated fodder

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Liquid skimmed for animal feed

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Starch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  79

  27

  38

  36

  30

  37

  7

  Infant Food (Oestrogen)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 691, who is conducting the two studies into oestrogens in infant diets; when they were commissioned; what reports resulted from the earlier study; if they will be made available; and when they are due to produce final reports. [32440]

  Mrs. Browning
  The two projects are at the Dunn clinical nutrition centre, university of Cambridge and at the Institute of Food Research, Norwich. The projects respectively started in September 1994 and April 1995 and are due to report in March 1997 and March 1998.

  Results from the earlier MAFF-funded project are being reported in the scientific literature with one paper already published—Am J Clin Nutr. 1994; 60; 333–340—and a second to be published later this year.

  Sheep and Cattle Premiums
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide provisional quotas and financial assistance to farmers who have not had sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium quotas allocated, because of the judicial review, until such time as the issue is settled. [32640]

  Mr. Jack
  The judgment given in this case will affect the availability of quota in the national reserves for 1994 and subsequent years. Until those implications have been fully worked out, no allocations of quota can be made from those reserves.

  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy not to appeal against the judicial review on sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium quotas. [32641]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government are currently considering the implications of the judgment given in this case and whether or not to appeal.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

European Court of Justice
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in accordance with their positive approach to the Inter-Governmental Conference (HL Deb., col. WA 100, 8th June 1995), they will attempt to clarify and limit the powers of the European Court of Justice and otherwise seek a repatriation of sovereignty to the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, our positive approach to the IGC is governed by the belief that the Union should do less, but do it better. So far as the European Court is concerned, we need a strong Court to enforce Community rules and obligations on all member states and as a bulwark against abuse of power of Community institutions. We are concerned that some judgments may have had unforeseen consequences or resulted in disproportionate costs and we are therefore looking at likely remedies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that the admirable aim of getting the European Union to do less but to do it better might start to be met if the unelected Commission were to lose its power to initiate legislation; if the doctrine of the occupied field were to be abandoned and if Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty—the controversial subsidiarity clause—were to be amended to have the meaning that the British Government have always said it should have?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am extremely glad that my noble friend believes our aims are admirable; I shall remember that. However, his solutions to this problem are not likely to be either the most practicable or indeed the most workable since any changes must be agreed by unanimity. The most important thing is to make subsidiarity work properly. I believe that it can under the existing Article 3b because the test in that is whether the Community is doing too much or too little. Most of us want to work together at a European level when it makes sense to do so, but not when it does not.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on these Benches we welcome what she said regarding the Government's desire to see a strong European Court of Justice? In the light of the Prime Minister's re-election as leader of his party, will the Government now discourage the sniping that goes on to encourage the United Kingdom to renege on its backing for one of the most fundamental institutions of the European Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will remember that we have been over this ground many times. The position has not changed. As I have said often before in your Lordships' House, we have concerns about some ECJ judgments. We are looking at ways of addressing them. But those who wish to speak their mind, even if their opinion is different from that of the Government or of the Opposition Front Bench, must be free to do so. We live in a democracy.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the fundamental defect of my noble friend's original Question that it starts from a false premise and is followed by a non sequitur? The false premise is that we have lost our sovereignty and therefore it needs repatriating. In fact this Parliament is the sovereign body in the United Kingdom. The non sequitur is that, if we wanted to repatriate our sovereignty, limiting the powers of the European Court would be the last way to do it.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely right. This Parliament is sovereign. Though it may be attractive to some to contemplate repatriation of policies and to speak as they do, the reality is that if we want to make the field in which we have done so well economically—the European Union—succeed, we must be in there making sure that we play our full part and obtaining sensible decisions for the whole of the Union, not only for Britain.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, without wishing to disturb anything which may have happened in another place yesterday, and animated by a desire to move into calmer waters, is it possible for some of us to concur with the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, on this matter? In view of the Minister's encouraging reply, will she have regard to the judgment of the German Supreme Court in Karlsruhe on 12th October 1993 to the effect that, in so far as German law affects the fate of individual German citizens, it remains firmly in the hands of the German courts?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am certain that British law will remain firmly in the hands of the British courts just as German law remains in the hands of the German courts when cases are on an equal basis.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, in so far as there has been a loss of sovereignty—inevitable in a global economy—it took place to a far greater degree when currency was given freedom to move wherever it wanted under the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, and Mrs. Thatcher, than as a result of anything which is in the Treaty of Rome?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. When I look back to the decisions taken in the earlier days in regard to NATO or those taken in relation to the Single European Act in both Houses, I see far more change than I see in the more recent Act we passed in your Lordships' House. The essential point is that we must work at this

1085
positively. In any organisation there will be points with which we disagree. Those can be changed. If we need to change legislation within the European Union because it is not meeting the needs of the European Union and its member countries, then it must be changed on the same legal basis as that upon which it was first enacted.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, when there are judgments from the European Court which appear perverse or are against British interests, is it because the Treaty of Rome is wrong or because the court has interpreted the Treaty of Rome wrongly?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot comment on the European Court of Justice's interpretation—I am not a lawyer and I would not deem it right to do so. I have made it perfectly clear in your Lordships' House that we do have concerns about some ECJ judgments. What we are doing is looking at ways of addressing them. But, as I made quite clear just now, whatever the treaty base, any changes to treaty articles relating to the Court of Justice have to strengthen and not weaken the rule of law in the Community. The rule of law in the Community is there in all our interests. We have to make sure that it continues to be so.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am slightly perturbed to hear my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington say that he agreed with what the Minister had said? I shall have to examine with great care what she said. But, on what I thought she said, I find myself in considerable agreement with her. Will she take this opportunity to refute the assumption in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that if a judgment of the European Court of Justice is not necessarily in British interests it must be either perverse or unjust? That cannot be right, can it?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I learnt a long while ago not to tangle with my noble friend Lord Tebbit. I think it would be fair to say, in this mood of harmony and light which seems to exist a little more today than it did at this time yesterday, that we are very conscious indeed and have always been—this is not something new—that there are ECJ judgments which have a retrospective effect unless there is a ruling to the contrary. So we do set about changing things. But I think that the noble Lord and I work at this on the same pragmatic basis. We have to make sure that the legal niceties of our European Union meet the pragmatic needs of our peoples.

United Kingdom Sports Council
2.46 p.m.
Lord Howell Lord Howell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Who has been appointed Chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council; what is the salary of the post and the time commitment expected; what is the remit of the post; and what is the appointee's previous experience in international sports administration.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Sir Ian MacLaurin is the chairman-designate of the United Kingdom Sports Council. Sir Ian has declined to draw a salary for this appointment, which will involve one day a month. Sir Ian will oversee the establishment of the UKSC, which will prepare and implement policies to promote and further our participation and influence in international sport. Sir Ian has considerable business experience and associations with sport.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting and revealing information. We wish Sir Ian well and we welcome this new sports council. However, it is operating in the jungle of international sports administration. The chairman who has been appointed has no experience in that direction. Nor do I believe that by working one day a month Sir Ian can possibly represent British interests abroad. Will the Minister inquire—I do not think that she will have the answer to this part of my question—why on earth at his first meeting of the council last week Sir Ian dispensed with the services of the chief executive of the English Sports Council and the principal officer of that body, who are the two most experienced people in international sports negotiation? That does not augur very well for the future of British interests in international sport.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. I do not have the answer to his question. I knew that they had a meeting but I did not know the result. I congratulate the noble Lord on being one step ahead of me.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, my noble friend made an important point as to whether one day a month is sufficient. With the way international sport is now structured, it has become something of a jungle. I hope that the Minister will listen with care to what my noble friend said. If there is any need to review the case, it should be referred to the new appointee, whoever it may be after today's announcement regarding the new Cabinet.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the day-to-day management of the UKSC will fall to a chief executive, under Sir Ian's direction. We shall have a first-class government agency to represent us internationally. Sport will for the first time get the lion's share of sports council funding. The proposals represent a major push to revive young people's involvement in sport.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the new council should have up-to-date sports management skills? With the new restructuring and the idea of going for enhancing our reputation in key areas of sport, we need immediate experience. People who just know about business will not have the cultural background to enhance our position.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Sir Ian really does have a super pedigree. He played cricket for Kent; he is a keen golfer; he is a member of the Lord's Taverners; and he is on the Committee of the MCC. You cannot do much better than that!

Fiftieth Anniversaries
2.50 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
What criteria they apply in deciding which fiftieth anniversaries to commemorate.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in view of Britain's long and distinguished history, there are not just fiftieth anniversaries, but centenaries, bicentenaries and so on, to be celebrated. The decision whether to participate is the subjective decision of the department concerned, taking into account a very wide variety of factors such as the perceived historic importance of the event, its relevance to modern times, potential public interest and, of course, cost.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, listening to the Government's criteria for such celebrations, would the Minister agree that the fact that today is the fiftieth anniversary of the general election of 1945—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Dubs:—and Labour's tremendous victory on that occasion that, party politics apart, she and the Government could be a little bit more generous and indicate that that is an event worth commemorating? Is she aware that today the Fabian Society, on behalf of the Labour Party, is having a whole day of events to commemorate the occasion and the election of a government which put full employment, housing, a national health service and social security among their main aims? Is not that an event of significance?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am really upset that the Fabian Society did not invite me to its full day of celebrations because I would most certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that we should remember the day when the Labour Party was elected. I believe that the electorate should remember that that was a mistake that should never be repeated.
Lord Richard: My Lords, the Minister knows of course that today was polling day in 1945, which led to the election of one of the great reforming governments of this century. Noble Lords opposite may low at that, but history will bear me out rather than them. Is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House wish that the Government would now name an early polling day, which will lead to the election of another such government?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is very unwise even to make such a suggestion because when we do have another polling day I can assure the noble Lord that we shall win again. I have no intention of going through my list of the disasters of the last Labour Government, but I shall certainly do so if pressed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having been elected Member for Huntingdon 50 years ago today, where I remained MP until the people were so wise as to choose a future Prime Minister 34 years later, will my noble friend remind the Fabian Society that six years after the war we were on shorter food rations as a result of socialism than we were at the end of six years of war?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, no, never! That is not true!
Lord Renton: My Lords, it did happen. Will she also remind noble Lords opposite that, although there was a sellers' market during those six years, the economy was weakened by excessive control of industry and by nationalisation, against which we voted and which is coming to an end?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I say to my noble friend Lord Renton that I have a very long list which includes the particular item that he mentioned. I congratulate my noble friend on having achieved that victory 50 years ago today. While I am doing that, perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who, 50 years ago, became the first Baron Packenham. I very much wish that that was something we could also celebrate. I do not see him in his usual place, but I hope that those remarks will be passed on.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, while the Minister is being reminded by her noble friend Lord Renton of the measures which the Conservative Opposition of those days voted against, would it also be in order to remind Members opposite that they also voted, line by line, against the introduction of the National Health Service and that they still hold an unending grudge against a free health service for the people of this country?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the National Health Service came about as a result of a commission under the coalition led by Winston Churchill. I remind the noble Lord that we have been in charge of the National Health Service twice as long as his party and that the amount of money we are spending on it puts to shame the amount of money spent on the service by a Labour Government.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, moving to another approaching anniversary, will the Government consider commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the announcement of the Marshall Plan, which was an immense help to Western Europe's post-war reconstruction? Would it not be a salutary reminder, when some current rewriting of history is conveying a theory that the United States deliberately allowed British wealth and possessions to be lost or destroyed in World War II?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that is an excellent suggestion and I shall pass it on.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, having missed the opportunity to celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the 1945 general election, will the Government start preparing in good time to celebrate the ninetieth anniversary of the landslide of 1906 in which the Tories were swept from the Government Benches? Would they not consider that the most appropriate way of celebrating that occasion would be to go to the country and give the people an opportunity to repeat that event?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I tell the noble Lord that we look to the future and not to the past.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that these celebrations should be kept for major world anniversaries like VE and VJ Day, the celebration of which was so brilliantly organised by the Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, and should not be debased for party political events, however earth-shattering they may seem?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, we do not believe that these kinds of celebrations should be used as a platform for any political purpose. No such complaint could possibly be made about the worldwide commemorations which are taking place this year.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that that great magazine History Today has taken note of the fiftieth anniversary of the 1945 election by publishing two splendid photographs of a Captain Roy Jenkins and a Major Denis Healey in its extremely interesting article on that event?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for bringing that information to our attention.

EU: Costs and Benefits of Membership
2.58 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will commission a cost/benefit analysis of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union, as distinct from United Kingdom access to the European single market.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government have no intention of carrying out such an analysis, which would be time-consuming, expensive and unnecessary. The Government consider the benefits of membership of the European Union to be self-evident.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I find that a disappointing Answer to what was intended to be a helpful Question? Is he further aware that the reason why we are having such a huge argument—and there has been such a huge argument over the past fortnight in the Conservative Party—is that the benefits of membership are not self-evident? Therefore, would it not be wise, as any business would do, to undertake an analysis of the cost and benefit of our membership of the European Union so that not only the Government but the country as a whole can make a decision and a judgment as to whether our membership is in the country's interests and whether it is in our interests to continue to be a member of the European Union?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is trying, as always, to be helpful, but I think that he will accept that conducting such an exercise would be fraught with pretty major problems. It would rely very much on hypothetical assumptions about the level of domestic UK spending in the absence of contributions to and receipts from the Community budget; on the
1090
policies which replaced those in the Community; and on the performance of the UK economy outside the Community. Furthermore, as I made clear in my original Answer, there is a whole range of hidden political and economic benefits from European Union membership which I do not think that it would be possible to itemise or quantify in the manner which he suggested.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, is not the Question meaningless as one cannot sever the single market from membership of the European Union? Would it not be just as sensible to ask for a cost/benefit analysis of the head if it were severed from the body—a state of affairs that the individual concerned would find most regrettable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, being a kind person, I would not want to follow my noble friend in saying that the Question was totally meaningless. I was trying to say that, even if it was meaningful, it would be jolly difficult to calculate the matter in the way in which the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that neither he nor his Government can get away indefinitely with vague generalities about the effects of our membership of the European Community? Is he further aware that it is possible, at a fraction of the sum which the Government spend annually on employing consultants, to get the correct statistical material upon which reasonable judgments can be made? Is the Minister also aware that if he will not do that now, he will be compelled to do so sooner or later because this is something in which the British public as a whole, not merely statisticians, are vitally interested?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord accuses me and the rest of the Government of uttering vague generalities. I thought that I was quite specific in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, when I explained the difficulties of conducting such an exercise. I then added that there were various political and other advantages which could not be quantified in the manner which the noble Lord suggested. I do not think that I can take the noble Lord further than the Answer that I gave.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is not the defect of a cost/benefit analysis in this context that it would involve hypotheses incapable of verification?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble and learned friend is absolutely correct. That was the point that I was trying to make but at slightly greater length. My noble and learned friend makes the point with greater succinctness.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, why does the Minister think that it is so difficult to separate the single market from the political union? ASEAN and NAFTA are both very successful single markets; they do not have a political union. Without wishing to argue the merits, I cannot understand why the two cannot be separated.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the fact is that we are members of the European Union. If the noble Lord is suggesting that we should withdraw from the Union but remain part of the European Economic Area, what he is

1091
suggesting is that we should have the benefits and the obligations that go with the single market without having any opportunity to influence its development within the European Union. The two cannot be separated.
Lord Monson: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that over the past year public support for membership of the European Union has fallen from 66 per cent. right down to 35 per cent. in Austria and from 52 per cent. down to 32 per cent. in Sweden? Does not that indicate that the peoples of Europe, as opposed to their establishments, are coming round to the view that membership of the European Union brings more disadvantages than benefits?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord should be wary, as I think that the party opposite is now wary, of reading too much into opinion polls. The simple fact is that those countries decided to join the Community after referenda, and they decided to join by a majority.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, but if all these matters are so hypothetical and if it is so difficult to make an assessment of them, how can my noble friend be so absolutely sure of in which direction the balance lies?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, I believe—I think that a great many others also believe—that the advantages of membership are self-evident. I accept that my noble friend does not share my view on such matters, but I could list a whole range of advantages that we gain from membership of the Community in terms of trade and in terms of the EU acting as a trade negotiator and giving us greater influence in the world, as well as all the inward investment that has come to this country as a result of our membership. I could go on.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, would the Minister care to reconsider his rejection of my noble friend's suggestion? Surely it might be useful to introduce some notion of scale into the debate; for example, in a cost/benefit analysis one could compare our annual contribution to the European Commission, which runs at an average about £1 billion per year, with the £14 billion of taxpayers' money which was wasted by the Tory Government on the poll tax in a single year. One could compare, could one not, the hypothetical costs which might be imposed on the UK Government by a Commission which directly controls at most 2 per cent. of UK GDP with the very real damage that was inflicted on the UK economy by the Tory Government, who control 45 per cent. of UK GDP?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I note with interest the Opposition Front Bench support for conducting such a cost/benefit analysis, which, as I explained, is severely impractical. There is no way in which one could do it with any relevance. As regards the main points of the noble Lord's question, I fail to see what they have to do with the Question on the Order Paper and I have no intention of even attempting to answer them.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, returning to the question which my noble friend the Minister was asked by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, does he agree that
1092
endless belly-aching and endless fault-finding with an organisation to which you belong is very unhelpful and is likely to be self-defeating?
Lord Henley: My Lords, this is one of those possibly rare occasions when I can totally and utterly agree with my noble friend Lord Peyton. I am most grateful for his comments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in his answer to my noble friend Lord Cockfield it might have been helpful if he had suggested that he read the Question before intervening? The Question is whether there should be a cost/benefit analysis split between our benefits from the Union and our access to the market. Does my noble friend further agree that the benefits, which he takes as self-evident, come to this country because of low labour costs and good labour relations, because of low inflation, because we speak English, because we have access to the market, and scarcely at all because of our ruinous membership of the Union?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, we not only have access to the market but, through our membership of the Union, we have the ability to influence how that market develops. That is the important point.

Barony of Farnham
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham) rose to move that the report of the Committee for Privileges on the Barony of Farnham (HL Paper 85) be agreed to.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be appropriate for me to give the House a very brief outline of what the Barony of Farnham case involved. The petitioner, Lord Farnham, is the holder of a distinguished Irish peerage. His grandfather was elected to represent the Peers of Ireland in your Lordships' House under the provisions of the Act of Union with Ireland 1800. Such Peers were elected for life and many of them continued to attend this House after the passing in 1922 of the legislation which set up the Irish Free State. However, there were no further elections of Irish Peers after 1922 so that their number dwindled with the passing of the years. In 1966 Lord Antrim and a number of other Irish Peers petitioned this House asking that elections should once again be held. That petition was referred to the Committee for Privileges, which reached the conclusion that the effect of the 1922 legislation had been to dismantle the electoral structure set up by the Act of Union and that no further elections could be made without further legislation. There the matter rested until Lord Farnham's petition. It was his contention that the continuation of the issuing of writs of summons to attend your Lordships' House after the passing of the 1922 legislation, together with the findings of the Committee for Privileges in 1966, meant that a barony by writ had been created in the person of his grandfather (the 11 th Baron) to which he, the 12th Baron, was the rightful heir. That, very briefly, was the case which was argued before the committee.
We were assisted greatly by the Attorney-General and by counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jonathan Fisher. I should also like to record the gratitude of the committee for the written material submitted by Mr. John Lofthouse, junior counsel for the Crown. Mr. Lofthouse is, of course, an acknowledged expert in the arcane field of peerage law, and his valuable and fascinating memoranda helped the committee to understand the issues raised in this petition.
As always in peerage cases, the Committee for Privileges relies heavily on the assistance of the Lords of Appeal. On this occasion the committee was immensely indebted to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Mustill and Lord Lloyd of Berwick. With their assistance, we found ourselves able to reach the unanimous conclusion which is embodied in the committee's report. We concluded that, in spite of Mr. Fisher's eloquence, the case had not been made out for the creation of a barony by writ. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Keith and Lord Jauncey, have provided the legal reasons for the committee's decision and those opinions are included in the printed minutes of proceedings.
Finally, I should like to add a personal word, although I believe that what I am about to say reflects the views of members of the committee. Although the petitioner, Lord Farnham, will no doubt have been understandably disappointed by our decision, I believe that it will be of some comfort to him to know that he performed a significant service, not only on behalf of his family but also on behalf of other members of the Irish peerage, the history of whose families is similar to that of his own. By ensuring that his petition was considered by your Lordships' House, Lord Farnham will, if your Lordships pass this Motion this afternoon, have enabled the matter to be settled once and for all and the uncertainty ended. That is a valuable service. I suspect that Lord Farnham would never have forgiven himself had he allowed the matter to go by default. I ask your Lordships to agree to the report of the Committee for Privileges. I beg to move.
Moved, That the report of the Committee for Privileges on the Barony of Farnham (HL Paper 85) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
3.12 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, our Chairman of Committees, for moving his Motion in such an able and succinct way. The House will be indebted to him for that. It is with some diffidence that I speak on the subject considering, as we are, a report of a committee of our House of eminent and learned colleagues. I am sustained by the knowledge that here, on the Floor of the House, we are all equal, with equal rights and duties to give our counsel. It is our duty, each of us equally, to consider this matter and to come to a judgment.
1094
It has been suggested that I am speaking for the Irish peerage. Not so. I speak for the rights and privileges of Members of your Lordships' House. By virtue of the Act of Union of 1800 between Great Britain and Ireland, as the noble Lord explained, the Irish peerage elected 28 of its number to sit here in our House of Lords. They had a seat in the House for their lifetime, with the rights and privileges of other Members of your Lordships' House. When they died, an election was held for a replacement.
In 1922, the Irish Free State was set up. In 1966, the House agreed to a Privileges Committee Report (the Antrim case) which said:
"That the provisions of the said Act relating to the election of Irish representative peers ceased to be effective on the passing of the Irish Free State Agreement Act, 1922, and that the right to elect Irish representative peers no longer exists".
In that case Lord Dilhorne said in his opinion:
"In one sense the 28 elected peers were representative of the Irish peers who elected them just as the four lords spiritual who sat by rotation represented the other lords spiritual but it is to my mind clear that they were only elected to sit and vote on the part of Ireland.
When the Free State and Northern Ireland were created, Ireland as an entity ceased to be part of the United Kingdom. It necessarily follows that there was no territory called Ireland to be represented in the United Kingdom Parliament and thereafter it was in my opinion no longer possible to elect an Irish peer to sit and vote in the House of Lords on the part of Ireland for to do so would have meant the election of peers to represent a territory which had ceased to exist as a political entity and as part of the United Kingdom.
For these reasons, in my opinion that part of the Union of Ireland Act which provided for the election of Irish peers to the House of Lords must be regarded as having become spent or obsolete or impliedly repealed in 1922".
My contention is that the implication of that judgment was that there was no basis for Irish Peers to sit in this House. In effect, the Act of Union of 1800 had been torn up. But some Irish Peers continued to receive Writs of Summons and sit in the House after 1922. Since there was no other basis for their sitting in this House, they sat by virtue of a Writ of Summons, and based on the precedent that there was effectively created for each of them a barony by Writ of Summons.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, they sat after 1922 because they had been elected for life. It was agreed that they should continue to sit for their lifetime, although the right to elect further Irish Peers had ceased and was repealed in 1971.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord did not listen closely to my remarks. When he reads them in Hansard tomorrow, he may consider them more fully.
I believe that there are fewer than six cases that meet the criteria. The Barony of Farnham is one of them. The present Baron Farnham is the grandson of the first creation—his father having died at El Alamein as a result of wounds. I believe that he should receive his Writ of Summons.
I have been a little concerned about some of the things said in the committee's proceedings; in particular, the reference to Irish representative Peers. We must draw a distinction between the method of selection of Peers and their situation once they have taken their seats

1095
in the House. I give the example of the Spiritual Bench in your Lordships' House. Its Members are effectively selected by the established Church (the Church of England) to sit in the House, but when they take their seats they speak for themselves. They do not speak for the Church of England.
We must recognise that those Irish Peers who sat by virtue of the Act of Union 1800 did not sit in this House representing Ireland; they sat in this House representing themselves, as we are all summoned to do, to give our counsel and not represent any outside interest.
Some of us sit in this House by virtue of ancient, or less ancient, titles; and some sit by virtue of statutory provision, and receive Writs of Summons by virtue of those Acts. If those Acts were repealed, the basis for the seat would be removed, but if they receive the Writ of Summons, and take their seat, there would be conferred on them a barony by Writ of Summons.
In conclusion, I should like to quote the words of a counsel for James, Duke of Atholl, in 1735, who said:
"They insisted likewise that when any one is called to the House of Peers and actually sits there his Blood is thereby ennobled and his Lineal Heirs will be so for ever afterwards".
I hope that the House will uphold the ancient rights, and it is on that basis that I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, leave out ("agreed to") and insert ("referred back to the Committee for Privileges for reconsideration").—(Lord Monkswell.)
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope that we shall not take a great deal of trouble to listen to the debate on this amendment. Basically, it is nonsense.
Looking around the House, in particular at the Benches behind me, I see that a few Baronies by Writ now exist. My noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton may be one and my noble friend Lady Strange may be another. Although they existed prior to the 17th century, they were validated in the 17th century by the Committee for Privileges because there was the anomalous practice of medieval monarchs issuing writs without Letters Patent. They are the only peerages by writ which can exist, and they exist only in the peerage of England and not in the peerages of Ireland, Scotland or the United Kingdom. There is not an ancient right, except in respect of those who already possess them and their descendants.
Since the 17th century, peerages of all kinds—whether in the peerages of Ireland, Scotland, England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom—have been limited by Letters Patent. The descent descends only to the heirs male of the body because that is how the Letters Patent are framed. As appears from the report, the Barony of Farnham was not a peerage of the United Kingdom but of Ireland. Effectively, it no longer exists. It was established by Letters Patent and the descent, therefore, descends only to the heirs male of the body by reason of the Letters Patent and not by virtue of any writ received.
The matter does not stop there. The barony from which the noble Lord's amendment descends was a barony to sit in this House for life. That is all it was. It
1096
gave no right of descent per se to its successors. In fact, for reasons referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell—I must not be taken to accept the context in which he put them—it has been held that the habit of electing representative Peers to sit in this House arose solely by statute under the Act of Union with Ireland, which has since gone by the board and disappeared into the realms of history. There never was anything else to it.
Such Peers sat for life, and that was the only right that they had. When they died no one else succeeded them. It was a barony for life created by statute, which is now obsolete and, in effect, repealed. That is all there was to it. This appeal is as near unarguable as a point of law as anything I have ever seen. I ask the House not to waste a great deal of time discussing it but to reject it out of hand.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Viscount. I do not believe that this is a waste of time—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I am not a Viscount!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, no, in no way. For a number of reasons, I wish that I could support the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. First, he stands for a tradition of independence while preserving loyalty to the party, which is enviable and should be preserved in this House. In many years from now he may occupy the kind of position which is occupied by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. But that is some way off. In the meantime, I hope that he will subordinate his independence to his loyalty in order to achieve office in the next administration.
As I am wearing an Irish Rugby Union tie which was given to me by an Ulster protestant, I am prejudiced in favour of anything that would produce more Irish influence in this House. Of course, County Cavan is wonderfully well situated for that purpose. It is in Ulster and it is also in the Irish Republic. In that sense, I am on his side.
It would be unwise of me to say that I am the only person but perhaps I am one of the few people who played tennis as a partner with the late Lord Farnham. I am greatly indebted to him because he helped me to reach the final of the County Cavan tennis tournament. He was what we call in England the local squire. Farnham Castle dominated the county courts and therefore we were given a colossal handicap. The late Lord Farnham was a fine man and we reached the final of the tournament. The local young men were terrified of the great Lord who presided over the whole scene at Farnham Castle and the courts at County Cavan. A couple of unimpressionable young fellows, who were Davis Cup players, came from Dublin. They had never heard of Lord Farnham or of me and so they swept us aside. However, we got as far as the final and I was in partnership with Lord Farnham. Afterwards, I apologised to him and said, "I am afraid that I let you down". He said, "You can't keep going all the time". I suppose that that was well meant but it did not console me very much. At any rate, perhaps that can be said about this case. He reached the final but he could not keep going all the time and win.

1097
I have another recollection of Lord Farnham which I must give because I believe that it will endear him to the House, whatever the result of the Motion. Every year there was a tennis dance at Farnham Castle, overlooking the courts. Every year Lord Farnham, who was a loyal Britisher, insisted on "God Save the King" being played. It was during the 1930s. Of course, a number of local nationalists would walk out and therefore there was always a question of whether the dance would take place.
I hope that when we in this House think of Lord Farnham—this House is the most loyal of British Chambers—we shall think of him having "God Save the King" played 15 years after the signing of the treaty. That was the only place in Ireland where it was played and his memory should be happily preserved. However, I am afraid that I cannot vote for the amendment.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, having delivered one of the opinions in the report, perhaps I may make a few comments. The position is very simple. What was referred to the committee was the determination of whether the 11th Baron Farnham was created a Baron of the United Kingdom. He was the 11 th Baron and a hereditary Irish Peer. He was elected as one of the 28 representative Peers of Ireland prior to the separation of Ireland and the constitution of the Irish Free State. The first question before the committee was whether, when he continued to sit in your Lordships' House after 1922, when the Irish Free State was separated from Great Britain, he sat by virtue of election for life before 1922 or whether he sat by virtue of some other reason.
If he sat by virtue of his election for life that was the end of the matter. The petitioner never suggested that a Barony by Writ could have been created in him if he was there by virtue of his election. The creation of a Barony by Writ could have arisen only if he ceased to have the right to sit by virtue of his election and he sat by virtue of his Writ of Summons.
The committee had no difficulty in concluding that he was elected for life. He sat for life by virtue of his election and, accordingly, no possible question could have arisen as to the creation of a Barony by Writ.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that if any Member of this House who sat here by virtue of a Writ was automatically created a Baron by Writ it would have followed that all the 16 Scottish representative Peers who sat between 1707 and 1963 would, by their Writ of Summons at the parliament in question, have been created Baron by Writ. They would have been hereditary Peers with the right to sit in this House without regard to the election of the 16. Nobody ever suggested such an idea. In my submission, it is absolutely clear that no question of a Barony by Writ arises here, even if there were a competence, these days, to create it.
The committee considered fully the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and reached a unanimous conclusion on the matter. I therefore support the Motion put forward by the Chairman of Committees.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, it is only fair that somebody should speak in defence of the unfortunate Irish Peers. I declare an interest to the extent that I am an Irish Peer by senior title and at one stage I was chairman of the Irish Peers Association. I recognise that it is extremely difficult to justify representing something which does not exist. However, having said that, I find that members of the Irish Peerage have rather adopted the role of the Flying Dutchman—they have nowhere to go. They are not dissimilar to the late Sir Winston Churchill who at one time during his illustrious career, I think I am right in saying, found himself without a party, without a constituency and without a bottom. That situation is rather similar to that of the Irish Peers.
It would be rather brave and some may think rather arrogant to take on the expert wisdom of the noble and learned Lords who are Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who were members of the Committee for Privileges, some of whom I see in their places today. They have had the benefit of extensive advice which I cannot put before the House because, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, we do not wish to waste too much time on this matter. But I emphasise that this is the last call to supper as it were for the Irish Peers. I perceive, and the association perceives, that they have had their privileges and rights somewhat undermined.
I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is of a mind to reject most things that might be said which are contrary to the opinion reached by the Committee of Privileges. He will correct me if I am wrong but I believe that he said that a Barony by Writ exists only for life.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I never said anything of the kind and I am in the recollection of the House.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I had thought that that is what he said and, of course, that is not right. A Barony by Writ is created for the descendants and so on.
The Committee for Privileges paid a great deal of attention to the provisions of the Act of 1800. The wording early on in one of the paragraphs showed that it appeared to be the intention of the Act that Peers would be elected to Westminster by their number to represent a part of Ireland.
That was accepted by the Committee for Privileges and it gave due credence to that. But I must point out that the same paragraph states that:
"all Peerages of Ireland created after the Union shall have Rank and Precedency with the Peerages of the United Kingdom, so created, according to the Dates of their Creations: and that all Peerages both of Great Britain and Ireland, now subsisting or hereafter to be created, shall in all other respects, from the Date of the Union, be considered as Peerages of the United Kingdom; and that the Peers of Ireland shall, as Peers of the United Kingdom, … enjoy all Privileges of Peers as fully as the Peers of Great Britain".
I do not believe that the Act of 1922 repealed anything in relation to that which I have just quoted. If that is so, one could raise an argument that rights and privileges of the Peers of Ireland have not so much been removed as fallen into abeyance because nobody paid a great deal of attention to that matter, which is rather sad.

1099
As my noble friend the Chairman of Committees said, we are extremely grateful to Lord Farnham for going ahead with his Petition as it gives us the opportunity to clarify the situation and at least we shall go down with all flags flying. I believe that the Irish Peers have been unfairly treated.
In the fourth article, it is deemed that the Irish Peers represented part of Ireland. It has been argued with some justification that under the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, Ireland did not exist politically and therefore it was impossible to have any representation of Ireland as it just did not exist. If that is accepted, as I am sure it is, I do not deny it; and if the Irish Peers were not representing Ireland, who were they representing? If the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is arguing that they were representing nobody and they were representing themselves, then a continued Writ of Summons being received each time that there was a new parliament would seem to suggest that there is a strong case for arguing that a Barony by Writ has been created.
On the other hand, if the Irish Peers were representing a part of Ireland and Northern Ireland is still a part of Ireland, and Ireland did not exist politically, then they had to represent someone and it could be argued that they were representing the Peerage of Ireland. There were Peers in Ireland well before 1800 and many Irish families paid great service to their country. They were of great assistance in relation to matters connected with Ireland and this country. It would be a pity if that relationship were to be removed because of a doubt about the correctness of the decision of this Committee. What will happen in the future? In 1800, it was not thought possible that the union of Ireland and Great Britain would ever come to an end. Therefore, no provision was made in the Act for the termination of that union. Similarly, under the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922, I am sure that noble Lords will agree with me, there appears to be no possibility of a union of Ireland with this country. But we do not know. That could happen. If Peers of Ireland were permitted to sit in this House by Writ, as some would be, they might be able to assist your Lordships. I shall not detain your Lordships any longer.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I believe that the Irish Peers have suffered rather badly. I do not think that their treatment has been entirely right; indeed, there are arguments on their side. However, I detect the feeling of the House and I believe that it would be wrong for us to go back to the Committee for Privileges, which consists of several noble and learned Lords. On that basis, I cannot support the amendment moved, with understanding, by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell.
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, could he read to the House the last sentence of the fourth article, following on the reference to Peers of Ireland enjoying privileges of Great Britain—a sentence which he did not read to us and which I believe your Lordships may find to be relevant?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle: My Lords, in the circumstances, perhaps I may read it for him. It says that Peers of Ireland,
"shall enjoy all Privileges of Peers as fully as the Peers of Great Britain; the Right and Privilege of sitting in the House of Lords, and the Privileges depending thereon, and the Right of sitting on the Trial of Peers, only excepted".
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for long. I am slightly amazed to hear some of the speeches that have been made today. I had the honour of sitting on the Committee for Privileges where we were very well advised by the learned Attorney-General and the learned counsel, Mr. Fisher, on behalf of Lord Farnham, who I must confess is a personal friend of mine and whom I should have loved personally to see in this House. But we do not do such things in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, seems to imagine, on the ground of whether we sing The King after dinner. If that is the law of the land now, God help us. If we sing "The Red Flag", do we go under Russia, or what?
However, it is nothing to do with that. I do not believe that some of the people who have spoken today can really have read the report of the Committee for Privileges. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret talked about the unfair treatment of the peerage of Ireland. With all honesty—and I am the first one to defend Peers of any sort—I do not think that they have been unfairly treated; indeed, they have been treated fairly. If your country is abolished as part of a kingdom, it is not anyone's fault: it is the opinion of politics which has taken place.
I have one further small point to make. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, addressed Mowbray and Stourton. I have to say that only Mowbray is by Writ, although Segrave is by Writ (my other one). Stourton is by Letters Patent. I believe that we owe a great debt to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, and to the other noble and learned Lords on the committee. We were admirably advised and we were all unanimously convinced by the arguments put forward. No one goes into such matters with preconceived views. One listens to the case. The case as put in the paper of Lord Farnham was admirably argued. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I am totally amazed as to why people should be trying to fight the case as though there are enemies about trying to do them down. It is a matter of simple law to which we all listened with great interest and which has been admirably explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I was a member of the committee and should like to say just a few words. There is a small constitutional point involved which has not been mentioned. There is a theory, which has some validity in history, that an hereditary barony can be created if a Writ of Summons is issued in error; indeed, there are one or two cases in history where that has happened. After 1922, the Writs of Summons continued to be issued, although perhaps they ought not to have been. Whoever sends them out kept on doing so. But it was made absolutely clear that they were for life. Therefore, in this case, an hereditary barony could not be created because the Writ of Summons made it

1101
abundantly clear that they were for life. Thus the petition must fail. I am very sorry, but I must oppose the amendment moved by my noble friend. I hope that your Lordships will do likewise.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that my noble friend Lord Longford introduced my name into the matter, perhaps I may ask the leave of the House to be exempt from the proceedings.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, as a member of the Committee for Privileges, perhaps I may just say a few words. First, as my noble friend Lord Glenamara said, the Irish Peers did not sit by mistake. There was an original theory when we first began to sit that the Writs had been sent out by mistake after 1922. However, that was proved not to be so. They sat because they had been elected for life. Before 1963, the Scottish Peers were elected for the Parliament, but the 28 Irish Peers were elected for life. That was the reason that they were allowed to sit after 1922 until the last of them died—namely, the Earl of Kilmorey—in 1961.
We relied very much on a view of the Law Officers of the Crown very shortly after Irish Independence in a document dated 1925. One of them was Sir Douglas Hogg, the father of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the other was Sir Thomas Inskip. They said:
"It may well be contended that if the effect of the Irish Free State Agreement Act is to take away the right of the Irish Peers to be represented in the House of Lords, the existing representatives have no longer any right to be there. On the whole we have come to the conclusion that this argument is not well founded. We regard the Act of Union as conferring on the Irish Peerage the right to elect 28 of their body to sit for life as their representatives in the House of Lords: but we think that each representative Peer had conferred on him by the fact of his election the right to sit for life in the House of Lords and we do not regard that right, which is nowhere expressly dealt with, as necessarily taken away from the existing representatives by the legislation of 1922".
That is the point. They did not sit by accident which created the question of a Barony by Writ, although I may say here that, with all the precedents of Baronies by Writ which had been perhaps created by accident, there had always been an intention to create a peerage.
Further, I understand that no report of the Committee for Privileges, of which I have the honour to be a member, has ever been rejected by this House since the petition in the Rhondda case which was sent back by the Lord Chancellor of the day in the early 1920s for very different legal reasons. Otherwise, there is absolutely no precedent for what my noble friend Lord Monkswell, in his inimitable way, is attempting to do. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I believe that the House would probably expect me to offer a few observations in reply to the amendment as moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. In doing so, perhaps I may thank the noble Lord for notifying me before he tabled his amendment that he was proposing to raise the matter in some way. Similarly, I should also like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, for having also
1102
warned me beforehand that he intended to intervene in the debate. Further, I should like to thank all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who took part in the debate. But, as a number of them have spoken, perhaps they will forgive me if I do not refer to each of them by name. I am especially grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, for their contributions on the legal matters involved in the case.
In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, it might be helpful if I were to remind your Lordships of what it is that your Lordships' House is actually being asked to do. Before doing so, I should like to refer to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, which were, if I may say so, most entertaining. However, I must confess that I did strain myself during the course of his speech to ascertain the precise relevance of what the noble Earl was saying to both the Motion and to the amendment. But then it came to me all in a flash: it was a speech that had to be made; after all, this is Wimbledon Fortnight.
A petition for a Writ of Summons to this House is not a petition directed to your Lordships: it is a petition to the Queen. On the advice of the Home Secretary and the Law Officers, Her Majesty the Queen refers the petition to this House so that the House may advise Her Majesty as to the law with regard to that petition. By long-established practice such petitions are referred to the Committee for Privileges which under Standing Order 75 is required to sit with the assistance of no fewer than three Lords of Appeal. We of course had four. When agreed to by the House, the decision is submitted to Her Majesty in the form of a judgment preceded by the words:
"It is resolved and adjudged".
Such a decision is not therefore the opinion of a majority of your Lordships but a judgment. It is a judicial proceeding analogous to, although not wholly comparable with, a judgment following a hearing before an Appellate Committee. In those circumstances your Lordships may feel that the House should only rarely and for exceptionally compelling reasons seek to interfere with the report of a committee based on a judicial hearing at which Lords of Appeal were present and where those Lords of Appeal have given their judicial opinions.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is in the form used in 1922, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, mentioned in the course of his remarks, which was the last occasion when this House asked the Committee for Privileges to reconsider a peerage case—the position of Viscountess Rhondda. On that occasion, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, reminded us, it was the Lord Chancellor who moved the amendment and he explained that he was taking that unusual course because in his view the Attorney-General had not put to the committee the relevant points of law—that is the significant word, as your Lordships will appreciate—which ought to have been considered.
On that occasion the House agreed to refer the matter back to the committee and the committee, having considered those points of law, made a second report in exactly the opposite sense from its first report. It is of

1103
course a matter for your Lordships, but the House may feel, particularly in the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey, has said as a member of the Committee for Privileges, that the Rhondda case does not provide a suitable precedent for the present case in that there are no new legal arguments which would justify us asking the committee to consider or to reconsider the matter all over again.
I feel bound to add that if the committee were to consider the matter further, I have no doubt whatever that it would come to precisely the same conclusion. With these points in mind, and with that background and the background indicated by other noble Lords in the course of this short debate, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. If he felt unable to do so, I would be bound to advise your Lordships that it would be right not to support the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, which has been useful and informative. I wish to refer to a number of the submissions that have been made. In doing so I would advise the House that I am minded to withdraw my amendment but I think it would be for the courtesy of the House if I explained why. If I did not do so, the House would not be correctly advised.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in his inimitable style, discounted the ancient right of the creation of barony by writ of summons. I am not sure that he intended lèse-majestlé—I am sure that would be a wrong interpretation—but we have as part of the proceedings of the committee a report which, as I believe the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has advised us, was written by an expert on peerage law. It states that,
"the Crown has the right to issue a Writ of Summons either (i) to a person who does not have a peerage at all, or (ii) a person whose peerage does not entitle him to a Writ of Summons".
I believe that that right still exists for the Crown.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, also said that the Barony of Farnham no longer exists. It does exist but the old Barony of Farnham does not entitle the holder to a seat in this House. The noble and learned Lord also said—and this is where I think he supported my argument—that the Act of Union had gone by the board.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey—I am indebted to him for his contribution to this debate, which was welcome—advised the House that Lord Farnham continued to sit by virtue of election for life. This is where I take issue with the committee in the sense that it did not consider the basis on which that election for life was founded. My contention is that it was founded on the basis of the Act of Union of 1800. A number of noble Lords have effectively said, and the House has effectively said, that in the consideration of previous privileges committees it no longer existed after 1922. The noble and learned Lord made reference to the Scottish Peers. A number of them sat between 1707 and 1963 by virtue of that Act of Union which was not changed until 1963. The noble and learned Lord also suggested that it was not competent to issue a barony by writ. I have referred to that.
1104
I am indebted to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for reminding the House that this is consideration of a petition to Her Majesty and we sit in a judicial capacity in this sense. However, I would point out to the House that we are all equal in sitting in that judicial capacity.
I now come to the reason for withdrawing my amendment. That reason was given by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. He referred to a matter which I did not notice because it was not included within the proceedings—I can quite understand why—and that is that the writ of summons received by Lord Farnham had inscribed within it a condition that it was for life. That is the legal basis on which we can agree this Committee for Privileges report. I hope that we are not in error in presuming that the wording of that writ of summons makes it clear that it was only entitling the holder to a seat in this House for life because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, pointed out, I suspect that this is the last opportunity we may have to put this matter to bed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that the resolution and judgment be laid before Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

Bell's Bridge Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and, pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill
3.59 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 11 [Assignments in breach of covenant or by operation of law]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 41, after ("landlord") insert ("which is not an excluded assignment").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, there are a number of amendments standing in my name, Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8. These are all technical amendments, some of which arose out of consideration of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding which were not moved at the Committee stage. They are all technical and, with your Lordships' leave, I shall move Amendment No. 1 first and in due course I shall move Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 inclusive and Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 inclusive. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Right of former tenant or his guarantor to overriding lease]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 4:
Page 14, line 34, leave out from ("payment") to end of line 35.
Page 15, line 2, at end insert ("and that request has been neither withdrawn nor abandoned by that person").
Page 15, line 11, at end insert:
("() Where a claimant who has duly made a request for an overriding lease under this section subsequently withdraws or abandons the request before he is granted such a lease by the landlord, the claimant shall be liable for the landlord's reasonable costs incurred in pursuance of the request down to the time of its withdrawal or abandonment; and for the purposes of this section—

(a) a claimant's request is withdrawn by the claimant notifying the landlord in writing that he is withdrawing his request; and

(b) a claimant is to be regarded as having abandoned his request if—

(i) the landlord has requested the claimant in writing to take, within such reasonable period as is specified in the landlord's request, all or any of the remaining steps required to be taken by the claimant before the lease can be granted, and

(ii) the claimant fails to comply with the landlord's request,

and is accordingly to be regarded as having abandoned it at the time when that period expires.

() Any request or notification under this section may be sent by post.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
("Landlord's consent to assignments Imposition of conditions regulating giving of landlord's consent to assignments
After subsection (1) of section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (provisions as to covenants not to assign etc. without licence or consent) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Where the landlord and the tenant under a qualifying lease have entered into an agreement specifying for the purposes of this subsection—

(a) any circumstances in which the landlord may withhold his licence or consent to an assignment of the demised premises or any part of them, or

(b) any conditions subject to which any such licence or consent may be granted,

then the landlord—

(i) shall not be regarded as unreasonably withholding his licence or consent to any such assignment if he withholds it on the ground (and it is the case) that any such circumstances exist, and

(ii) if he gives any such licence or consent subject to any such conditions, shall not be regarded as giving it subject to unreasonable conditions;

and section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 (qualified duty to consent to assignment etc.) shall have effect subject to the provisions of this subsection.
(1B) Subsection (1A) of this section applies to such an agreement as is mentioned in that subsection—

(a) whether it is contained in the lease or not, and

(b) whether it is made at the time when the lease is granted or at any other time falling before the application for the landlord's licence or consent is made.

(1C) Subsection (1A) shall not, however, apply to any such agreement to the extent that any circumstances or conditions specified in it are framed by reference to any matter falling to be determined by the landlord or by any other person for the purposes of the agreement, unless under the terms of the agreement—

(a) that person's power to determine that matter is required to be exercised reasonably, or

(b) the tenant is given an unrestricted right to have any such determination reviewed by a person independent of both landlord and tenant whose identity is ascertainable by reference to the agreement,

and in the latter case the agreement provides for the determination made by any such independent person on the review to be conclusive as to the matter in question.
(1D) In its application to a qualifying lease, subsection (1) (b) of this section shall not have effect in relation to any assignment of the lease.
(1E) In subsections (1A) and (1D) of this section—

(a) "qualifying lease" means any lease which is a new tenancy for the purposes of section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 other than a residential lease, namely a lease by which a building or part of a building is let wholly or mainly as a single private residence; and

(b) references to assignment include parting with possession on assignment."").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the second time that this amendment has appeared in my name. When it was first moved in Committee it was debated but withdrawn in response to a plea for more time to consider it in detail. I hope that I am not trespassing on the territory of noble Lords opposite if I say that I believe that the additional time has not been wasted. I explained the amendment in considerable detail when moving it in Committee, and I shall be brief today.
The amendment introduces changes to Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 which presently provides that, if a landlord draws up a lease which allows a tenant to assign with the landlord's consent, that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. The changes would permit the landlord and tenant to agree in advance the conditions under which consent will be forthcoming and provide for a landlord not to be taken to be withholding consent unreasonably if he does so because the conditions have not been made out. The changes are to apply only to new leases and are not to apply to residential or agricultural leases. In effect, the amendment represents the essence of the compromise and the basis of the agreement between differing interests in the property industry which has enabled the Bill to get this far.
The point that the amendment called for more detailed consideration than was possible between its first being tabled and being moved in Committee was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I hope that, with the benefit of the additional time since Committee, the amendment will be taken in the spirit of reason, compromise and agreement which has distinguished the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, this was Amendment No. 61 in Committee. It is now Amendment No. 5 on Report. As he has said, I urged the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment and to move it on Report. He acceded to that course, I have no doubt rightly.

1107
The amendment is complex, with wide ramifications. It was described by the noble Earl as the backbone of the package which had been agreed by the relevant interests. The amendment appeared on the Marshalled List only on Monday, 19th June, and there was considerable disquiet, of which I was made aware, that your Lordships had been invited to accept the amendment in Committee only two days later on Wednesday, 21st June, without time for mature consideration and the opportunity for discussion and consultation with interested parties.
Concerns had been expressed to me that this part of the package altered what I chose to describe as the balance of power between landlords and tenants and, although privity of contract liability was generally regarded as not defensible, the anxiety was that this part of the package was designed to enable landlords to obtain much more control over assignments once they had lost the benefit of privity of contract liability.
However, as well as drawing attention in Committee to those anxieties, I acknowledged that the changes embraced in the amendment applied only to new tenancies, that the relevant terms could only be terms that had actually been agreed by the relevant parties, and that the amendment was not capable of applying either to residential or agricultural tenancies.
Since the noble Earl was good enough to withdraw the amendment in Committee, I have now had the opportunity to reflect fully on the package, and in particular this part of it, and to consult with interested parties.
Under the law at present—under Section 19 of the 1927 Act as is—landlords are free to ban assignments. They will continue to be free to ban assignments if Section 19 is amended as proposed by the noble Earl. However, under the present law the practice is that landlords rarely impose an absolute prohibition upon assignments. That is because the landlord has the comfort that, if the assignee fails, he can sue the first tenant and later assignees together with their guarantors. He can do that because each assignee is highly likely to have given him a direct covenant to honour the lease until it expires.
However, a landlord who chooses to ban assignments outright under the present law is imposing harsh lease terms on his tenant and terms which are rarely imposed in practice. The tenant would find such a ban especially harsh if the lease were long. But if the lease is long, there are likely to be rent reviews. At each review the question asked is: what rent would these premises fetch if offered on the open market with these harsh assignment terms? If other landlords are universally banning assignments, then those lease terms would be regarded as normal; but if, on the other hand, as is the case in fact, other landlords are not generally banning assignments, then the restrictive landlord may well have to bear the economic cost of receiving a low rent after a review.
If the noble Earl's amendment is accepted, landlords under new leases will have a choice. They can either ban assignments or they can go down the route of allowing assignments to assignees who satisfy the conditions prescribed. Where there is a choice between being
1108
restrictive or not restrictive there will be a calculation to be made by the landlord about how to protect the rent at review. It is likely that many landlords will not risk their position at review by imposing a ban on assignment or by imposing unreasonable conditions, unless perhaps where they consider that the letting is of so special a nature as to require such a restriction.
The noble Earl's amendment allows the creation of conditions which would have been invalid under Section 19 as presently drawn. Yet to my mind, on consideration, it opens the way for landlords to take a less restrictive course of action than they might well have taken if privity liability had been modified and Section 19 had been left unchanged.
Whereas the package may not produce perfect justice in every case, I am satisfied, having had sufficient time to reflect on it, that it achieves a proper balance between the interests concerned, that it is likely to do justice at least in the great majority of cases, and therefore that it may go forward unopposed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his courtesy in withdrawing the amendment at Committee stage so that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, could have an opportunity to consider it further. I am glad that the result of that consideration has been as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, indicated. His explanation of how the clause will work accords with my understanding of it. It also accords with the support that was given to the clause in consultation once the agreement between the interests had been intimated to the Government.
As has been explained, the Bill will go ahead onto the statute book only by agreement. I am grateful that, so far as appears today, there is such agreement. I certainly strongly support the amendment.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his support and contribution to this important amendment. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for his support and for the time he has taken to consider the amendment since the Committee stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 6 to 8:
Page 19, leave out lines 41 to 44 and insert ("Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to covenants to pay money; and, for the purposes of any reference in this Act to a covenant falling to be complied with in relation to a particular part of the premises demised by a tenancy, a covenant of a tenancy which is a covenant to pay money falls to be so complied with if-").
Page 20, line 1, after ("determinable") insert ("specifically").
Page 20, line 16, at end insert:
("() For the purposes of this Act—

(a) any assignment (however effected) consisting in the transfer of the whole of the landlord's interest (as owner of the reversion) in any premises demised by a tenancy shall be treated as an assignment by the landlord of the reversion in those premises even if it is not effected by him: and

1109

(b) any assignment (however effected) consisting in the transfer of the whole of the tenant's interest in any premises demised by a tenancy shall be treated as an assignment by the tenant of those premises even if it is not effected by him.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move that Amendments Nos. 6 to 8 be agreed to en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Children (Scotland) Bill
4.10 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Protection of Children from Violence
.—(1) It shall be unlawful to subject a child to violence, whether or not in the exercise of any parental right, and whether or not by way of punishment.
(2) In considering whether punishment of a child amounts to violence, regard shall be had in particular to whether the child—

(a) was struck with a stick, belt or other object; or

(b) was struck or shaken in such a way as to cause, or risk causing—

(i) injury, or

(ii) more than momentary pain or discomfort.

(3) In section 12 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 the following are hereby repealed—

(a) in subsection (1) the words "assaults," and "assaulted,",

(b) subsection (7).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a preliminary, perhaps I may say that this is an all-party amendment for the protection of children from violence. I believe that all the signatories to the amendment are present except for the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who, most unfortunately, has a long-standing prior engagement elsewhere. The noble Baroness spoke in support of a variant of the amendment at Committee stage in the Moses Room. She much regrets that she cannot be here today in person to support the amendment. However, she has given me authority to say that she most certainly supports the amendment together with the other signatories. I hope that the amendment will be treated as an all-party amendment, and that there will be no hint of party politics—perhaps we had enough at Question Time—imported into our deliberations.
I begin with the need for the amendment. To my mind, it has been clearly expressed by a community study of physical violence to children in the home, financed by the Department of Health, and carried out by the Thomas Coram Research Unit over the past few years. That research lends the strongest possible support to the need for this new clause, or something like it, in order to curb violence to children in their homes.
The study involved detailed interviews with mothers of one year-old, four year-old, seven year-old and 11 year-old children, a smaller number of fathers, and some of the children themselves, from among 400 randomly
1110
selected families. Like all such research, it probably under-estimates the real situation in that most parents will be most unlikely to exaggerate any violent treatment which they have given to children in the home. The rates of severe punishment by mothers, indicated by the study, must be of great concern to the country, the Government and this House. The figures would be even higher if punishments by the fathers were taken into account, but I cite the figures regarding mothers. Sixteen per cent. of all children had been severely punished, and 24.5 per cent. of seven year-olds had been severely punished.
The vast majority of cases of severe punishment—it is nearly 90 per cent.—involved hitting the child; and the children who were most frequently hit were more likely to have experienced other forms of physical punishment. The study defines "severe" punishment as punishment involving,
"the intention or potential to cause injury or psychological damage, use of implements, repeated actions or over a long period of time".
I believe that my quotations from the study which has been so recently undertaken by the Coram Research Unit provides ample evidence for the need for this clause. I now turn to the text of the clause to illustrate its purpose.
The purpose of the clause is to protect children from abusive forms of physical punishment which were designated as severe in the report to which I referred. A similar provision was drafted by the Scottish Law Commission in its 1992 Report on family law. Noble Lords who were present at Committee stage in the Moses Room will remember that I sought to introduce the Law Commission's form of amendment; and previously an attempt had been made to introduce that version in the House of Commons. In the House of Commons there was a vote; the attempt was not successful. In Committee in the Moses Room there was no vote; the Committee stage was a special procedure which did not allow a vote.
I therefore withdrew the amendment in order to come back on Report, as I now do, having taken into account most minutely and seriously the objections which were raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and by the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench. To my mind they spoke helpfully and not destructively. I was impressed by the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, as well as the Minister in the House of Commons, expressed some sympathy with the amendment. I very much hope that we have produced the right wording and that the amendment, or something like it, will be accepted.
This version seeks to overcome the criticisms made in Committee in the Moses Room, in particular those by the Government. It upholds the general principle that no violence to children shall be justifiable under the guise of punishment—a principle upheld by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, at Committee stage and by other Scottish Ministers in another place. I believe that we have come very close to what the Government can accept. If they still have some sympathy, I hope that they will express not only sympathy but agreement.
I should emphasise that the clause does not ban all smacking. It leaves courts to determine what amounts to violence but requires them to have regard in particular to whether the child was struck with an implement or in a way which caused, or risked causing, prolonged pain. Prolonged pain is described as "more than momentary". Thus, courts are free to take into account other circumstances in addition.
Unlike the previous version, this clause does not imply that hitting a child with any kind of implement, even a rolled up newspaper, would amount to violence. Therefore, I believe that it answers many questions raised at the previous stage of the Bill.
I hope that this revised version of the Scottish Law Commission's proposal, amended in accordance with criticisms made of it in both Houses, especially by Ministers, will find favour in all quarters of the House. If accepted, the amendment goes some way towards meeting our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. For all those reasons, I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, my name is to the amendment and I rise to support it.
There are many of us who would prefer to see a clear prohibition of all physical punishment of children in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and with the worldwide trend against accepting any level of violence to children.
It is quite inevitable that in time, and I hope sooner rather than later, we shall agree to give children at least the same protection from all kinds of assault that we as adults take for granted for ourselves. We do not defend gentle slaps of women by their husbands or, for that matter, slaps of umpires at Wimbledon and there is no logic or justice in defending gentle smacks of children.
But the new clause is not about banning smacking altogether. It is quite clear to those of us who have been working in the House over the years—and I may say that it is a good many years now—to rid our culture of the idea that deliberately hurting children is a useful form of discipline in the school or the home that a bid for full prohibition would fail at the moment. So we welcomed the proposal of the Scottish Law Commission strictly to limit physical punishment as an appropriate step in the right direction which would command public, professional and, we believed, all-party political support. So did the full range of Scottish children's organisations and professional groups. They were surprised to find that the Government, while accepting most of the Law Commission's proposals for Part I of the Bill, left out this provision. They were even more surprised to find in previous stages of the Bill that the Government actively opposed the provision. Can it be that the Government actually approve of children being beaten with sticks and belts or in ways that cause or risk causing significant pain or injury?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said in Committee that:
"no violence to children should be justifiable under the guise of punishment".—[Official Report, 6/6/95; col. 12.]
1112
Surely, he must agree that hitting children with sticks and belts or in ways which cause or could cause injury or prolonged pain constitutes violence? I hope that we shall get an unambiguous answer to that today.
The Scottish Law Commission found that the public overwhelmingly support legislation to stop extreme forms of physical punishment. But we also know now from the very detailed Department of Health sponsored research—to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred—that one in six UK children and up to a quarter of seven year-olds are still being severely physically punished. To suggest, as the Minister did at Committee stage (again at col. 12), that,
"statutory law and common law offer sufficient protection to children from assaults by parents, teachers or others who have charge of children",
is patently absurd, given that research finding and given the views of the whole range of Scottish professionals involved in child protection. The current law, the vague concept of "reasonable chastisement", causes a dangerous confusion in the minds of parents and inhibits those in child protection from giving clear messages.
An English Peer treads with great trepidation in to Scottish matters—and I certainly feel that strongly—and especially Scottish children's law when, on the whole, the Scots have got it more right than we have, with a sensitive children's hearings system and other innovations. But today those of us from all parties who are pursuing this issue are doing so because we have been begged to by the very strong, probably unprecedented coalition of Scottish organisations. They see it as an issue with a UK-wide significance, and so do we. Eminent figures, including the current President of the British Paediatric Association, Professor Roy Meadow, and the immediate past president, Sir David Hull, have written in support of this provision. All the major UK-wide child protection and child welfare organisations support it, although most, it is true, would go further and argue for a clear prohibition of all physical punishment.
The Minister gave us some cause for hope when he said that he had sympathy with the intention behind the new clause, but then produced legal and other arguments against accepting it. Many of these were carefully answered by the Scottish Law Commission when the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, requested it to review the criticisms. It does seem quite extraordinary that the Government should have rejected the results of the detailed consultation carried out by the commission in 1992 and such eminent legal advice in so cavalier a fashion.
However, the opposition to the Law Commission's clause from the Government seemed implacable, so we have produced, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said, with our advisers, a new version which we hope will prove acceptable. It does, after all, paraphrase the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that children must not be subjected to violence in the guise of punishment. It highlights abusive forms of punishment, but it does not tie the hands of courts, which can have regard to other factors as well. There is still plenty of time to sort out any remaining technical problems if we can unite behind the uncontroversial intention of protecting children from violence.

1113
Let us have no more attempts to trivialise this issue with anecdotes about hitting children with rolled up newspapers and so on. These insult the serious purpose of the new clause and, more seriously, they insult the good sense of Scottish judicial authorities who have absolute discretion to decide whether a prosecution is in the interests of the child and are quite capable of distinguishing physical actions taken to protect a child. The real purpose of the new clause is educational. It is a modest measure. Accepting it will send out a signal—not yet the completely unambiguous signal that some of us would like but a big improvement on the present dangerous confusion—that it is not on to hit children with implements or in ways that risk causing injury or prolonged pain. I hope very much that the Government can now accept the modified version of the clause in Amendment No. 1.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I also wish to add my support to the amendment, at least to the extent that I continue to believe that Scotland needs guidance about the matter. While such legislation cannot control every situation, at least most people would know what was permissible and eventually bring some pressure to bear on others.
I also believe that the amendment would give some guidance to the courts as to how to sort out the rights and wrongs of an incident brought before them. Principally, the courts have to decide whether it was violence rather than punishment and, if it was punishment, did the parent take reasonable or unreasonable action.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, at the Committee stage of this important Bill relating to children in Scotland I made some comments which directed people back to the Scottish Law Commission on the issue of punishment of children. The amendment that appeared at the Committee stage would have been unenforceable in the courts. I note with interest the new amendment, Amendment No. 1, which has struck the correct balance in that it has taken out the question of assault.
As I understand it, the amendment leaves the common law of assault unchanged but brings into the Children (Scotland) Bill the question of violence. It may be a distinction without a difference, but, as my noble friend Lady David said, the message is being sent out through the legislation to parents that they cannot abuse their children in any way, in particular striking with the methods which are detailed in subsection (2) of the amendment. The emphasis has now been changed. As I look at it, the common law of assault remains, but within the context of the Children (Scotland) Bill parents are told: "You can't be violent towards your child". Maybe the courts will have to determine the difference between being violent and assaulting someone, but violence is spelt out in the new amendment. I hope that it will find favour in your Lordships' House.
The original amendment was proposed by the Scottish Law Commission. With the greatest respect to the Scottish Law Commission and the Law Commission in England, I do not believe that everyone should kneel down when they make a pronouncement. We must look at it in its proper context. The amendment appears to meet
1114
the earlier criticisms which were made of the original amendment. Speaking from this side of the House, we are able to support it. It is not perfect; no amendment will ever be perfect. We could come back on Third Reading with another one. But in so far as we seek a compromise which will give statutory protection to children and send a message to parents, particularly irresponsible parents, we have probably struck the right balance in the amendment. I support it.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Henderson. He explained the reasons and the need for it very clearly. ChildLine Scotland reported that a high proportion of the children who telephone identify physical punishment as their main problem. It also said that some of the children felt sad; they tried to find reasons for the emotional, as well as the physical, pain that they felt. Some felt that it must be their fault, although they could not understand why or what they had done to deserve such severe punishment. They often found the emotional pain harder to bear than the physical pain. The problem with emotional pain is that it is probably harder to detect. A few even said that they had reached the point where they no longer wanted to live. That is tragic. Surely these children must be listened to and somehow helped. A vast majority of the children are reported as saying that they just wanted the hurt to stop but did not want their families to split up. I support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am extremely concerned about this amendment. I have given it a great deal of thought. Trespassing on railway property is one of the few cases for which trespass exists as an offence in Scotland. The reason for that protection under Scottish law is that it brought danger to the people who trespassed; it is not for any other reason. It is against the law in Scotland to trespass on railway or aircraft property—and quite rightly.
What does a parent do if a child commits that offence on several occasions? That child must be punished. A child may deliberately run in front of traffic. In the old days, if the police caught you doing that, you usually received a cuff on the ear. You did not dare tell your father about it in case you got a cuff on the other ear. I would argue that it did not do us any harm. Let us remember that children today are not perfect. They need to be punished from time to time. There is, for example, a problem with drugs.
I am very unhappy about this clause for another reason. I do not want parents who get fed up with their children, and for no other reason, to be able to fall back on Clause 51 and ask the local authority to place the child under compulsory measures of supervision. There is that risk. The clause provides for compulsory supervision where the child,
"is beyond the control of any relevant person",
or,
"is falling into bad associations",
or is likely to "suffer unnecessarily" or be impaired in some way.

1115
The only alternative punishment available to a parent is to leave a child in the corner of a room facing the corner for several hours. That is far more cruel than is a good, hard slap across the backside with a soft slipper, or depriving the child of food. I am thinking back to my own childhood and that of many of my contemporaries. Those were the punishments that I disliked, because they left one with an awfully bitter taste in the mouth.
I realise the point of what was said. But where a child has deliberately put his or her life at risk or done something utterly stupid, we must give the responsible parent the power physically to punish that child in some way. Sometimes the alternatives to physical punishment can have a far more serious effect upon the child.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, am I interpreting his remarks correctly? Is he saying that violence on the part of the parent is an essential ingredient for the control of the child?
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, if a child deliberately disobeys its parents' orders, yes.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I support this amendment. I put it to the noble Earl who just spoke that there is a considerable difference between the father whom he brought before us who gives a child a cuff across the ear, and the stepfather. I wonder whether the noble Earl would feel the same way and make the same remarks with such confidence about a stepfather. An important fact needs to be borne in mind by those who are against this amendment. The families of today are very different from the kind of families that existed in the past; and they are still changing at a rapid rate—in the view of many of us, not in a favourable direction.
To go back 25 years, the great majority of children were brought up during their years of dependence by their natural parents. The proportion of children lucky enough to be brought up by their natural parents until they are 16 has fallen steadily and very fast in recent years. The proportion is now not much higher than 50 per cent. Soon, on the basis of the trends observed, only a minority of children will have the good fortune to be brought up until the age of 16 by both their natural parents together. It is a dreadful thought. It means that more and more children, although brought up by one natural parent (usually it is the mother, but sometimes the father) may have to put up with a series of step-parents and the like. Temporary relationships are becoming more and more common. The natural impulses and bonds that bind natural parents to their own children cannot apply with anything like the same force to those who are not the natural parents. Unfortunately we have heard too many stories in recent years about the abuse that children can suffer—not so much from stepmothers, but from stepfathers, who are very much in evidence now in our society.
It is important that this House should recognise the fact that children are not now protected by natural impulses in the way that they once were—as well as the arguments that were put forward by other proponents of this amendment, and at least put it on record that we are against subjecting children to the kind of violence to which they can be subjected, and are most liable to,
1116
when it is not their natural parents who are responsible for them. I urge noble Lords to give very serious consideration to this amendment. Even though it may not accord with their natural inclinations to support something like this, I urge them to think again and to be prepared to give it their support.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall be very brief. I was not able to be present at all at Committee stage, so I have not joined in this discussion. There is no question that the problem in Scotland is probably greater than it is in England and Wales. There is no question that there is still a lot of violence to children. We know that that violence goes on to affect the next generation. I know that from my own experience.
On the other hand, noble Lords talk about the relationship of ordinary parents to ordinary children. It is very important, given that we are not elected and when some of us are not as closely in touch with ordinary parents and children in all sorts of homes as we were or might be, not to suggest that legislation that includes a provision that is so far from what people understand and will be happy about is likely to work.
I have been trying to imagine how I would explain the amendment to ordinary parents of ordinary children in relation to what they are and are not allowed to do. It is possible to explain the present law on the question of assault, though I understand that will be repealed by this provision. I shall be interested to know whether my noble friend on the Front Bench feels that the amendment is sufficiently different technically from the last amendment to enable it to be more easily explained to parents.
I am not happy about the amendment. I cannot imagine how one will explain to parents that they must not hit their children with any "other object"—what the object is will be discussed by the court. How can we explain "momentary pain or discomfort"? I am not happy about it. However, I am ready to be convinced and shall listen to what my noble friend says.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I am not sure that I heard her correctly—I apologise if I did not. I believe she suggested that there is more violence inflicted towards children in Scotland than there is in England and Wales. On what basis does she make that assertion?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know whether any research has been done. I thought it was generally understood that that was so and that we were extremely worried about it. I may be wrong and the noble Lord doubtless knows much more about it than I do.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, this amendment is a sort of little sister to the one moved at Report stage in another place and then again at Committee stage in the Moses Room when Divisions were not possible.
As the Ministers, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, explained, the remedies already available in Scotland through the law on assault make the amendment

1117
unnecessary. I do not believe it will take us any further. People who know already what is and what is not permissible, and who obey the law as it stands, will hear the message of the amendment. It may confuse them and raise difficulties. Those who really need to hear the message of the amendment will not hear it now any more than they are already aware of what the existing law requires.
Something else worries me. The Bill is not a bad Bill as it stands. It is likely to receive its Third Reading next week and will thereafter return to another place for our amendments to be agreed or disagreed—only eight days before we rise for the Summer Recess. If any amendments are made in this House with which the other place is unable to agree, we shall start a "ping-pong" for which there is no time before we rise for the Recess. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent before we rise and if anything were to befall the Government before we return in October, we should lose the Bill. We have all worked hard for it and Scotland needs it urgently—indeed, it has needed it for the past five years or longer. I hope therefore that noble Lords who tabled the amendment will not press it. However, if it is pressed I shall vote against it.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I wish to add a brief word to what my noble friend Lady Saltoun said. In this difficult matter I urge your Lordships not to underestimate the width and flexibility of the common law in Scotland on assault. The court over which I preside hears cases which involve violence to children. We describe them as cases of assault because that is the way in which our law is defined. However, we do not find it difficult to detect cases where—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton—abusive forms of severe punishment have been used. Where something of that kind has taken place, then to the mind of the Scottish criminal lawyer, in my experience, it suggests that an assault has been committed.
The difficulty we all share is, in the end, one of evidence; bringing cases before the court and making use of the common law which already exists to protect children against violence. For those reasons, I support the view expressed by my noble friend.
Lord Annan: My Lords, no one doubts that children often deserve to be punished; but there are different ways of doing it apart from physically assaulting them. That is the main argument behind the amendment. Again, when it is said that parents will not get the message from the amendment, I do not imagine that many Scottish parents who at the moment hit their children with various weapons actually read the legislation. However, if the amendment is passed, they will find the police at their door and they will then get the message—and it is an important message.
My noble and learned friend said that the common law of Scotland on assault is adequate. If that is so, why has the research and all the evidence raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, been accumulated?
1118
It suggests either that the common law on assault is not adequate or, if it is adequate, it is being ignored by the authorities. That is another reason why I hope the amendment will be accepted.
I hope your Lordships do not accept the argument that this amendment is so serious that it would be a menace to the Bill if it were accepted because it would put it back to another place. If the government timetable is such that that occurs, then that is the fault of the Government or of the "usual channels". That is not a substantive argument and can be used in almost every case when amendments which are in the faintest degree controversial are tabled and moved.
On several occasions in recent years the European Court of Justice has notably disagreed with the British common law on matters of this kind. If the amendment is not accepted, I suspect that once again we shall be hauled in front of the European Court and once again humiliated over our attitude on matters of common humanity.
Perhaps I can conclude by saying that the land of my forebears does not put itself on a par with that diehard citadel of corporal punishment, the Isle of Man. The message from the amendment is, "Throw out the tawse".
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we have had a long and important debate on this matter, but as has already been made clear in Committee, the Government are of the view that the law as it stands already offers sufficient protection to children from assault by parents, teachers or others who have charge of them. That view was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, in Committee, though I realise that he has shifted his opinions today.
Like earlier amendments which were considered here and in another place, there are dangers in seeking to amend the existing law in the way proposed by the new clause. Like earlier versions, the new clause would place unnecessary constraints on the power and the flexibility of the courts to take all the circumstances of each case into consideration. This has proved to be a key factor in recent case history. I emphasise that point. Cases cited by the Crown Office show that the courts take all the circumstances of the case into account. It is the reasonableness of the punishment rather than whether an implement has been used which is the key factor in their determination.
Another principal concern with the new clause is that, because of the wording in subsection (1), it appears to go much further than what was recommended by the Scottish Law Commission. It appears to make it unlawful for a parent to punish a child reasonably. My other concern with subsection (1) is that it is defective. It does not say whether to submit a child to violence constitutes a criminal offence. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, pointed out, it leaves an important area of uncertainty with regard to the relationship between this provision and the general law of assault. On this point I am very grateful for the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who, as noble Lords will know, is the Lord Justice-General. Noble Lords should bear in mind his knowledge, experience and wisdom in this matter in assessing their reaction to

1119
the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested that Scottish common law is deficient if, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pointed out, there is evidence to justify such an amendment. I would point out that the problem is not the difficulty of defining the punishment. The problem is the difficulty of obtaining the evidence and corroborating that evidence.
There are other deficiencies about the wording in subsection (2) which were pointed out by my noble and learned friend in Committee. The courts would have some difficulties in interpreting subsection (2) (b) (ii). What is meant by,
"more than momentary pain or discomfort"?
That seems hard to tease out and would give rise to uncertainty. More importantly, since the test would arise where there was no injury, it is extremely hard to see how anyone could ever tell whether the pain or discomfort lasted more than a moment or indeed risked doing so. Again, what is meant by "injury" in subsection (2) (b) (i)? Does it mean only physical injury? If so, would it include a bruise?
A number of very important observations have been made against the amendment. In that regard I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lady Carnegy, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with his knowledge on these matters. As with earlier versions, the new clause contains a number of deficiencies which mean that the Government could not possibly accept it.
I end where I began. The law as it stands, both statutory law and common law, is sufficient to protect children from assault by parents, teachers or others in charge of children. There are offence provisions in the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 as well as common assault. The common law offers a certain flexibility which might be lost by incorporating this new clause into law. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord and his supporters to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may ask whether this amended clause has the support of the Scottish Law Commission.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am not able to answer that question. I do not know.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It certainly exposed any difference between the two sides, which I should like to encapsulate by saying that there are some noble Lords, including the Lord Justice-General, who seem to presume that the existing law, whether common law or statute law, is sufficient to curb violence in the home while the other party, if I may describe a number of noble Lords as a party, are of the opinion that the evidence which I adduced for the United Kingdom surely shows that the existing law is not sufficient to protect children from violence in the home. I could say to the House, like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, that I am proud to have Scottish forebears. In fact, all my four grandparents were Scottish. That is about as good a ticket as I can give to the House as a recommendation for my speaking on a Scottish Bill.
1120
I find the view that the existing law is not sufficient to protect children in the home from violence prevails against those who think that the law is sufficient already. I remind your Lordships that this House gave a lead to the House of Commons by inserting into the criminal law of the country a provision that corporal punishment in schools should not be allowed. The House of Commons agreed to the Lords amendment and that is now the law of the land. If it is the law of the land that corporal punishment is not allowed in schools, surely it cannot be difficult—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour—to explain to parents that if it is not allowed in schools, a fortiori, it should not be allowed in the home. We want to improve the culture on the subject of violence which was changed in the schools and to make the same change in the home.
I very much hope that the change in the culture of violence which we initiated in this House with regard to schools will be followed by this amendment which will change, I hope, the violent culture in the homes of the country. I commend the amendment to the House.
4.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 128.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hughes, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Annan, L.

Jay, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Barnett, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Bridges, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carter, L.

Lockwood, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McConnell, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Diamond, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Eatwell, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Foot, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Freyberg, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Geraint, L.

Palmer, L.

Gibson, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Glenamara, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rix,L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Gregson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Gryfe.L.

1121

Tenby, V.

Wharton, B.

Thurlow, L.

White, B.

Tordoff, L.

Wigoder, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Whaddon, L.

Young of Dartington, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Lindsay, E.

Ailsa, M.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Aldenham, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Aldington, L.

Lucas, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lyell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Beloff, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bethell, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blake, L.

Merrivale, L.

Blaker, L.

Mersey, V.

Blatch, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Milverton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monson, L.

Brentford, V.

Mottistone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Burnham, L.

Moyne, L.

Cadman, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Norrie, L.

Chesham, L.

Northesk, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Orkney, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cross, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Pike,B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Platt of Writtle.B.

Denham, L.

Pym, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Donegall, M.

Rawlings, B.

Eccles, V.

Rees, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L

Eden of Winton, L.

Renwick, L.

Elibank, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elles, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Shannon, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sharpies, B.

Geddes, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Grey, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Halsbury, E.

Slim, V.

Harding of Pethetton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hesketh, L.

Strange, B.

Holderness, L.

Strathcarron, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hooper, B.

Sudeley, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hothfield, L.

Swinton, E.

Huntly, M.

Teviot, L.

Inglewood, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Vinson, L.

Kingsland, L.

Westbury, L.

Kintore, E.

Wise, L.

Leigh, L.

Wyatt of Weeford.L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.5 p.m.
Clause 4 [Acquisition of parental rights and responsibilities by natural father]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 48, after ("Where") insert ("a child's mother has not been deprived of some or all of the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to him and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. These amendments make clear two points about the parental responsibilities agreements which are provided for by Clause 4. First, that a mother can only enter into a parental responsibilities agreement with the unmarried father of her child if she has not been deprived of any of her parental responsibilities and rights by a court order. Secondly, that an agreement will take effect only when it is registered in the Books of Council and Session. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 3 and 4:
Page 3, line 48, leave out ("a child's") and insert ("his").
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("date of the agreement") and insert ("appropriate date").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these two amendments when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert:
("() executed before a relevant person; and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. This is a provision which should be put into the Bill to make sure that when parents make agreements about parentage and so forth, to put it quite colloquially, it confirms that they know what they are doing. At Committee stage I believe that the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, suggested that perhaps a notary public would not be available in, for example, a remote country area.
The reasoning behind these two amendments is to broaden the scope of the people before whom an agreement can be executed. We have a notary public who, basically, is a solicitor and a justice of the peace. I do not believe that one can move anywhere in Scotland without bumping into a justice of the peace or a sheriff clerk. These are not matters of great urgency. They will not be decided within an hour or two. In making the arrangements it gives the persons involved the opportunity to go before people of responsibility who can question them as to the identity of the parents. There will not be much difficulty with the mother, particularly if she has not given birth, but that is another matter. As regards the father, the provision is to make sure that the parties are properly designated and that they have the capacity to enter into an agreement.
It is quite obvious that a notary public, a justice of the peace or a sheriff clerk are persons who can judge, broadly speaking, whether people know what they are doing and what commitments they are entering into. By allowing this amendment, it will also provide a certain amount of safeguard for the child of the parties involved in the agreement. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, these amendments are similar to provisions brought forward in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. At that stage, my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie agreed that parents who are about to undertake a parental responsibilities and rights agreement should give due thought and consideration before doing so. I am sure that all noble Lords would agree with that. It was also confirmed at that stage that it is correct that the process should involve a formal step. Nonetheless, the Government remain of the view that that is already achieved in the existing arrangements of Clause 4, and particularly in subsection (2). As my noble and learned friend made clear in Committee, in producing the guidance notes which will accompany the agreement forms it is the Government's intention to make it clear to such parents that they are taking a substantial step which will involve a change in their status and that they may therefore wish to take legal advice on it before committing themselves.
Nonetheless, the Government are not convinced that the amendments are required, or are even sufficient, to ensure that the parents obtain legal advice. They would involve the parties in additional effort and cost, depending on whether there was a "relevant person" near where they live. I notice that the amendment as now drafted seems in part to cater for the point that was made in Committee about how the provisions would work if one party was located in England and the other in Scotland. However, we are not quite sure that its terms are entirely appropriate. That is because the amendment simply requires the agreement to be signed before a relevant person such as a notary public. In other words, the notary public is simply acting as a witness. There is no requirement upon that person to ascertain whether the person signing the document appreciates what it is that he is signing. That is completely different from the situation ordinarily when a document requires to be sworn before a notary and it does not ensure that legal advice is obtained by the parents.
For that reason, the Government remain of the view that the existing provisions are sufficient. We have already given a commitment to keep the process as straightforward as possible. We believe that the provisions are sufficient, and in those circumstances I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, it is nice to hear the Government talk about Clause 4 because we stopped doing that some time ago. I am advised that the cost of executing a notarial document is less than £40. The cost of getting married in civil ceremony is £66, and the registration of a marriage costs £27. I am not very good at arithmetic, but that amounts to about £90. Therefore, I cannot see why providing that additional protection for those involved, and especially for the
1124
child, is not acceptable to the Government. It is all very well for "alleged parents"—if I can put it that way—to do such things, but it is the child who is most centrally involved. I cannot see why building in another wall of defence for the child (who has no part in the proceedings) should be so firmly resisted by the Government. We shall, as usual, read with interest what the Minister has said; but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 4, line 7, at end insert ("while the mother still has the parental responsibilities and parental rights which she had when the agreement was made").
Page 4, line 7, at end insert:
("() The date on which such registration as is mentioned in subsection (2) (b) above takes place shall be the "appropriate date" for the purposes of subsection (1) above.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Views of children]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Clause 11 [Court orders relating to parental responsibilities etc.]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 27, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
("(b) taking account of the child's age and maturity, shall so far as practicable—

(i) give him an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to express his views;

(ii) if he does so wish, give him an opportunity to express them; and

(iii) have regard to such views as he may express.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16.
I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for the suggestion that has led to these amendments. In his capacity as Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, thinks that the Bill should provide sufficient policy guidance for him to make appropriate rules of court concerning the taking of the views of the child. The noble and learned Lord drew attention to the text of Article 12(2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which says,
"the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard".
We have also borne in mind that where a very young child is concerned, the court or the children's hearing must not be bound to go through the motions of trying to ascertain his or her views.
We have therefore produced what we think is an appropriate formula to provide that the court and children's hearing have a duty as far as practicable both to allow the child the opportunity to indicate a wish to

1125
express a view, and if the child does so indicate, to obtain his or her views. Having done so, they must have regard to these views.
In relation to Amendment No. 16, I should add that if your Lordships accept the new clause after Clause 64, which deals with warrants for the further detention of a child, I would consider it appropriate at Third Reading to make proceedings under that clause subject to the same provisions relating to taking the child's views as other proceedings mentioned in Clause 16. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for accepting the advice, which I gave on behalf of the court, that the amendment should be brought forward. As far as we are concerned, it achieves something useful because it separates the giving of the opportunity on the one hand, for which we shall have to make careful rules, and the method by which the views may be expressed if the child wishes to express them. That too will have to be subject to careful rules. The way in which the provisions are now framed is in accordance with what we would wish to see and assists clarity in rule-making functions, which is my principal concern.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 29, at end insert:
("() shall consider if it is necessary to appoint a person to ascertain the views of the child in the proceedings.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Amendment No. 11 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 12 and 170. Indeed, Amendment No. 170 is consequential upon Amendment Nos. 11 and 12. The amendments seek to build into the legislation a means of allowing a child's views to be heard and dealt with. As we all know from experience, various sheriffs—and perhaps judges in the High Court—take different approaches to talking to children and finding out their views. Most of the time that is done behind closed doors when a judge, particularly in civil cases, asks a child what he thinks about what is going to happen, and who he likes or does not like.
The amendment has been tabled to take the child out of the adversarial process and to provide another safeguard to ensure that the child's views are properly represented in the proceedings. If a suitable person is appointed to speak for and to represent the child outwith the court, that will make the proceedings much more satisfactory from everyone's point of view and the child will not need to be seen by the judge in chambers or whatever. The amendments have been tabled to benefit those children who are unfortunately involved in adversarial proceedings between their parents, whether married or otherwise. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, those of your Lordships who were involved in the earlier stage of the Bill will be aware that the theme of the Bill is the importance of taking into account children's views. The procedures as to how the child's views are obtained are
1126
just as much a matter of court procedure and practice as if the child were giving evidence in court. As my noble and learned friend said in Committee, the Sheriff Court Rules Council has been considering how best to achieve that end. Work on the preparation of one of the necessary rules of court has already begun.
As your Lordships will be aware, it is the normal practice to leave the detail of such issues to be carried into effect through rules of court. Considerable expertise is available in the Sheriff Court Rules Council. That council includes among its members practitioners experienced in family law and lay members as well as members of the judiciary. It is well-versed in the preparation of provisions which relate to procedure.
In preparing such rules of court, the views of interested parties and experts are sought through both formal and informal consultation. The Government amendment to Clause 11 is designed to facilitate just such preparation of rules of court which will allow for the kinds of situations set out and dealt with in the amendment. Given that it is normal to leave such matters to rules of court, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation which had an air of sympathy about it. We shall have to see in due course what the rules of court say. The amendments emphasise matters which persons who are preparing the rules of court should take into consideration, because the Bill is the last chance that the children of Scotland will have for a long time to have themselves put in a proper position and to be represented properly in all proceedings relating to their welfare and future.
As I say, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for giving that explanation. We look forward to seeing what the rules of court say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 8, at end insert:
("() Any court which has made an order under subsections (1) or (2) above may issue with that order an explanatory statement detailing—

(a) the nature and effect of the order; and

(b) the manner in which the order relates to orders of custody or access which would have been granted by any court prior to the coming into force of this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is self explanatory. When an order is made there may be some confusion about the question of custody, access, and residence in the international courts. The reasoning behind the amendment is that the court should give an explanation of the reasons lying behind any decision it makes within the terms of Clause 11 in relation to custody and access. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am worried about the amendment. It reads:
"prior to the coming into force of this Act".

1127
It has been my experience when dealing with legislation in your Lordships' House that different bits of an Act are brought into force at different times. If the amendment were to be considered, the words should read:
"prior to the coming into force of this part of this Act".
Otherwise, I feel that the amendment will lie on the shelf for an incredibly long time.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I can understand why the noble Lord has tabled the amendment, but I can give my noble friend Lord Balfour some immediate reassurance and say that I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary.
First, although I am aware that sheriffs do on occasion provide a note explaining the reason for their decisions, it is not the same as one which explains the nature and effect of the order. Secondly, I believe that it should be for the legal adviser to the party who is the subject of the order to explain the nature and effect of the order to his or her client. That reflects the current position. Lastly, I would hope that (following rules of court and procedure guidance which will arise after the Bill is enacted) orders made by the courts under subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 11 will be clear as respects their nature and effect.
As regards how a Clause 11 order would relate to existing orders for custody or access, orders for custody or access would be superseded by an order under Clause 11(1) or (2). For instance, if a person applied for a "residence order" under Clause 11(2), that order would, in effect, overtake any existing order for custody. In addition, Clause 15(2) makes it clear that where, before Clause 11 comes into force, a final decree has been made in relation to a custody or access order, any application to vary or recall that order is to be treated as if it has been made under Clause 11.
The thrust of the Bill is that all new orders, or variations of existing orders, should be in terms of Clause 11. So the position is quite clear and, I would suggest, means that there is no real need for this amendment. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I listened with interest to that explanation, but I am not sure that it meets the problem in relation to international law. The words "custody", "access", "residence", and "contact" are used in the Bill. I am sure that the noble Earl is well aware that the essence of the Bill in relation to children is the making of a residence order and an order for contact with the parents. The amendment was put down so that from the international point of view it will be clear what is meant by the words "residence" and "contact".
Schedule 3 paragraph 40(2) and paragraph 36(3) mention the words "residence", "contact", "custody" and "access". They are all mixed up and that might not be understood by people outwith Scotland. We have an international convention on child abduction and a European convention on the recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning the custody of children. The amendment has been put down to ensure
1128
that if any order is made by a court, which has to go to a foreign court, the foreign court should have no doubt about what is meant by the words "residence" and "contact".
I hope that the Government will have a look at this matter because it could lead to great confusion. As we know from child abduction and custody cases, which are reported day in and day out in the newspapers, there is sometimes a great deal of confusion about what those words mean. It is not difficult for a judge to spell out what he means when he talks about "residence" and "contact". If it means custody or access, let him say that so that the matter can be dealt with properly. With those observations, which I hope the Government will take away and look at, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Interpretation of Part I]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 12, line 15, at end insert ("(except that, for the purposes of subsection (5) (b) below, paragraph (d) of the definition in question shall be disregarded)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 14 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. These are drafting amendments which are designed to remove unnecessary language from the definition of a transaction as it currently appears in Clause 15. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("having legal effect").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Welfare of child and consideration of his views]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 13, line 12, leave out from ("sheriff') to ("without") in line 14 and insert:(", taking account of the age and maturity of the child concerned, shall so far as practicable—

(a) give him an opportunity to indicate whether he wishes to express his views;

(b) if he does so wish, give him an opportunity to express them; and

(c) have regard to such views as he may express; and").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 14, line 5, after ("decision") insert:(", provided that the best interests of the child concerned shall remain a primary consideration of the children's hearing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 17 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 which echo the same theme. Some people may believe the amendment is philosophical rather than practical. Within the context of the statutory provision, it re-emphasises that the best interests of the child shall remain a primary consideration of the hearing.
The word "paramount" has crept into the Bill and Amendments Nos. 17 to 19 make clear that, within the context of the legislation, people dealing with children should remember that the best interests of the child, as distinct from the paramount interests, shall remain a primary consideration of the hearing. The inclusion of the amendments will not harm the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the exception to the paramountcy principle in Clause 16 (for the courts and children's hearing) and also in Clause 17 (for local authorities) has been discussed at previous stages of the Bill. The question of paramountcy has not crept into the Bill; the word "paramount" has been part of the legislation relating to children for about 70 years and is an important aspect.
The Bill is essentially about the welfare and protection of children and it clearly establishes and endorses the paramountcy of the child's welfare. It makes only one exception; to protect members of the public from serious harm. That is a protection which they have every right to expect.
The key point is that Clause 16(5) is not about giving hearings and courts powers to take specific action in relation to a child but rather it provides hearings and courts with a power to do something which would not put the welfare of the child as the paramount concern. That in itself is not a separate power to send a child to secure accommodation or to place the child under a supervision requirement. It opens the way to the body exercising its functions, for which succeeding provisions of the Bill provide specific authority.
It is important to see Clause 16(5) in its context. It does not stand on its own; it provides flexibility for a sheriff or a hearing to make appropriate decisions under the relevant legislation where children threaten members of the public with harm. This is not some draconian measure which will allow hearings and courts carte blanche to deal with children as they see fit. They would have to exercise their powers in accordance with the legislative provisions and in doing so the welfare of the child would continue to be a consideration but not the paramount one.
With that reassurance I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and in due course I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps at this point I may raise the question of progress in your Lordships' House. It is no one's fault that today we have to deal with two Scottish Bills, one directly following the other. As regards this Bill, we have about 80 groups of amendments to deal with. Even with the best will in the world, and if the amendments sail through, the Government having taken on board the suggestions that we made in Committee, we shall need about four hours to debate this Bill. I do not mind working late because I am in the Palace in any event but four hours from now is half past nine. I believe that it would be wrong to begin debate on a Bill as serious as the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill at that time.
1130
It contains a serious clause about hearsay evidence in criminal matters and other Members of your Lordships' House may wish to speak on that.
I suggest that the House adjourns for a short time in order that we can discuss whether the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill should proceed after debates on this Bill are concluded. It would be wrong to consider such a serious Bill at ten o'clock at night. Indeed, the Children (Scotland) Bill is equally important. Perhaps we could adjourn the House for five minutes.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, many of the government amendments to the Children (Scotland) Bill are technical and therefore some groups will be dealt with very quickly. I suggest that we press on with the Bill because discussions with the usual channels are being initiated. We shall receive a response from them in due course.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful for that assurance. We shall see how matters proceed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Duty of local authority to child looked after by them]:
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, line 6, leave out from ("authority") to end of line 8.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I apologise to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench because I have had no opportunity to discuss the amendment with him. However, I must explain the position. It is a consequential amendment which arises because of the sensible government Amendment No. 124. That deletes the reference to a "relevant local authority" in Clause 68(3) and moves it, under Amendment No. 165, to Clause 90, which is the interpretation clause dealing with Part II.
The definition of a "relevant local authority" is now fully described in Amendment No. 165 and is inserted in its correct alphabetical position in Clause 90. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the government amendments make the legislation easier to read and understand.
As well as this amendment, which I spotted because of my own cross-referencing in the Bill, Amendments Nos. 122, 125, 127 and 128 are all consequential. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am happy to accept Amendment No. 20 moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour which is consequential to the moving of the definition of "relevant local authority" from Clause 68(3) to the definition in Clause 90.
Having accepted that amendment, it may be appropriate to speak now to government Amendments Nos. 122, 124, 125, 127, 128 and 165. These are all minor clarifying amendments of the same nature as that moved by my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 15, line 8, at end insert ("and for whom they are providing accommodation.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, this is a purely probing amendment. It serves to limit the use of the term "looked after" to only those children and young people who are accommodated away from the family home.
One of the underlying principles of the Bill is to minimise the role of the state and to maximise parents' ability to continue to exercise their rights and responsibilities in relation to the care of their children. The effect of the recent change introduced by the Government in Committee is that a child subject to a supervision requirement at home will now be regarded as being "looked after" by a local authority. Parents may well view that as both confusing and over-intrusive, where the local authority's duty under Clause 68(2) is only from time to time to investigate that any conditions imposed by the supervision requirement are being fulfilled. That does not really mean that the local authority is looking after the child.
There is also scope for confusion from the point of view of the local authority. Does the duty under Clause 68(2) limit or circumscribe any duty of care owed to the child under common law? Would it not be possible to clarify that position in the Bill while at the same time allowing those children and young people subject to supervision in relevant accommodation access to aftercare and other support from local authorities? I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I see difficulties in the inclusion of children subject to a domestic supervision requirement under Clause 68(2) (a) in the category of "looked after" children. Will such children be entitled to claim aftercare under Clause 28? I wonder whether the Minister has calculated the numbers of such children and the scale of the costs involved. I am advised by the Association of Directors of Social Work that the costs of including those children could amount to £8.77 million. I wonder whether provision will be made in the Bill for that sum. While there is no problem if that provision is to be made, children should be re-categorised if adequate provision is not being made for them.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I listened with care to what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. I have some sympathy for her position. I know that it is a probing amendment but, nevertheless, it would have the effect of removing from local authority responsibilities and services the children who are subject to compulsory measures of supervision at home.
Clause 17 sets out a duty that a local authority has to children looked after by it. The intention is that this clause should embrace all categories of children who receive services or assistance or for whom local authorities have responsibilities under the Bill: that is, those who are accommodated, those who are subject to compulsory supervision and those who are subject to an order or warrant under the Bill.
1132
Where a child is subject to a supervision requirement but continues to live at home, his parents still have a fundamentally important part to play in the upbringing of the child—and I am sure that that is what the noble Lady would wish. But in making a supervision requirement, the children's hearing will have concluded that the child has needs which the local authority has a role in meeting. I suggest to your Lordships that we cannot ignore the needs of such children and the duty which local authorities should have to them. It is a matter for the children's hearing to decide whether that is so in all the circumstances.
Most importantly, I should emphasise that by including children in the general category of being "looked after", we ensure that they qualify for all appropriate services. One such potentially important service is aftercare.
By redefining the category of children covered by Clause 17(6) (b), the noble Lady would be depriving any child who was subject to a home supervision requirement at school-leaving age of receiving continued support under the aftercare provisions of Clause 28. I should observe that aftercare is already a duty under the 1968 Act in cases of home supervision. I am sure that the noble Lady will agree that such children might well require further advice, guidance and assistance from the local authority. Therefore, it would be unfortunate if such an amendment were made which would have the undesirable repercussion of depriving the children of that advice and so on. I hope that with that explanation, the noble Lady will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and 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. 22:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
("Duty of local authority to child not looked after by them
.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 17 above, where under or by virtue of this Part of this Act, a local authority decide any matter with respect to a child, the welfare of that child throughout his childhood shall be their paramount consideration.
(2) In making any such decision a local authority shall have regard so far as practicable to the views (if he wishes to express them) of the child concerned, taking account of his age and maturity; and without prejudice to the generality of this subsection a child twelve years of age or more shall be presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to form a view.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment follows on from the previous amendment. It attempts to define the duties of the local authority to children who are not categorised as "looked after" but are in receipt of social work intervention. That includes children in need and children in refuges.
Clause 17 provides clearly that "looked after" children shall be treated with their interests as paramount, but there seems to be no corresponding duty to children in need in the community or in refuges.

1133
While the amendment would resolve that problem, I wonder whether there is an error or omission from the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised a number of interesting points in moving this amendment. I assure him that there is no error or omission. He is right to suggest that when local authorities are contemplating taking action or providing services under Part II of the Bill, there will be many circumstances in which they should seek the child's views.
I believe also that the child's welfare should be a matter of considerable concern in any dealings which a local authority has with a child or the parents. But I am less clear that it would be appropriate to place a specific duty on a local authority to have welfare as a paramount concern when the authority is not actually looking after the child and therefore has no formal relationship with him.
I think that we have to differentiate rather carefully between public intervention in the life of a child or family and the simple provision of support services. The noble Earl's proposed clause would bite wherever and whenever a local authority were considering any action under Part II. I believe that writing such a sweeping provision into primary legislation would run a very serious risk of creating such a heavy and onerous requirement on local authorities that they would find real difficulty in meeting its terms and delivering their services—and in meeting priority needs. It is too prescriptive and would require a degree of consultation and interaction between the authorities and individuals which would probably prove impracticable.
I believe that the best of what the noble Earl seeks will be obtained through good practice and through guidance where that is necessary. However, they are not matters for the face of the Bill. On the basis of those reassurances, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Local authority plans for services for children]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 15, line 26, after ("services") insert ("and associated health and education services").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment is concerned with broadening the scale of children's service plans to include the education service and to bring in the health boards' provisions. That corporate planning should not be too difficult to co-ordinate as the two local authority departments and the health board each know what services they provide. I do not believe that it would be too difficult to produce an integrated plan to co-ordinate their existing services.
I have taken the point made in Committee that provisions by voluntary organisations will be too difficult to organise within the child service plan. However, I believe that the statutory agencies ought to be required to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, at an earlier stage we discussed the extent and scope of the plans for child care services. On that occasion, the noble Earl moved an amendment to delete the word "relevant" and thus extend the planning requirement to include all services for children. I understand the wish to see services for children properly co-ordinated and well planned. But, nonetheless, the Government remain very firmly of the view that attempting to stretch the plans to include health and education is unrealistic and would be unhelpful.
We have now had some considerable experience in the preparation of strategic plans for community care services. Those services, like services for children, require careful planning and co-operation among a number of agencies. I think it is fair to say—although not a happy thing to say—that initial attempts which endeavoured to cover every single aspect resulted in the production of plans that were so lengthy and complex that they were almost incomprehensible. I very much fear that the amendment would have precisely the same result on the plans for child care services provided under the Bill.
The clause introduces a new requirement on local authorities. I hope that the plans which will be produced will be crisp, clear and well focused. The aim is that they should be key management tools capable of providing a broad, strategic overview of the development of child care services. They are strategic plans, not plans focused on the needs of any particular child and they should be seen in that context. I strongly believe that the amendment would not only be unhelpful but, on this occasion, would actually cause significant harm to the procedures which I understand the noble Earl is most concerned to see work well. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am undoubtedly a little disappointed in the answer of the noble and learned Lord. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Publication of information about services for children]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 16, line 29, at end insert:("; and
() shall take such steps as are reasonable to ensure that all published information is made available to children and their families who may benefit; and
() ensure that all published information is in a form which is accessible to likely users.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee mention was made of the fact that the child service plans may well contain much turgid detail. I believe that that is likely. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an easily read guide to the local

1135
authority's child service plans is made available in most of the languages used in its area, including Braille. That wee booklet would be made available on demand and be displayed at community access points which local authorities will be setting up. They should also be given to all families receiving a service from the social work department.
There is still a general lack of knowledge about the scale of operations carried out by the social work department, the education department and the health board which I should have liked to include. The proposed booklet could reduce that knowledge gap. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we introduced Clause 19 to the Bill as a government amendment in the Committee stage in this Chamber following debate on the matter in another place. It lays a clear duty on local authorities to publish information about services for children. Clause 19 has been welcomed as a useful addition.
However, I am not sure whether the noble Earl's proposed addition would add anything of further value, although he made some good points when introducing the amendment. He seeks to make local authorities responsible for bringing the information to children and families who may benefit, but has to acknowledge, of course, that local authorities will not necessarily know who all potential beneficiaries might be. It is therefore not possible to make the requirement an absolute duty, and the amendment rightly qualifies it by simply requiring the authority to take such steps as are reasonable. In effect therefore the first part of the amendment could equally well be covered in guidance, if necessary.
The second part of the amendment requires information to be published in a form which is accessible to likely users. The noble Earl, quite rightly, has a dislike of turgid information. Again, I am sure that it would be in a local authority's best interests to publish in an attractive and usable manner information about services for which they are accountable. It is through the publication of such information that residents in local authority areas see how their authorities respond to local needs. I should add that there are a number of local authorities which already produce their guides in different languages; indeed, there are some which also produce such information in Braille.
The Bill is considerably longer than it was when it was originally introduced. I am clear that we have been able to make a number of improvements to it. On the basis of what I have been able to tell the noble Earl, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said, especially as he said that much of what I am looking for will in fact be included in guidance. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Promotion of welfare of children in need]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 17, line 10, at end insert:
("() Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the services to be provided by the local authority under that subsection shall include services which—

(a) reduce the likelihood of a child requiring to be looked after by the local authority; and

(b) increase the likelihood of a child no longer requiring to be looked after by the local authority.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 26. The two amendments are designed to ensure that the local authority makes plans for preventive services and the back-up of community services. However, I am not clear why it is the Government's intention to leave that aspect of social work with children in the voluntary area. Will there at least be guidance that will cover and promote a full range of preventive and community services?
Amendment No. 26 deals with that vital resource of respite services. The Government have opposed the inclusion of respite services on the face of the Bill because,
"it would not be helpful to highlight one particular service in primary legislation"—[Official Report, 6/6/95; col. 54.]
Yet the Government have recently introduced their own clause for a particular service—Clause 26—which deals with the provision of day care services.
Respite services are a key preventive service. It can be the vital service to keep families together and to further the development of their children. At present, huge gaps in respite services exist across Scotland with many families unable to access services. Practice demonstrates that government support for respite services is not enough. The need to provide such services must be recognised in children's legislation. Can the Minister please confirm that respite services will be part of children's service plans? I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I can well understand the noble Earl's desire with Amendment No. 25 to require a local authority to include among the services which it provides those which will,
"reduce the likelihood of a child requiring to be looked after by the local authority; and increase the likelihood of a child no longer requiring to be looked after by the local authority".
Nonetheless, we are of the view that services for those purposes can indeed be provided under Clause 21 as it stands. In safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in need, the local authority is also required to promote the upbringing of such children by their families by providing a range and level of services appropriate to the children's needs. That is a more positive way of achieving what Amendment No. 25 seeks to do. This matter will be covered in a range of guidance.
Amendment No. 26 calls for respite services to be specifically included within Clause 21. It has already been acknowledged that these services can play an important part in keeping families together. We would

1137
expect them to figure in children's services plans drawn up by local authorities. Nonetheless the Government still hold to the view that it is not only respite services which can be of great assistance in keeping families together, but there will be other services too. We have concerns about the possibility—we have said this on previous occasions—that specifying particular services within this clause could mean that other services not so specified would be held not to be included in the range of services a local authority will be required to provide. When one includes one provision, legal arguments can arise about others. Respite services are of course important but they will only be part of the range of services. For the reasons I have given it would not be appropriate to specify them. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, these services are important. I am pleased to hear that they will be specifically mentioned in guidance. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 17, line 25, after ("of") insert ("—(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these three small amendments are a necessary reconciliation with the Jobseekers Act 1995 which received Royal Assent on 28th June. They are obviously important for consistency. I therefore commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 17, line 25, at end insert ("payable").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 when I moved Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 17, line 26, at end insert ("; or
(b) an income-based jobseeker's allowance payable under the Jobseekers Act 1995.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Children affected by disability]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 17, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) For the purposes of this Act—

(a) a child has a disability if he has a physical, mental, or sensory impairment which has a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out activities associated with the expected stage of development of children of a similar age without disability;

(b) 'impairment' means any damage to or loss or absence of a physiological, psychological or anatomical function; and

(c) an adult has a disability if he has a physical, mental or sensory impairment which has a detrimental effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, including the normal activities involved in caring for a child.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 22 of the Bill. Clause 22(2) states,
"For the purposes of this Chapter of this Part a person is disabled if he is chronically sick or disabled or suffers from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984)."
The Bill we are discussing is entitled Children (Scotland) Bill and the child for whose welfare we are all concerned suddenly becomes a person in this clause within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act which deals with adults who are unfortunate enough to have mental disorders. This amendment seeks to introduce flexibility into the definition of disablement within the terms of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. It gives time for the condition of the child to be properly assessed over a number of years. It is quite a simple amendment but it has great significance for the children of Scotland for whom this Bill has been introduced into your Lordships' House with all-party support.
It is difficult to diagnose at an early age whether a child is mentally ill within the definition of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act. However, an adult has had time to develop and to demonstrate his propensities one way or another, whether he demonstrates violence, schizophrenia or any other condition. It is easier—I do not use that word lightly—for a psychiatrist to diagnose an adult's condition who is 18 or older as that adult will have had time to develop by then. The Bill as it stands at present will place children in a context which has nothing to do with children's disorders. The objective behind the amendment is to tailor the Bill to suit the needs of children. As we all know, children develop in various ways. Unless there is a child who is an absolute menace—if I can put it that way—and can be diagnosed psychologically as being,
"chronically sick or disabled or suffers from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984)"
it is difficult to take a child out of a home, for example, and place him within the context of that Act.
The definition contained within Clause 22(2) may have been taken from some other Act. I believe it is adult-based and that it has nothing to do with the welfare of children. We must look after children and ensure that they develop properly, in so far as we can. I know that children may develop some conditions and no one can help that, just as some adults become schizophrenics and develop other conditions. I believe that the definition contained in Clause 22(2) is a fairly draconian one to impose on children who are governed by this Bill. On that basis, I would ask the Government, even if they do not accept the terminology of the amendment, to consider that the people who framed this amendment are all concerned with the welfare of children. Even if the phraseology of the amendment is not acceptable to the Government, perhaps they might reconsider the clause we are discussing and return at Third Reading with a different definition of disablement in Clause 22(2). I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to make one comment here. Even if the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, is not

1139
accepted, I wonder whether in the existing subsection (2) of Clause 22 the Government would consider using the words,
"For the purpose of this part of this Act".
If it is restricted to this chapter, as the clause reads, Chapters 3 and 4 could be affected.
My other concern about the amendment is the reference to "an adult" in sub-paragraph (c). I wonder whether we have allowed for a disabled adult, who perhaps was physically fit when the child was born but subsequently had a serious accident, to be helped with the care of children within the provisions of the Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, this is the second occasion on which the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, has been discussed in this House. It has also been discussed at length on separate occasions in another place.
If I may be forgiven for being equally persistent, I shall reiterate what my noble and learned friend said when we previously debated the matter in Committee. The definition in the Bill has the twin advantages of being flexible and also of being familiar to local authorities in that it is drawn from the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. It is not draconian, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, suggested. Moreover, we have already provided a definition of a disabled adult which for the purposes of Clause 22 is the same as that of a disabled child.
My noble and learned friend also said that he could appreciate the temptation to produce particular types of conditions within the definition of disability. Again I have to say that going down that road carries the real risk that some specific condition may be omitted, thus placing the child with that condition outside the definition of a disabled child and, more importantly, denying the child the opportunity to benefit from services which authorities will provide under Clause 21.
My noble friend Lord Balfour raised a point about the drafting in line 38 on page 17. We shall look into that and contact him in relation to the point that he made.
On the basis of the argument that I have reiterated to the noble Lord, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I may feel obliged to withdraw the amendment, but whether I am able to do so is another matter.
Looking at the terminology of Clause 22(2), it occurs to me that it is a restricting clause. Let us assume that, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, the reference to the chapter was deleted. The subsection would read:
"For the purposes of this Part a person",
which obviously means a child,
"is disabled if he is chronically sick or disabled or suffers from mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984)".
I apologise for not giving the noble Earl prior notice of this point but it has just occurred to me. Is that not a restrictive clause? It means that if a child does not fall within the definitions in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 then he or she is not designated as being
1140
disabled within the meaning of the Children (Scotland) Bill. I wonder whether the Government and their advisers might look at that point and consider whether a broader concept to take account at least of the spirit of my amendment might be more suitable to a Bill which is entitled the Children (Scotland) Bill.
We are not dealing with adults. We are dealing with developing personalities. Those of us who are familiar with children know how children develop over the years. They develop one way and then another. It seems to me that Clause 22(2) places a limit on the children who can be covered by the Bill.
The noble Earl is a caring Minister, as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, who has taken a great interest in the Bill. We are all trying to do our best for children. It would not be good for the children of Scotland if a restrictive piece of legislation deprived them of the assistance they might need during their years of development. With those observations, and having heard what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 17, line 47, at end insert ("and shall

(a) having regard to the results of that assessment, decide whether the needs of the child or other person call for the provision of any service; and

(b) provide a written copy of the assessment and any decision made following the assessment to the child and child's parent or guardian.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not quite sure why the amendment is included. No doubt the Government have had notice of it and have some observations to make on it which I can consider between now and the Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, for what they are worth, the Government's observations are much as they were in Committee. The aim of the Government is to keep Clause 22 as simple and focused as possible and to avoid cluttering the primary legislation with too much detail. Therefore, whatever the intention behind Amendment No. 32, which the noble Lord does not seem to be clear about, we believe that it would add unnecessary detail. Nonetheless, the intention is that guidelines will be issued which will deal with the objectives that lie behind the amendment. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Assessment of ability of carers to provide care for disabled children]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 18, line 7, leave out ("the carer may request").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 34 to 38. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that where a carer's assessment is made in respect of a disabled child that assessment should be made at the same time. The Bill as drafted introduces two assessments which may be relevant to families affected by disability. It is much fairer if the carer and the disabled person are assessed at the same time rather than separately. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to page 18, line 10, of the Bill, which reads:
"to carry out an assessment of the carer's ability to continue to provide".
I get the impression that this relates not only to the carer's physical ability but also to his financial ability to provide care and whether a person can afford to look after a disabled child.
In relation to Amendment No. 37, I do not know where the word "many" appears in line 15. I have not found it.
In addition, I could not possibly agree to Amendment No. 38. I believe that the word "by" is much more important than "in respect or.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the essential purpose of the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is, so far as we understand, to remove the need for a carer to request an assessment and for the assessment of the carer's needs to be carried out independently of the needs of the child.
I have difficulty with that on three grounds. First, it goes beyond our undertaking to align the Scottish provisions dealing with carers as closely as possible to the provisions which will apply in England and Wales. Secondly, I fear that the amendment, by requiring the carer's needs to be assessed independently of the needs of the child, might put the clause outwith the scope of the Bill in that it is a children Bill. Any assessment of adult carers would need to be carried out for the purposes of addressing the needs of the child.
The third point is that I do not feel that it is appropriate for assessments to be imposed on carers. There will be carers who are perfectly happy and competent to care for the child. Local authority intervention of the kind which would apply if the amendments were adopted might well be resented by some carers. However, I accept that carers should be aware that they have a right to an assessment when the child's needs are being assessed. We propose to cover the point in the guidance issued following enactment of the Bill.
For those reasons, and for the reasons put forward by my noble friend Lord Balfour, but with the assurance that I have given on guidance, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the more closely one considers the Bill, the more difficult it becomes. One is not aware of many of these issues until considering the Bill. The assessments are made at the
1142
request of the carers. Under Clause 23(1) where there is an assessment to determine the needs of a disabled child, a person in that section referred to as a carer,
"may request the local authority … to carry out an assessment"
of the carer's ability. Should a power be given to the local authority to assess the carer? Why should the impetus come from the carer? We have to be careful about the needs of children, disabled or otherwise. Might some provision be built into Clause 23(1) to give the local authority the power to assess the ability of the carer to look after the disabled child?
The more one reads the Bill, the more one sees problems emerging. It is an all-party Bill; I do not make any party points. Will the Government and their advisers consider the matter to see whether the local authority should be given some power to consider the carer as well as the child rather than wait for the request of the carer?
Subject to that, and seeking to be helpful, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 38 not moved.]
Clause 28 [After-care]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("nineteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
At present, the Bill offers some young people who have been looked after by their local authority the useful possibility of help, guidance and assistance as young adults. I continue to believe that the age range specified is too tight and that a slight relaxation of the age range of eligibility will be more than beneficial in the case of those who were discharged from being looked after by the local authority after their 15th birthday.
I would suggest that it would be even more significant to look at the size of the group discharged after they reach 15½ years. I clearly believe that an enlargement of the catchment group could be useful in reducing homelessness, addiction, unemployment, lack of skills, disaffection and delinquency, all of which cost the nation a fortune, albeit set against a different budget. I remind noble Lords that the cost of a week's imprisonment is £500 per person.
Similarly, I should be keen to see the age range of the power to assist raised to 23 years. That would bring the provision up to a par with the average age of leaving home which is now understood to be 22 years. It also reflects the fact that growing up in a "looked after" environment is rarely a springboard to early maturity. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I am keenly aware of the importance of aftercare. There is little sense in investing time, money and staff resources in looking after young people and then failing to provide them with the necessary support when they move towards independent living.

1143
To my mind the key point is that services—that is, advice, guidance and assistance given to them—should he improved, not simply extended to people who are slightly older. If we get the services right at the early stage I very much hope that we shall be able to avoid some of the difficulties which exist at present.
It is not simply a question of resources, although clearly additional costs could be significant if we both materially improve services and extend the age range of the young people who might qualify to receive them. It is just as important that the services and support should be carefully tailored to meet the needs of the young people involved. I hope that that can be achieved.
I stress that the clause contains a duty for local authorities to provide aftercare for young people up to 19 and a power to continue assisting young care leavers until they are 21. All in all, we are providing for aftercare on a wider basis than is available for other parts of the United Kingdom. The aftercare provisions are considerably more generous than they are under the 1968 Act.
I do not believe that we need to take aftercare beyond a young person's 21st birthday. But it should be noted that Clause 29 empowers local authorities to contribute to costs of education and training for young people beyond 21.
This is essentially a children Bill. We have provided a strong framework of aftercare within it. I hope that, with the assessment on the quality that is provided, rather than extending the range the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is encouraging. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved]:
Clause 33 [Registration and inspection of certain residential grant-aided and independent schools etc.]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 24, line 38, leave out second ("or").
Page 24, line 41, after ("1984,") insert ("or Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments simply insert a reference to the Bill into the redrafted Section 67 which the Bill puts into the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34 [Welfare of children in accommodation provided for purposes of school attendance]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 25, line 21, at end insert:
("() Such inspections shall be made
() on a routine basis; and
() in response to any reasonable complaint by a child or his parent or parents.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment builds on the answer given by the Minister at Committee stage. I bring the amendment forward for several reasons.
First, I believe it is essential that it is made absolutely clear that there are no exemptions to the jurisdiction of the future Children (Scotland) Act and that children in independent schools are definitely covered by that legislation.
Secondly, problems arise in independent schools which need to be resolved. I believe that all schools should have effective and powerful internal systems to deal with complaints by pupils, parents and guardians. I further believe that there is a need for a system of external investigation and inspection. This, I understand, is already in place but seems to be little known and probably under-resourced.
Thirdly, there are an increasing number of children from abroad attending Scottish independent schools. Our reputation in education goes before us, but we must live up to it. These children may be vulnerable, culture-shocked and far from home. We must ensure that the local systems of support are good enough to meet their needs.
Fourthly, it may be necessary to give assistance and advice on anti-bullying and anti-abuse strategies. Her Majesty's inspectors should, by now, have broad experience in the area. As an analogy, the Scottish Prison Service has for the past two years had an anti-bullying strategy at the top of the list of priorities of governors of young offenders institutions. Perhaps the old virtue of over-privileged children being subjected to artificial hardship has broken down in an era of social mobility.
Fifthly and finally, private education is bought and paid for, but it is not a consumer product which can be returned to the manufacturers. Parents who have committed their children to an independent school must be confident that the school is a competent place where their child can grow up. There is no second chance for a ruined childhood and upbringing. The amendment would put the Secretary of State's existing task on the face of the Bill and publicise it. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, as I indicated at the Committee stage of the Bill, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl. I noticed that in Scottish newspapers recently—I shall not mention the name of the school involved—it was stated that the headmaster had taken on board the problems which had been recognised in the school. He said that he was quite happy to have any inspection at any time. If that is the case, I cannot see why the noble Earl's amendment should be resisted by the Government.
I noticed that in his remarks the headmaster said that hanging a child out of a window by his ankles and inserting a broom into a certain part of his anatomy was "horseplay". If that is horseplay, it is not the type of horseplay to which I should like my child or anyone else's to be subjected. The whole objective behind the amendment is to give an avenue through which parents and children can obtain justice within the school system. If the headmaster who made the remarks was responding to the criticisms of that school, then let us have an open house with the Government supporting the amendment.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I wonder whether the amendment will help in relation to the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. I understand that independent schools have nothing to hide and very much welcome inspections from HMI. The schools believe that they do well and if they receive a good inspection report from HMI, the position is confirmed.
HMI or the relevant authority will react,
"in response to any reasonable complaint by a child or his parent or parents".
As a parent myself, I believe that one should complain first to the headmaster and, if the problem is not resolved quickly, one should remove one's child from the school.
Schools might wish to consider the proposal that there could possibly be room for having a really independent person outwith the school whom the children could consult if they had a problem. It would have to be publicised to the children and everything would have to be totally confidential. The outside adviser would have to have the ear of the headmaster 24 hours a day, but something like that could be useful.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, has just said. Apart from anything else, no amount of inspections would stop the kind of bullying described by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. Bullies do not hang children out of the window by their ankles when the inspector is standing below. I do not think inspections would stop that kind of thing and what the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, suggested is far more likely to do so.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for moving the amendment and particularly for the way in which he did it. As he is aware, a number of allegations have been made about a school in Scotland in what seemed to me to be extremely unfair circumstances. Little opportunity was allowed to the school to offer any explanation of whether the allegations were well-founded. For that reason, I am grateful to the noble Earl for approaching the matter in an objective way and without reference to particular circumstances.
I am in complete agreement with the noble Earl that it is clearly desirable that the new welfare duty should be imposed on schools and that, as part of their inspection, Her Majesty's inspectors of schools should have regard to that new welfare duty. The inspections will be carried out on a routine basis, but in my view it would not be helpful to be restrictive in the Bill as to the frequency of the inspections. We have proposed a five-year inspection cycle, but that is not the only basis on which it might be undertaken. I take very seriously the noble Earl's concern that inspections should be triggered by complaints by pupils or their parents. All complaints about the operation of independent schools received by the Secretary of State are already followed up with the schools concerned. Her Majesty's inspectors of schools can be asked to carry out investigations and report their findings to the Secretary of State and make recommendations for improvements in provision by schools where those are considered necessary.
1146
My conclusion is that there is already in place an effective means of investigating complaints about the operation of independent schools. However, it does not end there. I note what the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said. I can advise them that child protection guidelines are being drawn up by Professor Kathleen Marshall of Glasgow University, in consultation with a number of interested and expert parties, for use by the independent schools in meeting their new duty under this clause. Clause 34, as at present worded, will provide an effective means of ensuring that appropriate welfare standards are in place in independent schools. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by the action that is being initiated by independent schools in Scotland to meet the new duty that is imposed on them. With those words, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that he can withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks. I shall go along with his request and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Short-term refuges for children at risk of harm]:
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Clause 40[Safeguarding child's interests in proceedings]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 29, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 47, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 48. These are two small technical amendments and I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [Power of Secretary of State to make rules governing procedure at children's hearing etc.]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 30, line 7, at end insert:
("() the procedure in relation to the disposal of matters arising under section 40(1) of this Act;
() the functions of any person appointed by a children's hearing under section 40(1) of this Act and and right of that person to information relating to the proceedings in question;
() the recording in writing of any statement given under section 40(3) of this Act;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Prohibition of publication of proceedings at children's hearing]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 31, line 3, leave out ("or section 73(1)") and insert (", section 73(1) or section 82(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49, I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 64 to 66, 68, 69, 70, 73, 113, 115, 119, 120 and 121. These amendments are also minor and consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 31, line 22, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 43 of the Bill in relation to the publication of proceedings at children's hearings. Its objective in leaving out subsection (5) of this particular clause is that no proceedings in a children's hearing should be published at all. As was discussed in Committee, the Secretary of State for Scotland has a power to order the publication of children's hearings, but it has never to my knowledge been used.
It is important to remember that the whole purpose of children's hearings in Scotland was to contain dealings with children within the community, with access between the Children's Panel, the parents and the child and with reference to the sheriff to find out whether grounds of referral were justified. To allow publication of the hearings in any shape, manner or form would be contrary to the proposals of Lord Kilbrandon, who set out the guidelines that children should be dealt with within the community.
Children are sent to a hearing for a variety of reasons. If they have committed some horrible crime such as murder, rape or arson, they will not be dealt with within the children's hearing system; they will be dealt with through the normal court process, assuming that they are over the age of criminal responsibility. It would not help the running of the children's hearing system if anyone were allowed to report the basis or the decision of the hearing or to name the children or their parents. That is why this amendment was tabled.
Many people will say that children would not be at the children's hearing if they had not done something wrong. But that is not the point at issue. The whole point of a children's hearing is to set a child who has gone wrong in whatever way back on the right road. The worst approach is to publicise his or her appearance before the children's hearing and let neighbours and peers at school know that the child has been before the hearing and has been dealt with. This amendment was tabled for the protection of children. That is an essential ingredient of the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, this amendment is identical to one that the noble Lord tabled at Committee stage. It remains my view that a dispensing power is necessary to provide for exceptional cases in the interests of justice.
The noble Lord will be aware that the Secretary of State already has such a general power in the 1968 Act. The Children Act 1989 extends such a power to both the court and the Secretary of State. The noble Lord is absolutely right: these powers are not to be used lightly; nor have they been used in the past. But there may be circumstances, however rare, where it may be appropriate to dispense with the prohibition. This long-stop provision ensures that, should such a situation arise, either the court or the Secretary of State has the necessary powers available. I stress that it is very much a long-stop provision. With that assurance, and knowing the history of this provision, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am always very intrigued by the phrase "the interests of justice". The question is: justice to whom? Is it justice to the individual or to what we care to call society? Obviously the amendment is not acceptable to the Government, so there is no point in my pressing it. I have not yet heard who is to be Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that whoever it is will take on board the Minister's remarks. I am sure that whoever he is—and I have a suspicion who it might be—will exercise his humanity and will not allow to be broadcast anything that happens within the children's hearing system subject to the guidelines provided by the Minister. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 [Attendance of child and relevant person at children's hearing]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 31, line 34, after ("shall") insert ("—

(a) have the right to attend at all stages of the hearing; and

(b) subject to subsection (2) below,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, government Amendments Nos. 51, 53, 55 and 58 are grouped with a number .of other amendments tabled by other noble Lords. An undertaking was given in another place to consider the introduction of a provision that would extend to a child the right to attend all stages of a children's hearing. Following an amendment in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, we undertook to bring forward these amendments. They fulfil the commitment by giving the child an unqualified right of attendance. The amendments also ensure, however, that the hearing may proceed in the absence of the child.
The later amendments in my name introduce a similar right for the child to attend a hearing of an application before a sheriff to establish the grounds of referral. I beg to move my Amendment No. 51. Given that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he need not bother to move his amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 31, line 34, leave out ("that hearing") and insert ("those stages").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 31, line 36, leave out ("the provisions of") and insert ("subsection (1) (a) above and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 31, leave out line 44 and insert ("they may release the child from the obligation imposed by subsection (1) (b) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Referral or remission to children's hearing on conviction]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 60 to 63:
Page 33. line 31, leave out from ("requirement") to end of line 33.
Page 33, line 40, at end insert:
("(1) Where a person, who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence, is aged sixteen years or over and is subject to a supervision requirement, the court if it is—

(a) the High Court, may; and

(b) the sheriff court, shall,

proceed in accordance with either paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (1) above.").
Page 34, line 18, leave out from ("requirement") to end of line 20.
Page 34, line 27, at end insert:
("(1) Where a person, who is charged with an offence and pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, that offence, is aged sixteen years or over and is subject to a supervision requirement, the court shall proceed in accordance with either paragraph (i) or (ii) of subsection (1) above.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 48 amends Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1975 to extend the involvement of the children's hearing where a court is considering the case of a young person who has committed an offence. It was pointed out that the amendments to that section remove an existing obligation on the court to take the advice of the children's hearing in respect of young people aged 16 years and over who are subject to a supervision requirement. These amendments reintroduce that obligation. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 50 [Appeal against decision of children's hearing or sheriff]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 35, line 20, leave out from ("generality") to end of line 21 and insert (", the sheriff may—

(a) examine the Principal Reporter;").

Page 35, line 22, leave out ("the sheriff may").
Page 35, line 24, leave out ("may").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 49, my noble friend also spoke to Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 35, line 42, leave out from ("case") to end of line 45.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Clause 50 of the Bill under consideration. Its basis is that the sheriff who hears a case should not be allowed to substitute his own decision in place of decisions that might be made by the children's hearing.
I return to the point that I made earlier. The whole point of the children's hearing is that children should be dealt with within the community and on the basis of the children's hearing. To allow the sheriff to enter the process and impose his own view of the case is quite contrary to the Kilbrandon principles. If that is to be allowed, it is the thin end of the wedge—taking the disposal of children in Scotland out of the children's
1150
hearing system and into the ordinary courts. The whole purpose of the Kilbrandon Report in setting up the children's hearings in 1968 was to keep children out of the courts. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment No. 67.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the only time I have felt a frisson of irritation during the course of the Bill is over this matter. I am as anxious as other noble Lords to ensure that the unique system that we have in Scotland of children's hearings should be maintained and improved wherever possible.
Why I indicated previously that we have to introduce this arrangement is that a children's hearing is an informal body. It is quasi-judicial and as such does not follow judicial procedure. It does not conform to the European Convention on Human Rights which, in Article 6, guarantees a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law which provides the procedural safeguards required by that article. This leaves hearing decisions open to challenge under the convention.
We are bound to take this matter very seriously because of our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. A wider range of disposals on appeal to the sheriff is necessary and this is provided in subsection (5) (c) (iii) of Clause 50. That, in our view, is the best way to preserve the hearings system, while meeting our international obligations.
This is a matter which we have considered with the greatest care, since we are, as the White Paper affirmed, strongly committed to the hearings system. With those strongest of reassurances, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, I support the Minister on this point. I had experience of the difficulty of dealing with these matters on appeal. It is largely with the benefit of that background that the wording of the clause was constructed. This provision is necessary in order to give the court the power to deal with some difficult matters without the necessity to go back before the children's hearing, which may find it difficult to accept the factual basis upon which the court has to proceed, having allowed the appeal.
This is an extremely technical matter to explain. However, I can assure your Lordships that my experience tells me that this clause is valuable and I suggest that the Government have made the right decision to include it in the Bill.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in connection with these matters. What concerns the people involved with child welfare and children's hearings is whether this is the best way to test the European Convention on children's rights.
As far as I am aware, no case has been taken to the European Court. According to a radio broadcast I listened to last week, it takes three to four years to obtain a decision from the European Court, but it is hoped to speed up that process by cutting out the Commission and therefore getting to the European Court fairly quickly.

1151
I still maintain—with the greatest respect, despite the views expressed in this short debate—that this provision runs contrary to Kilbrandon. Once we start running contrary to Kilbrandon on one view, we may as well give up the children's hearing system altogether. That may be a cynical view, but it is a view I express. It is perhaps a sad view that the criminal courts, the sheriff court, the High Court and so forth, including the European Court, are to be brought into the matter. Why cannot the children's hearing exercise a quasi-judicial decision which is open to judicial review? That is an entirely different animal from the sheriff being allowed to impose his own views on the children's hearing.
There is a lot of work to be done on this matter between now and Third Reading, if not afterwards. I cannot for the life of me see why the sheriff has been brought into this procedure to impose his decision on the panel and on the child. I hope that the Government will have another look at it. We should let one of the cases go to the European Court and let the European Court tell the children's panel that it is acting in contravention of the law. I am not convinced that this section is based on any European Convention. No doubt the Minister will attempt to convince me otherwise.
I am extremely unhappy about the intervention of the sheriff in what is, as the Minister said, a system unique to Scotland for dealing with children. If we are going to take them out of the children's system and dump them into the sheriff court, let us forget about children's hearings and get on with it. Let us put the children back into the sheriff courts as they used to be when I started practice; when the sheriff took off his wig and we all went into a room with the mother and father and discussed the situation. That is the easy way to do it. That is expressing a personal view, but I can see what the end result of this approach to the children's panel system will be. With those perhaps rather cynical observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 36, line 23, leave out ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49, we spoke also to Amendment No. 68. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
Page 36, line 25, after ("Act;") insert ("or
(iii) on an application made under section 82(1) of this Act;").
Page 36, line 27, leave out ("and (ii)") and insert ("to (iii)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 49, we spoke also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. With the leave of the House, I shall move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 36, line 28, after ("and") insert (", with leave of the sheriff principal,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment will be of interest not only to those of your Lordships who have been consistently active in the passage of the Bill but also, and in particular, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Those of your Lordships who were present at the Second Reading of the Bill will recall that he raised a number of issues on the Bill, including those in relation to the appeal procedure.
In response, my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate entered into discussion with the Lord President of the Court of Session as to how the latter's concerns might be met in relation to the problem of the dual route of appeal. The result of those discussions, in which I also participated, has been to agree that we should not jeopardise the availability locally of appeals in the sheriff courts through the appeal route provided in Clause 50(11) to the sheriff principal from decisions of the sheriff.
It was also agreed that we should not jeopardise the opportunity of direct appeal to the Court of Session in those cases where it seemed appropriate for such an appeal to be brought, say, where there were major issues. However, there did seem some question as to whether it was necessary to allow an unlimited right of appeal from the sheriff principal in every case.
As a result, it has been decided that there should continue to be an appeal route from the sheriff principal but that this should only be with leave of the sheriff principal. I am pleased that the outcome of our helpful discussions has led to this straightforward conclusion and a relatively simple amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Children requiring compulsory measures of supervision]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 37, line 36, leave out paragraph (1).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which removes a condition which is not now necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Provision of information to the Principal Reporter]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 38, line 23, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 24 and insert ("an application has been made to the sheriff—

(a) by the Principal Reporter in accordance with a direction given by a children's hearing under section 63(6) or (8) of this Act; or

(b) by any person entitled to make an application under section 82 of this Act,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Child assessment orders]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 40, line 10, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 74, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 89, 90, 141, 143, 144, 146, 153, 154, 156, 157

1153
and 160. This group of amendments has one common aim—to rationalise the provisions in Part II of the Bill in relation to the making of court procedure rules for the purposes of that part. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not earlier than 7.45 p.m. but as soon as possible thereafter.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
7 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill (49) as first printed by the Commons.]

  1 Clause 13, page 9, line 9, leave out '76' and insert '67'.

  2 Page 9, line 34, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.

  3 Page 10, line 20, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.

  4 Page 10, line 26, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.

  5 Clause 14, page 10, leave out lines 31 and 32.

  6 Page 10, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 4 on page 11.

  7 Page 11, line 9, leave out 'discharge' and insert 'postpone'.

  8 Page 11, line 17, at end insert:

  '(4) The foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect as respects any court prescribed by the Secretary of State by order, in relation to proceedings commenced after such date as may be so prescribed, with the following modifications—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the word "may" there shall be substituted "shall, subject to subsection (1E) below,"; and

  (b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  "(1E) If, on a joint application by the prosecutor and the accused made at any time before the commencement of the intermediate diet, the court considers it inappropriate to have such a diet, the duty under subsection (1) above shall not apply and the court shall discharge any such diet already fixed.
  (1F) The court may consider an application under subsection (1E) above without hearing the parties.".
  (5) An order under subsection (4) above shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 8.
  Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 ensure that the Secretary of State will have the power to introduce mandatory intermediate diets gradually, court by court, and, if
  1154
  appropriate, to disapply these provisions in particular courts. Gradual introduction will enable monitoring and evaluation of these diets to be carried out before they are introduced throughout Scotland. If it is deemed appropriate certain courts may not be required to hold such diets if it is clear that they would be of no practical value. The remaining amendments are of a minor nature. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 8.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  9 After Clause 16, insert the following clause:
  Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible
  '.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, evidence of a statement made by a person otherwise than while giving oral evidence in court in criminal proceedings shall be admissible in those proceedings as evidence of any matter contained in the statement where the judge is satisfied—

  (a) that the person who made the statement will not give evidence in the proceedings of such matter for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (2) below;

  (b) that evidence of the matter would be admissible in the proceedings if that person gave direct oral evidence of it;

  (c) that the person who made the statement would have been, at the time the statement was made, a competent witness in such proceedings; and

  (d) that there is evidence which would entitle a jury properly directed, or in summary proceedings would entitle the judge, to find that the statement was made and that either—

  (i) it is contained in a document; or

  (ii) a person who gave oral evidence in the proceedings as to the statement has direct personal knowledge of the making of the statement.

  (2) The reasons referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection
  (1) above are that the person who made the statement—

  (a) is dead or is, by reason of his bodily or mental condition, unfit or unable to give evidence in any competent manner;

  (b) is named and otherwise sufficiently identified, but is outwith the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance at the trial or to obtain his evidence in any other competent manner;

  (c) is named and otherwise sufficiently identified, but cannot be found and all reasonable steps which, in the circumstances, could have been taken to find him have been so taken;

  (d) having been authorised to do so by virtue of a ruling of the court in the proceedings that he is entitled to refuse to give evidence in connection with the subject matter of the statement on the grounds that such evidence might incriminate him, refuses to give such evidence; or

  (e) is called as a witness and either—

  (i) refuses to take the oath or affirmation; or

  (ii) having been sworn as a witness and directed by the judge to give evidence in connection with the subject matter of the statement refuses to do so,

  and in the application of this paragraph to a child, the reference to a witness refusing to take the oath or affirmation or, as the case may be, to having

  1155
  been sworn shall be construed as a reference to a child who has refused to accept an admonition to tell the truth or, having been so admonished, refuses to give evidence as mentioned above.
  (3) Evidence of a statement shall not be admissible by virtue of subsection (1) above where the judge is satisfied that the occurrence of any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2) above, by virtue of which the statement would otherwise be admissible, is caused by—

  (a) the person in support of whose case the evidence would be given; or

  (b) any other person acting on his behalf,

  for the purpose of securing that the person who made the statement does not give evidence for the purposes of the proceedings either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement.
  (4) Where in any proceedings evidence of a statement made by any person is admitted by reference to any of the reasons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) and (e) (i) of subsection (2) above—

  (a) any evidence which, if that person had given evidence in connection with the subject matter of the statement, would have been admissible as relevant to his credibility as a witness shall be admissible for that purpose in those proceedings;

  (b) evidence may be given of any matter which, if that person had given evidence in connection with the subject matter of the statement, could have been put to him in cross-examination as relevant to his credibility as a witness but of which evidence could not have been adduced by the cross-examining party; and

  (c) evidence tending to prove that that person, whether before or after making the statement, made in whatever manner some other statement which is inconsistent with it shall be admissible for the purpose of showing that he has contradicted himself.

  (5) Subject to subsection (6) below, where a party intends to apply to have evidence of a statement admitted by virtue of subsection (1) above he shall, before the trial diet, give notice in writing of—

  (a) that fact;

  (b) the witnesses and productions to be adduced in connection with such evidence; and

  (c) such other matters as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal,

  to every other party to the proceedings and, for the purposes of this subsection, such evidence may be led notwithstanding that a witness or production concerned is not included in any list lodged by the parties and that the notice required by sections 81 and 82(2) of the 1975 Act has not been given.
  (6) A party shall not be required to give notice as mentioned in subsection (5) above where—

  (a) the grounds for seeking to have evidence of a statement admitted are as mentioned in paragraph (d) or (e) of subsection (2) above; or

  (b) he satisfies the judge that there was good reason for not giving such notice.

  (7) If no other party to the proceedings objects to the admission of evidence of a statement by virtue of subsection (1) above, the evidence shall he admitted without the judge requiring to be satisfied as mentioned in that subsection.
  (8) For the purposes of the determination of any matter upon which the judge is required to be satisfied under subsection (1) above—

  (a) except to the extent that any other party to the proceedings challenges them and insists in such challenge, it shall be presumed that the circumstances are as stated by the party seeking to introduce evidence of the statement; and

  1156

  (b) where such a challenge is insisted in, the judge shall determine the matter on the balance of probabilities, and he may draw any reasonable inference—

  (i) from the circumstances in which the statement was made or otherwise came into being; or

  (ii) from any other circumstances, including, where the statement is contained in a document, the form and contents of the document.

  (9) Where evidence of a statement has been admitted by virtue of subsection (1) above on the application of one party to the proceedings, without prejudice to anything in any enactment or rule of law, the judge may permit any party to lead additional evidence of such description as the judge may specify, notwithstanding that a witness or production concerned is not included in any list lodged by the parties and that the notice required by sections 81 and 82(2) of the 1975 Act has not been given.
  (10) Any reference in subsections (5), (6) and (9) above to evidence shall include a reference to evidence led in connection with any determination required to be made for the purposes of subsection (1) above.'.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. It may be of assistance to the disposal of the business if at this stage I speak only to Amendment No. 9. Your Lordships will see that the amendment proposes to insert a new clause after Clause 16. The purpose of the new clause is to introduce exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
  The basic rule of our law is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. What is proposed here is that a limited number of significant exceptions should be introduced to that rule. The clause embodies proposals which come from the report of the Scottish Law Commission. The report is the result of years of work, including consultation with various interested parties in the formulation of the proposals. The clause does not reproduce exactly the proposals of the Law Commission. A number of amendments have been made, particularly to deal with procedural matters, but basically it gives effect to the policy as embodied in the Law Commission report.
  Your Lordships will already have seen the exceptions included in subsection (2) (a). The subsection reproduces the existing well-known exception of someone who is dead but adds a part to deal with people who by reason of their bodily or mental condition are unfit or unable to give evidence. Subsection (2) (b) goes on to deal with people who are outwith the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure their attendance at the trial or to obtain their evidence in any other competent manner. It would then be possible for hearsay evidence of that matter to be adduced.
  Importantly, in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), further exceptions are introduced. The exception in paragraph
  (c) is where a person cannot be found and all reasonable steps which, in the circumstances, could have been taken to find him have been taken. Paragraphs (d) and (e) deal with the situation where someone appears in court as a witness but declines to answer or refuses to take the oath and then refuses to give evidence.

  1157
  Among the purposes of paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) is to deal with the problem that has been highlighted in our courts over recent years and on which there has been a divergence of opinion among the judiciary, including, in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. That relates to the situation where a person who is an incriminee—someone who has admitted a particular crime—and whether it should be competent to lead evidence of that person's admission in a situation where the accused person has drawn attention to that by the appropriate notice and has incriminated that person. The provision means that where the person who is the incriminee cannot be found after reasonable steps, it would be possible for evidence of the statement—the admission—to be led, or, where he has been led in evidence—and that would be the appropriate thing if it could be found—but does not give evidence or refuses to give evidence or refuses to take the oath, or whatever it may be, in that situation evidence could be led.
  I would be the first to admit that this is in many ways a matter where a balance of judgment has had to be reached. From the prosecution point of view there are obvious dangers that people may, for whatever reason, choose to hide themselves, other people who may fabricate evidence, and so on. Those are dangers of which we are aware. But we believe that the balance which has been struck is an appropriate one. It is, after all, a matter of judgment. The Law Commission has considered this matter very carefully. We believe that on balance it is appropriate to go down this road. In particular, we hope that it will deal with that particular and anxious matter which arose in the case of Maclay and had earlier arisen in the case of Perry, where, under our existing law, it was not possible to lead the evidence of an admission by an incriminee. It is a matter of judgment but we believe that the balance has been appropriately struck. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 9
  9A After Clause 16, Leave out paragraphs (2) (b) and (c).
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 9.
  The amendment seeks to delete paragraphs (2) (b) and (c) of the new clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has tabled an amendment to leave out paragraphs (2) (c),(d) and (e), so it may be for the convenience of the House if we discuss the whole principle at the same time. I do not know whether that is a good idea, but we are dealing with the same topic.
  I am rather perturbed by this provision. I have tried to make inquiries but at the moment I do not have precise information. However, as I understand it, the provision was introduced in another place at the last minute and went through, as they say colloquially, on the nod. No one noticed what was going on. I am not saying that anyone was being dishonest but I find it very strange that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate goes
  1158
  along with what the Law Commission said in this instance but with regard to the Children (Scotland) Bill and the Law Commission's view on violence to children the Government did not accept what the Law Commission said. So let us forget the Scottish Law Commission. It does its best. Let us look at this particular piece of legislation and see what it is all about.
  We have hearsay evidence in civil cases, which was introduced some years ago. Hearsay evidence was admissible at the discretion of the judge. Discretion is built in here as well. But the big distinction is particularly that in southern proceedings it is not the judge who is hearing the evidence, but the jury. They are an entirely different species. Of course a judge can dismiss from his mind certain matters and presumably treat them neutrally. But once the so-called "evidence" of a statement is before the jury, the simple truth of the matter is that the jury will hear the evidence and say, "Well, he told that to the police and he has disappeared".
  The disturbing phrase in Clause 9 is that the evidence,
  "shall be admissible in those proceedings as evidence of any matter contained in the statement".
  How on earth is that to be tested? There is no witness and therefore no cross-examination. Are we really saying that if a statement is taken, for example, at a police station that that is not going to be tested before the jury? For example, it may be presented to a jury in a murder case and it will be said, "That is what Joe Bloggs said but, by the way, he is not here because he has scarpered. He gave a statement to Inspector Bloggs and there is a statement from the inspector. That is what he said and that is the evidence".
  I am not a judge, but no doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will give us greater insight into how judges approach these matters. The judge can say until he is blue in the face that he will ignore this or that and treat it on the basis that there has been no cross-examination. But that is not good enough. I cannot remember the name of the Bill, but in 1990 there was provision for taking evidence by satellite, for example. That matter is not dealt with here. I am looking at subsection (2) (b) which says that the person who made the statement,
  "is named and otherwise sufficiently identified, but is outwith the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance at the trial or to obtain his evidence in any other competent manner".
  Presumably, that is a reference to the 1990 Bill as regards taking evidence by satellite. For example, in a criminal trial how does the defence know that it is not possible to obtain his or her evidence,
  "in any other competent manner"?
  It is laying out a minefield for delay in criminal trials.
  I now turn to subsection (2) (c). In making the statement the person,
  "is named and otherwise sufficiently identified, but cannot be found and all reasonable steps which, in the circumstances, could have been taken to find him have been so taken".
  That does not say by whom. Does that mean that the mythical Inspector Bloggs comes in and says, "We have tried to find Charlie Smith, but we cannot, so let us just get on with the trial. Here is a statement that he made

  1159
  at the police station". The prosecutor then shows that to the jury. According to this Bill, as drafted, that statement becomes evidence. I find it a disturbing piece of legislation. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that this is legislation done in haste and that it would be better to tread carefully rather than to rush in and just incorporate this piece of legislation into the Criminal Justice Bill. In my view, that will cause more trouble than it is worth. I hope that the Government will take it away and think again. I beg to move.
  Moved, that Amendment No. 9A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 9, be agreed to.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I believe that it would be convenient if I speak to my Amendment No. 9AA. First, in response to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said, I welcome the good parts of this amendment. If it does remedy what I perceive to be the injustice in the McLay case then I certainly welcome it. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, will find the answers to most of his questions in the report of the Scottish Law Commission, in particular in paragraph 5.45 dealing with television links and the legislation that governs it.
  As regards this general clause and subsection (2) introduced by Amendment No. 9, paragraph (a) is perfectly tolerable because to some extent it governs the common law in relation to persons who are dead and may be in relation to certain others. I am not very happy about the notion of "unfitness". I would like to think that that would apply only when the person was permanently unfit or unfit for such a length of time that it would be acceptable to proceed with his hearsay evidence. However, that is acceptable.
  Equally, paragraph (b) is acceptable except that once again it would be desirable to have written into the paragraph the words "within a reasonable time" so that it reads:
  "not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance within a reasonable time".
  Then one could proceed to introduce the hearsay evidence. No doubt that is a consideration which the judge will bear in mind when he applies that. On that basis, I can accept it.
  My Amendment No. 9AA proposes the omission of paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) from subsection (2). I apologise for the fact that it is a manuscript amendment but these matters arose at rather a late stage. As the noble Lord. Lord Macaulay pointed out, these paragraphs permit, within the confines of the clause, that a policeman can state that he heard an oral statement by a person who was a competent witness. He might say, "I heard him say, 'It was not me what done it, it was X'''—that is, the accused.
  Thus X risks being convicted on the basis of police evidence and hearsay. As the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, pointed out, that cannot be cross-examined. The witness cannot he cross-examined in the circumstances of this section and the policeman will simply say, "That is what he said". He cannot be cross-examined about the details. I do not like that at all.
  1160
  Your Lordships will see from paragraph 5.49 of the report of the Scottish Law Commission that its proposal in relation to paragraph (c) was not one which met with favour from the consultees. It writes that the majority of our consultees did not favour the creation of an exception to the hearsay rule on this ground, considering that such an exception would he open to abuse. I endorse the view of the majority whom the commission consulted that this is open to abuse.
  So this new clause effects a very substantial alteration in the law relating to hearsay. I shall try to identify the weaknesses only once. First, the evidence will not be able to be tested or challenged in cross-examination. Secondly, as the commission points out in paragraphs 4.4, 4.5 and 4.18, a conviction based on hearsay evidence which cannot be subjected to cross-examination may well be a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not believe that we should he rushing into legislation in a fashion which may result in a breach of the convention.
  Furthermore, this hearsay evidence can he brought in as evidence of the fact, without any risk at all that the maker of the statement which constitutes the evidence can be charged, for example, with perjury even if his statement is quite deliberately false. Nor can a person who makes up the statement or who persuades the missing witness to make the assertion, be charged with subornation or perjury because there is no perjury involved. As a matter of principle the evidence, in most circumstances, cannot be the best evidence. So the danger is indeed real.
  What the new clause enables to be done is that the accused person, or some other interested party or an over-zealous policeman, can produce as admissible evidence of the facts of the case evidence which he knows to be false and which he knows the alleged maker of the statement would never say in court, because the alleged maker of that statement would not take the risk of being charged with perjury as regards the making of the statement.
  We have always been deeply suspicious of hearsay evidence except where it is absolutely essential—and I do not think that the essentiality is made out. I have read carefully the thorough report of the Scottish Law Commission which considered all these matters in great detail and I regret to say that I do not find the arguments persuasive in relation to these matters.
  In paragraph (c), one is talking about a person who cannot be found. A person can, in effect, be made to disappear either by the accused person, the accused person's friends or even by an over-zealous policeman. No doubt the Minister will point to subsection (3) and say that evidence of a statement shall not be admissible unless the judge is satisfied that the person whose evidence is adduced in that form is not missing by reason of some activity on the part of the person in support of whose case the evidence is to be given. What worries me about that is that it is extremely difficult to prove why a person is missing. If he simply does not turn up and nobody seems to know where he is, it is impossible to satisfy the judge as to who, if anyone, caused the disappearance. That applies whoever caused the disappearance. In any event, if a policeman were

  1161
  responsible for encouraging the witness to disappear, which could happen, it is not at all clear to me that in subsection (3) (a) the policeman would fall under the description of,
  "the person in support of whose case the evidence would be given",
  because the policeman is not a party to the case. It is not his case; the Lord Advocate is, in a sense, the person who owns the case on that side. Therefore, with respect, it appears to me that the safeguard contained in subsection (3) is an empty and fairly useless one.
  In case I should be thought to be scaremongering in suggesting that witnesses can be made to disappear, I recall a case of some years ago in which, acting as a prosecutor, I was approached by a very high-ranking policeman and asked if a particular witness who was in police custody could be excused further attendance at the trial. I could not release him because the defence said that they wanted him there. However, within three hours the witness had escaped through an open lavatory window, his handcuffs having been removed to allow him to go to the lavatory. He was not then available for the trial. One would not have to be unduly cynical to suppose that the police had decided that he was better out of the way. That was no doubt because he was an informer and they were endeavouring to protect him. So, it can happen, and it worries me that people on the accused's side of the fence, particular professional criminals, might pay for or otherwise cause witnesses to disappear, and thus be unable to put before the court evidence which would not otherwise be available.
  Much the same considerations apply to paragraphs (d) and (e). It is common to find people refusing to give evidence in court. It is deeply worrying that the prosecution can then come forward and present substantial statements to the court.
  I should like to make just one other point in that regard. It is a curious phenomenon that if evidence is taken in the form of precognition by an independent officer who is a servant, in effect, of the Lord Advocate, that precognition cannot be used in order to adduce hearsay evidence; but if a statement is taken or allegedly taken by a policeman in his notebook or on the back of an envelope while he is in the back of a car, that can be introduced. Once again, I am surprised at the discrimination against a precognition (other than a precognition on oath) and in favour of the police statement. I do not favour that. In addressing the general matter, I hope that I have made my points on Amendment No. 9AA.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, in replying briefly, I acknowledge that this is not something which noble Lords will find altogether easy because it is a major and important change. It is always correct in matters of hearsay evidence that they are not subject to cross-examination. That is why we have generally excluded them. However, it has never been an absolute rule. Death is an obvious example, but judges have always had to comment on the fact that there has not been any cross-examination. The evidence here will be in the same category. It will therefore be a matter of comment that it has not been subject to
  1162
  cross-examination. I note, however, that under subsection (4) it will be possible to lead evidence in relation to credibility and reliability.
  I also accept that there is always a risk that people may be made to disappear. As we know, that happens at present. It is a question of judgment as to whether, when people have disappeared, their evidence should nonetheless be available. Obviously, it is not a good thing if an accused person can make a witness against him disappear, because the Crown thereby loses the evidence. It is evidence, however, which will be subject to the comment that it has not been able to be cross-examined. Therefore, I accept that it is a question of judgment.
  In the circumstances, all that I can say is that we have considered the matter carefully in the light of the report and having particular regard to Perry and Maclay. We believe that this is the best way forward. Obviously, we shall consider the matter as time goes by, but we believe that this is the correct way to proceed.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he advise your Lordships as to the timetable in another place when this amendment was introduced there? At what stage was it introduced? That is a matter which concerns me. Indeed, I hope that everybody who is interested in the administration of justice in Scotland will be concerned that we have not had time to consider the proposals. We know that they come from the Scottish Law Commission, but that is not the point. Lawyers, the Law Society and others interested in these matters should have time to consider the provisions.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the amendment was introduced in Committee. As I recall, the report appeared after the recent break. I think that we would have been open to criticism if we had not taken the opportunity presented by this Bill to bring forward legislation prepared by the Law Commission to deal with the very acute problem of Perry and Maclay.
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am proposing not to move my amendment, but I should like to reply specifically to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay. The matter was dealt with at the sixth sitting of the Scottish Standing Committee. It was introduced by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton who spoke, broadly speaking, in the same terms as the Lord Advocate has spoken today. There was no opposition to it at all. It was then referred to again on Report and there was again no opposition to it. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, said, it went through on the nod.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 9A.
  Amendment No. 9A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 9AA not moved.]

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 9
  9B In subsection (5), after ("shall,") insert ("no later than 14 days").
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9B as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 9.
  This is a short amendment which I hope will meet with the Government's approval. It seeks to give 14 days' notice within the terms of Commons Amendment No. 9 and to ensure that a person involved in a case can have adequate notice to pursue the matters covered by the debate that we have just had. It seeks to give the defence an opportunity to make proper inquiries as to people who have disappeared, are not available or cannot be found. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, if a person is ill he might be fit to appear within a certain period of time. On that basis, I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 9B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 9, be agreed to.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, although I understand the intention behind the amendment, it is not well taken. It would impose a limit of 14 days but, as noble Lords will realise, such circumstances could arise within 14 days of the commencement of a trial. It could happen that somebody who was available at the start of the 14-day period was subsequently not available. The person may have died, for example. In that situation it does not seem appropriate to require that notice should he given within 14 days. Therefore we do not prescribe a limit to the notice but say that it must be given. It will of course be obvious that if it is given too late a judge will have to consider whether to allow an adjournment or whatever it may be. I hope with that assurance that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for that explanation. I am not entirely convinced, but we shall look with interest at what the noble and learned Lord has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 9B, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 9
  9C Leave out paragraph (6) (b).
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, this is an amendment to delete sub-paragraph (b) of subsection (6) of the new clause. I can fully understand why no notice can be given in the circumstances in sub-paragraph (a). That sub-paragraph ends with the word "or". The provision then continues:
  "or
  (b) he satisfies the judge that there was good reason for not giving such notice".
  That means that the judge can dispense with any notice in any circumstances. Indeed, he can dispense with all notice if the party—for example, the prosecutor—satisfies the judge that there was good reason for not giving the specified notice.
  1164
  Unfortunately, the notion of "good reason" is an extremely vague one. I suggest that it should have been tightened up. It should have said something to the effect that he satisfies the judge that there was special cause for not giving notice and that no other party will suffer prejudice by dispensing with notice.
  I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the idea of prejudice should be specifically written in so that it is not left as vague as it is at present. That is the basis of the amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, that Amendment No. 9C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 9, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord makes, but we were anxious to build in a good deal of flexibility here, particularly from the point of view of the defence, because there may be reasons which occur more readily in the defence than the prosecution for notice not having been given before the trial.
  The question of prejudice will be relevant to the allied question of whether some adjournment should be allowed. I would fully anticipate that if the judge were satisfied that an application could be made, despite the absence of notice, the question of an adjournment might be relevant.
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, in the light of that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 9C, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 After Clause 16, insert the following clause:
  Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses
  '.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where a witness gives evidence in criminal proceedings, any prior statement made by the witness shall be admissible as evidence of any matter stated in it of which direct oral evidence by him would be admissible if given in the course of those proceedings.
  (2) A prior statement shall not be admissible under this section unless—

  (a) the statement is contained in a document;

  (b) the witness, in the course of giving evidence, indicates that the statement was made by him and that he adopts it as his evidence; and

  (c) at the time the statement was made, the person who made it would have been a competent witness in the proceedings.

  (3) For the purposes of this section, any reference to a prior statement is a reference to a prior statement which, but for the provisions of this section, would not be admissible as evidence of any matter stated in it.
  (4) Subsections (2) and (3) above do not apply to a prior statement—

  (a) contained in a precognition on oath; or

  (b) made in other proceedings, whether criminal or civil and whether taking place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere,

  and, for the purposes of this section, any such statement shall not be admissible unless it is sufficiently authenticated.'.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
  I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. These amendments are consequential upon Amendment No. 9. They are of course important in themselves, but, nonetheless, they are matters which follow on and carry out the principles embodied in Amendment No. 9.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 10
  10A In paragraph (2) (b), after ("as") insert ("an accurate statement of').
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I am trying to keep pace with the speed of developments. This clause is concerned, in effect, to put into statutory form the law which has been developing since Muldoon v. Herron and which most recently found expression in Jamieson v. Her Majesty's Advocate in July last year. I do not greatly approve of the way the law has developed. But it has developed slowly in the courts and there is nothing that I propose to alter in respect of it. But what worries me about the matter here is that, if one looks at the Jamieson case, one has the kind of situation where the witness comes into court and says, "I cannot give evidence about the matter. I did not see it". Then under pressure he says, "Well I might have said something different to the police. Yes, I did give a statement to the police". He is asked, "Did you tell lies to the police?" "No". "Did you tell the truth to the police?" "I suppose I did". Then the police say in court, "What he told us was this". That then becomes the evidence in the case. This provision gives that statutory form.
  That worries me and so I am concerned to move this amendment which would insert after the words, "he adopts it as", in paragraph (2) the words, "an accurate statement of'. In other words, one has to be a little more strict than the court was in the case of Jamieson. It is not to be regarded as evidence which the jury can found upon unless the witness says, "Yes, I said it, and I accept that it is an accurate account of the evidence which I would have given if my memory had not failed me". I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 10A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 10, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey).
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the question is whether the evidence should be admissible. I of course understand the point that the noble and learned Lord makes, but where someone in the circumstances he described says, "If that is what I said, it must have been true", or whatever it is he says, he has in effect adopted it as his evidence.
  The question is whether that evidence is admissible. It will be open to cross-examination and comment. I do not believe that it would add anything in practice if he merely said, "I adopt it as accurate", or whatever it may be, because that is the tenor of it. It may well be that in such circumstances questions arise as to whether the evidence was accurate. I believe that the spirit of what
  1166
  the noble and learned Lord said is reflected in what we have here and in the Jamieson case, although I accept of course that it is not put in quite that way.
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords. I am not impressed by the answer to the effect that the person can be cross-examined. If one were to look at the case of Jamieson, one would find that were Marianne Robertson, who gave evidence—her evidence is printed in the report of Jamieson v. Her Majesty's Advocate—to be cross-examined she would, I presume, simply say, "I don't remember". Therefore the cross-examination will be of no value in challenging the statement which is attributed to her by the police.
  Obviously when a person is asked the question, "Did you tell the police the truth?", as she was asked, such a person will not say, "No". She will say, "Yes", as Marianne Robertson did. So I do not see the safeguards as being sufficient. However, I do not propose to divide the House on the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 10A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 10, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 After Clause 16, insert the following clause:
  Statements by accused
  '.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, nothing in sections (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible) and (Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses) of this Act shall apply to a statement made by the accused.
  (2) Evidence of a statement made by an accused shall be admissible by virtue of the said section (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible) at the instance of another accused in the same proceedings as evidence in relation to that other accused.
  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, the first mentioned accused shall be deemed—

  (a) where he does not give evidence in the proceedings, to be a witness refusing to give evidence in connection with the subject matter of the statement as mentioned in paragraph (e) of subsection (2) of the said section (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible); and

  (b) to have been, at the time the statement was made, a competent witness in the proceedings.

  (4) Evidence of a statement shall not be admissible as mentioned in subsection (2) above unless the accused at whose instance it is sought to be admitted has given notice of his intention to do so as mentioned in subsection (5) of the said section (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible); but subsection (6) of that section shall not apply in the case of notice required to be given by virtue of this subsection.'.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 After Clause 16, insert the following clause:
  Construction of sections (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible), (Statements by accused) and (Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses)
  '.—(1) For the purposes of sections (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible), (Statements by accused) and (Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses) of this Act, a "statement" includes—

  (a) any representation, however made or expressed, of fact or opinion; and

  (b) any part of a statement,

  but does not include a statement in a precognition other than a precognition on oath.
  (2) For the purposes of the said sections (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible), (Statements by accused) and (Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses) a statement is contained in a document where the person who makes it—

  (a) makes the statement in the document personally;

  (b) makes a statement which is, with or without his knowledge, embodied in a document by whatever means or by any person who has direct personal knowledge of the making of the statement; or

  (c) approves a document as embodying the statement.

  (3) In the said sections (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible), (Statements by accused) and (Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses)—
  "criminal proceedings" include any hearing by the sheriff under section 42 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 of an application for a finding as to whether grounds for the referral of a child's case to a children's hearing are established, in so far as the application relates to the commission of an offence by the child;
  "document" includes, in addition to a document in writing—

  (a) any map, plan, graph or drawing;

  (b) any photograph;

  (c) any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are recorded so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; and

  (d) any film, negative, tape, disc or other device in which one or more visual images are recorded so as to be capable (as aforesaid) of being reproduced therefrom;

  "film" includes a microfilm;
  "made" includes allegedly made.
  (4) Nothing in the said sections (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible), (Statements by accused) and (Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses) shall prejudice the admissibility of a statement made by a person other than in the course of giving oral evidence in court which is admissible otherwise than by virtue of those sections.
  (5) Nothing in the said sections (Exceptions to the rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible), (Statements by accused) and (Admissibility of prior statements of witnesses) shall apply to—

  (a) proceedings commenced; or

  (b) where the proceedings consist of an application to the sheriff by virtue of section 42(2) (c) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, an application made,

  before those sections come into force; and for the purposes of paragraph (a) above, solemn proceedings are commenced when the indictment is served.'.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 12
  12A In paragraph (2) (b), leave out ("or without").
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I can deal briefly with manuscript Amendment No. 12A. Your Lordships will see that the purpose of the amendment is to delete the words "or without" from paragraph (2) (b). Although we are talking here about a statement in a document, when one unravels the definition one finds that a statement in a document includes an oral statement which a policeman may have written down in a document, being a police notebook or the back of an envelope. That is unfortunate because it cannot be right to allow a policeman to create a document of this kind without the knowledge of the alleged witness to it. That is precisely what the clause, as presently drafted, does.
  One is already going very far in allowing in such hearsay evidence; but, surely, in the circumstances, we do not need to include the words "or without", thus enabling the policeman to appear at the trial and make an assertion that a statement was made which he overheard as a bystander and wrote down on a piece of paper, which is a document within the meaning of the new clause. I beg to move.
  Moved, that Amendment No. 12A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 12, be agreed to.—(Lord McCluskey.)
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I believe that if these words were inserted, they would inappropriately circumscribe the provision. For example, let us suppose that someone were to admit to killing someone else in the presence of a third party. If that third party, being shocked and so forth, thereafter wrote down an account of what he had heard, I believe that would be invaluable evidence in a document, the accuracy of which would be likely to be much greater than the accuracy of his recollection some months later. Therefore, in that situation it would be unfortunate if that were not admissible simply because it had not been taken down in the presence and with the knowledge of the person who had made the confession.
  One can see that if the matter were limited in that way, it would be unlikely that people would sit there as they heard a confession and write it down, whereas if they had noted it down shortly afterwards, or whenever it might be, it would be likely to be accurate and an important element. It is for that reason and in such circumstances that we believe it should be with or without the knowledge of the person concerned.
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I hope that tomorrow the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will read carefully what he has said today because I believe that it is entirely and utterly inaccurate. The new clause, which is embraced by Amendment No. 12, applies to sections covered by Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and not Amendment No. 11. Therefore, it does not relate to

  1169
  confessions. If a policeman writes down a confession, whenever he does, that is admissible under the present law. However, this provision relates to statements which are admissible under the new clause as covered by Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. In other words, they include statements made by witnesses rather than by accused persons, except in the special circumstances covered by the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 11. I shall read Hansard most carefully but I believe that the noble and learned Lord has misunderstood the issue—
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I was thinking, for example, of incriminees, who are an important category of person. If someone who might be an incriminee had made an admission that would have been written down and that would be important.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, does not the debate that has taken place between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, demonstrate that this piece of legislation should be taken away and considered? It is ridiculous that at this time of night we are discussing the matter in haste because we are under pressure to deal with another Scottish Bill. I make no criticism of those involved; we thought that we could deal with both pieces of legislation and that we could debate this Bill in the so-called dinner hour. However, it is now farcical that we are discussing matters of such great importance to the law of Scotland in such circumstances in your Lordships' House.
  I urge the Government—and they will not be criticised from this side of the House—to take the proposed legislation away and to allow us to look at it properly. We can then obtain representations from the judges and all those concerned. These pieces of evidence are crucial to the administration of justice in Scotland. Attending your Lordships' House is not my only duty—I have other things to do—and I have had no time to do justice to the amendments. I am sure that other members of the judiciary have not even seen them. It is ridiculous that the law of Scotland should be dealt with in this cavalier manner and I lodge a firm protest about what is happening.
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, I hope that this is the last time that I shall rise to my feet. I listened to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said. If he was talking about the case of a possible incriminee,
  I withdraw what I said. I shall read carefully what the noble and learned Lord said because perhaps I misunderstood the way in which he put it. Perhaps, like myself, he is in the interests of haste abandoning his notes and thus putting the argument more briefly than he otherwise would. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 12A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 12, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to
  7.45 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  13 Clause 17, page 12, line 30, after 'material' insert 'deriving from human beings or animals'.
  14 Clause 18, page 14, line 16, leave out subsection (10) and insert:
  '(10) Schedule 1 shall be amended in accordance with Schedule (Certificates as to proof of certain matters) to this Act.'.
  15 Clause 21, page 17, line 22, leave out 'date of the trial' and insert 'trial diet'.
  16 Clause 22, page 18, line 7, leave out 'date of the trial' and insert 'trial diet'.
  17 Clause 23, page 18, line 28, leave out 'date of the trial' and insert 'trial diet'.
  18 Clause 25, page 19, line 34, after 'trial' insert 'diet'.
  19 Page 20, line 4, leave out '(4)' and insert '(3)'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do with agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 19 en bloc. I speak also to Amendment No. 96.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 to 19 en bloc.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  20 Clause 26, page 20, leave out lines 23 to 32 and insert:
  '(1) Section 128 of the 1975 Act (death or illness of judge in solemn proceedings) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (1A) and (1B) below.
  (1A) For subsection (1) of that section there shall be substituted the following subsections—
  "(1) Where the court is unable to proceed owing to the death, illness or absence of the presiding judge, the clerk of court may convene the court (if necessary) and—

  (a) in a case where no evidence has been led, adjourn the diet and any other diet appointed for that sitting to—

  (i) a time later the same day, or a date not more than seven days later, when he believes a judge will be available; or

  (ii) a later sitting not more than two months after the date of the adjournment; or

  (b) in a case where evidence has been led

  (i) adjourn the diet and any other diet appointed for that sitting to a time later the same day, or a date not more than seven days later, when he believes a judge will be available; or

  (ii) with the consent of the parties, desert the diet pro loco et tempore.

  (1A) Where a diet has been adjourned under sub-paragraph (i) of either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above the clerk of court may, where the conditions of that subsection continue to be satisfied, further adjourn the diet under that sub-paragraph; but the total period of such adjournments shall not exceed seven days.
  (1B) Where a diet has been adjourned under subsection (1) (b) (i) above the court may, at the adjourned diet—

  (a) further adjourn the diet; or

  (b) desert the diet pro loco et tempore.".

  1171
  (1B) In subsection (2) of that section, for the words "(1) (c)" there shall be substituted "(1) (b) (ii) or (1B) (b)".'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  21 Clause 31, page 22, line 32, after second 'than' insert:

  '(i) where the amount of the fine, part or instalment which the offender has failed to pay does not exceed level I on the standard scale, 50 hours; and

  (ii) in any other case,'.

  22 Page 22, line 40, at end insert 'and is not serving a sentence of imprisonment'.
  23 Page 23, line 12, at end insert:
  '() In subsection (6), the following definition shall be inserted in the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
  ""imprisonment" includes detention;".'.
  24 Page 23, line 14, at end insert:
  '() in paragraph 1(l) (a), after the word "persons" there shall be inserted "of a class which includes the offender";'.
  25 Page 24, line 35, at end insert:
  '() For the purposes of any appeal or review, a supervised attendance order made under this section is a sentence.'.
  26 Page 24, line 37, leave out 'and (4) to' and insert (5) and'.
  27 Page 25, line 12, leave out 'and (4) to' and insert (5) and'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 27 en bloc. These amendments introduce procedural changes to Clause 31.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 27 en bloc.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  Lord McCluskey: My Lords, perhaps I should inform the House that I do not propose to oppose or to speak to any of the amendments that remain on the Marshalled List. I have looked at them and believe that, almost without exception, they are technical amendments, the reasons for which are perfectly plain in the Notes on Clauses.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps for the convenience of the House I should indicate that I propose to move Amendments Nos. 82A, 83A, 83B and 83C. So far as I am concerned, the other amendments can go through en bloc, or whatever the procedure.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for his observation. In relation to the remaining amendments, I shall do no more than move them as formally as is required of me.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  28 Clause 34, page 26, line 14, leave out 'and'.
  29 Page 26, line 16, leave out from 'occurs,' to 'shall' in line 17.
  30 Page 26, line 17, at end insert 'and
  (iii) for the words from ", without" to "applies)," there shall be substituted "instead of sentencing him";'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 en bloc. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 38 to 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 94, 95, 155 and 224.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 to 30 en bloc.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  31 After Clause 36, insert the following clause:
  Amendment of records of conviction and sentence in summary proceedings
  '. After section 439 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Amendment of records of conviction and sentence in summary proceedings.
  439A.—(1) Without prejudice to section 439 of this Act, where, on an application in accordance with subsection (2) below, the High Court is satisfied that a record of conviction or sentence in summary proceedings inaccurately records the identity of any person, it may authorise the clerk of the court which convicted or, as the case may be, sentenced the person to correct the record.
  (2) An application under subsection (I) above shall be made after the determination of the summary prosecution and may be made by any party to the summary proceedings or any other person having an interest in the correction of the alleged inaccuracy.
  (3) The High Court shall order intimation of an application under subsection (1) above to such persons as it considers appropriate and shall not determine the application without affording to the parties to the summary proceedings and to any other person having an interest in the correction of the alleged inaccuracy an opportunity to be heard.
  (4) The power of the High Court under this section may be exercised by a single judge of the High Court in the same manner as it may be exercised by the High Court, and subject to the same provisions.".'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  32 Clause 37, page 29, line 31, at end insert:
  '(6A) Comments in writing made under subsection (1) (a) or (5) (a) above may, without prejudice to the generality of that provision, specify the arguable grounds of appeal (whether or not they are contained in the note of appeal) on the basis of which leave to appeal is granted.
  (6B) Where the arguable grounds of appeal are specified by virtue of subsection (6A) above it shall not, except by leave of the High Court on cause shown, be competent for the appellant to found any aspect of his appeal on any ground of appeal contained in the note of appeal but not so specified.
  (6C) Any application by the appellant for the leave of the High Court under subsection (6B) above—

  1173

  (a) shall be made not less than seven days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal; and

  (b) shall, not less than seven days before that date, be intimated by the appellant to the Crown Agent.'.

  33 Page 29, line 36, at end insert:
  '() After subsection (3) of section 233 of that Act (restriction on arguing ground not in note of appeal) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any ground of appeal specified as an arguable ground of appeal by virtue of subsection (6A) of section 230A of this Act.".'.
  34 Page 30, line 42, at end insert:
  '(6A) Comments in writing made under subsection (1) (a) or (5) (a) above may, without prejudice to the generality of that provision, specify the arguable grounds of appeal (whether or not they are contained in the stated case) on the basis of which leave to appeal is granted.
  (6B) Where the arguable grounds of appeal are specified by virtue of subsection (6A) above it shall not, except by leave of the High Court on cause shown, be competent for the appellant to found any aspect of his appeal on any ground of appeal contained in the stated case but not so specified.
  (6C) Any application by the appellant for the leave of the High Court under subsection (6B) above—

  (a) shall be made not less than seven days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal; and

  (b) shall, not less than seven days before that date, be intimated by the appellant to the Crown Agent.'.

  35 Page 30, line 47, at end insert:
  '() After subsection (3) of section 452 of that Act (restriction on arguing ground not in stated case) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(3A) Subsection (3) above shall not apply as respects any ground of appeal specified as an arguable ground of appeal by virtue of subsection (6A) of section 442ZA of this Act.".'.
  36 Page 31, line 43, at end insert:
  '(5A) Comments in writing made under subsection (1) (a) or (4) (a) above may, without prejudice to the generality of that provision, specify the arguable grounds of appeal (whether or not they are contained in the note of appeal) on the basis of which leave to appeal is granted.
  (5B) Where the arguable grounds of appeal are specified by virtue of subsection (5A) above it shall not, except by leave of the High Court on cause shown, be competent for the appellant to found any aspect of his appeal on any ground of appeal contained in the note of appeal but not so specified.
  (5C) Any application by the appellant for the leave of the High Court under subsection (5B) above—

  (a) shall be made not less than seven days before the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal; and

  (b) shall, not less than seven days before that date, be intimated by the appellant to the Crown Agent.'.

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 en bloc.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 en bloc.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  37 After Clause 38, insert the following clause:
  Trial judge's report
  ' .—(1) Without prejudice to sections 236A and 453B(3) (b) of the 1975 Act, the High Court may, in relation to any appeal—

  (a) under section 228(1), 228A or 442(1) of the 1975 Act;

  (b) by way of bill of suspension or advocation; or

  (c) by way of petition to the nobile officium,

  at any time before the appeal is finally determined, order the judge who presided at the trial, passed sentence or otherwise disposed of the case to provide to the Clerk of Justiciary a report in writing giving the judge's opinion on the case generally or in relation to any particular matter specified in the order.
  (2) The Clerk of Justiciary shall send a copy of a report provided under subsection (1) above to the convicted person or his solicitor, the Crown Agent and, in relation to cases referred under section 263(1) of the 1975 Act, the Secretary of State.
  (3) Subject to subsection (2) above, the report of the judge shall be available only to the High Court, the parties and, on such conditions as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, such other persons or classes of persons as may be so prescribed.
  (4) Expressions used in this section and in the 1975 Act have the same meaning in this section as in that Act.'.
  38 Clause 40, page 33, line 7, leave out 'and'.
  39 Page 33, line 20, at end insert 'which would not have been competent but for that subsection; and
  (c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(5) On granting authority under section 254(1) (c) of this Act to bring a new prosecution, the High Court shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, order the detention of the accused person in custody or admit him to bail.
  (6) Subsections (2) (b) and (4) to (6) of section 101 of this Act (prevention of delay in trials) shall apply to an accused person who is detained under subsection (5) above as they apply to an accused person detained by virtue of being committed until liberated in due course of law.".'.
  40 Page 33, line 24, leave out 'and'.
  41 Page 33, line 36, at end insert 'which would not have been competent but for that subsection; and
  (c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(5) On granting authority under section 452A(1) (d) of this Act to bring a new prosecution, the High Court may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, order the detention of the accused person in custody; but an accused person may not be detained by virtue of this subsection for a period of more than 40 days.".'.
  42 Clause 43, page 36, line 21, leave out 'made under subsection (8) below'.
  43 Page 36, leave out lines 37 to 39.
  44 Page 38, line 10, leave out 'made under subsection (8) below'.
  45 Page 38, leave out lines 26 to 28.
  46 Clause 45, page 41, line 10, at end insert 'and'.
  47 Page 41, line 31, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 33.
  48 Page 42, line 19, at end insert 'and'.
  49 Page 42, line 40, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 42.
  50 Clause 46, page 43, line 32, at end insert 'and'.
  51 Page 43, line 43, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 45.
  52 Page 44, line 31, at end insert 'and'.
  53 Page 44, line 42, leave out from 'allow' to end of line 44.
  54 Clause 49, page 46, line 15, leave out 'health' and insert 'condition'.
  55 Clause 50, page 47, line 18, leave out '(8)' and insert '(9)'.
  56 Clause 51, Leave out Clause 51 and insert the following clause:
  Information for financial and other purposes
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall in each year publish such information as he considers expedient for the purpose of—

  (a) enabling persons engaged in the administration of criminal justice to become aware of the financial implications of their decisions; or

  (b) facilitating the performance by such persons of their duty to avoid discriminating against any persons on the ground of race or sex or any other improper ground.

  (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.'.
  57 Clause 54, page 51, line 17, leave out from 'offence' to 'a' in line 19 and insert:

  '(a) to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a period exceeding 60 days;

  (b) to impose'.

  58 Page 51, line 19, at end insert '; or
  (c) to ordain an accused person to find caution for any period exceeding six months or to an amount exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".'.
  59 After Clause 56, insert the following clause:
  Abolition of private summary prosecutions
  ' . After section 310 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Abolition of private summary prosecutions.
  310A. Except where any enactment otherwise expressly provides, all prosecutions under this Part of this Act shall be brought at the instance of the procurator fiscal.".'.
  60 Clause 58, page 52, line 31, leave out 'as follows' and insert
  'in accordance with subsections (2) to (5) below'.
  61 Page 53, line 37, at end insert:
  '(6) In section 30(3) of that Act (application of section 25 of that Act to legal aid in contempt proceedings)—

  (a) before the words "Section 25" there shall be inserted "Subsections (2) (a) and (c), (2A) to (4) and (6) of';

  (b) for the words "it applies" there shall be substituted "they apply";

  (c) after the word "sentence" there shall be inserted ", other disposal";

  (d) after the word "application" there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

  "(za) in subsection (2A) of that section, the reference to the High Court shall include a reference to the Court of Session;"; and

  (e) in paragraph (b), for the word "(5)" there shall be substituted "(6)".'.

  62 Clause 63, page 55, line 35, leave out 'in respect of which it is made' and insert:

  '(i) from the commission of the offence; or

  (ii) where section 64(3A) of this Act applies, from the commission of the offence and any other offence to which this Chapter applies'.

  63 Clause 64, page 56, line 5, at beginning insert 'Subject to subsection (3A) below,'.
  64 Page 56, line 6, leave out 'of the benefit' and insert 'referred to in section 63(5) (a) (i) of this Act'.
  65 Page 56, line 18, leave out from 'period' to end of line 21 and insert:
  '(3A) Where—

  (a) the application for the confiscation order has been made in respect of two or more offences; or

  (b) during the relevant period the accused has been convicted of at least one other offence to which this Chapter applies, being an offence committed after the coming into force of this Chapter,

  the court may, in determining the amount referred to in section 63(5) (a) (ii) of this Act, make the assumptions set out in subsection (3B) below, except in so far as the accused proves either of those assumptions, on the balance of probabilities, to be incorrect.
  (3B) Those assumptions are—

  (a) that any property or economic advantage which has been obtained by the accused during the relevant period has been obtained in connection with the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies; and

  (b) that any expenditure by him during the relevant period was met out of property or other economic advantage obtained in connection with the commission of such an offence.

  (3C) In subsections (3A) and (3B) above, "the relevant period" means the period of six years ending with the date on which proceedings were instituted against the accused for the offence in respect of which the application for the confiscation order has been made.'.
  66 Clause 66, page 57, line 20, after 'if insert '—(a)'.
  67 Page 57, line 24, at end insert '; or
  (b) where subsection (3A) of section 64 of this Act applies, it was made by the accused within the relevant period within the meaning of subsection (3C) of that section.'.
  68 Clause 67, page 58, leave out lines 45 and 46.
  69 Page 59, leave out lines 6 and 7.
  70 Clause 68, page 59, line 28, leave out 'from the commission of the offence' and insert 'for the purposes of section 63(5) (a) of this Act'.
  71 Clause 69, page 60, line 34, leave out from 'him;' to end of line 36.
  72 Clause 70, page 61, line 35, leave out 'obtained in connection with the commission of the offence' and insert 'for the purposes of section 63(5) (a) of this Act'.
  73 Page 61, line 46, leave out 'in connection with the commission of the offence'.
  74 Page 62, line 28, after '64(2)' insert 'and (3B)'.
  75 Clause 72, page 63, line 32, leave out 'Section 67' and insert 'Sections 63(3) and 67(1), (2) and (4)'.
  76 Page 63, line 45, after '64(2)' insert 'and (3B)'.
  77 Clause 73, page 65, line 7, at end insert:
  '() Where a court, by virtue of subsection (1) above, orders the sum due under a confiscation order to be recovered by civil diligence under section 411 of the 1975 Act, any arrestment executed by a prosecutor under subsection (2) of section 96 of this Act shall be deemed to have been executed by the court as if that subsection authorised such execution.'.
  78 Clause 74, page 65, line 33, leave out 'applicable to an award of damages in' and insert 'payable under a decree of.
  79 Clause 75, page 65, line 36, leave out from 'of to end of line 38 and insert 'and paragraphs 1, 4 and 12 of Schedule 2 to this Act in relation to confiscation orders and on an administrator by that Schedule.'.
  80 Clause 76, page 66, line 36, leave out '85' and insert '84, 85, 87'.
  81 After Clause 76, insert the following clause:
  Order to make material available
  '.—(1) The procurator fiscal may, for the purpose of an investigation into whether a person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies and as to the amount of that benefit, apply to the sheriff for an order under subsection (2) below in relation to particular material or material of a particular description.
  (2) If on such an application the sheriff is satisfied that the conditions in subsection (4) below are fulfilled, he may make an order that the person who appears to him to be in possession of the material to which the application relates shall—

  (a) produce it to a constable for him to take away; or

  (b) give a constable access to it,

  within such period as the order may specify.
  This subsection is subject to section (Disclosure of information held by government departments) (11) of this Act.
  (3) The period to be specified in an order under subsection (2) above shall be seven days unless it appears to the sheriff that a longer or shorter period would be appropriate in the particular circumstances of the application.
  (4) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) above are—

  (a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies;

  (b) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the material to which the application relates—

  (i) is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation for the purpose of which the application is made; and

  (ii) does not consist of or include items subject to legal privilege; and

  (c) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest, having regard—

  (i) to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the material is obtained; and

  (ii) to the circumstances under which the person in possession of the material holds it, that the material should be produced or that access to it should be given.

  (5) Where the sheriff makes an order under subsection (2) (b) above in relation to material on any premises he may, on the application of the procurator fiscal, order any person who appears to him to be entitled to grant entry to the premises to allow a constable to enter the premises to obtain access to the material.
  (6) An application under subsection (1) or (5) above may be made ex parte in chambers.
  (7) Provision may be made by rules of court as to—

  (a) the discharge and variation of orders under this section, and

  (b) proceedings relating to such orders.

  (8) Where the material to which an application under this section relates consists of information contained in a computer—

  (a) an order under subsection (2) (a) above shall have effect as an order to produce the material in a form in which it can be taken away and in which it is visible and legible; and

  (b) an order under subsection (2) (b) above shall have effect as an order to give access to the material in a form in which it is visible and legible.

  (9) An order under subsection (2) above—

  (a) shall not confer any right to production of, or access to, items subject to legal privilege;

  1178

  (b) shall have effect notwithstanding any obligation as to secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise; and

  (c) may be made in relation to material in the possession of an authorised government department;

  and in this subsection "authorised government department" means a government department which is an authorised department for the purposes of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947.
  (10) In this section—

  (a) "items subject to legal privilege" and "premises" have the same meanings as in section 40 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987; and

  (b) references to a person benefiting from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies, in relation to conduct which is not such an offence but which would have been if it had occurred in Scotland, shall be construed in accordance with section 71 of this Act as if that conduct had so occurred.'.

  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 81 en bloc. In view of the very helpful observations which have been made, I shall move Amendments Nos. 37 to 81 en bloc.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 37 to 81 en bloc.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  82 After Clause 76, insert the following clause:
  Authority for search
  '.—(1) The procurator fiscal may, for the purpose of an investigation into whether a person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies and as to the amount of that benefit, apply to the sheriff for a warrant under this section in relation to specified premises.
  (2) On such application the sheriff may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises if the sheriff is satisfied—

  (a) that an order made under section (Order to make material available) of this Act in relation to material on the premises has not been complied with; or

  (b) that the conditions in subsection (3) below are fulfilled; or

  (c) that the conditions in subsection (4) below are fulfilled.

  (3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) (b) above are—

  (a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies; and

  (b) that the conditions in section (Order to make material available) (4) (b) and (c) of this Act are fulfilled in relation to any material on the premises; and

  (c) that it would not be appropriate to make an order under that section in relation to the material because—

  (i) it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to produce the material; or

  (ii) it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the material or entitled to grant entry to the premises on which the material is situated; or

  1179

  (iii) the investigation for the purposes of which the application is made might be seriously prejudiced unless a constable could secure immediate access to the material.

  (4) The conditions referred to in subsection (2) (c) above are—

  (a) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies: and

  (b) that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that there is on the premises material relating to the specified person, or to the question whether that person has so benefited or the amount of that benefit, which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation for the purpose of which the application is made, but that the material cannot at the time of the application be particularised; and

  (c) that—

  (i) it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant entry to the premises; or

  (ii) entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced; or

  (iii) the investigation for the purpose of which the application is made might be seriously prejudiced unless a constable arriving at the premises could secure immediate entry to them.

  (5) Where a constable has entered premises in the execution of a warrant issued under this section, he may seize and retain any material, other than items subject to legal privilege, which is likely to be of substantial value (whether by itself or together with other material) to the investigation for the purpose of which the warrant was issued.
  (6) Subsection (10) of section (Order to make material available) of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 82.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 82
  82 A After Clause 76, in subsection (5), leave out ("substantial value") and insert ("relevance").
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82A as an amendment to Amendment No. 82. This amendment is linked also with Amendment No. 83C and seeks to substitute the word "relevance" for the words "substantial value". I do not believe that the amendment is very happily phrased. The message which the amendment seeks to spell out is that to allow a search of any place under a warrant and to take anything which is of "substantial value" in a criminal investigation is far too wide. What is taken should be of relevance and substantial value. Perhaps the Government will look again at that. Otherwise a police officer searching for, for example, drugs may enter a property with a warrant and clean out a house and take everything, subject to hire purchase and so on. It may be better if we insert the word "relevance" to indicate that a police officer cannot just take everything from the house. I beg to move.
  Moved, That Amendment No. 82A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 82, be agreed to.—(Lord Macaulay of Bragar.)
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the new clauses as introduced by Commons Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 closely follow the disclosure provisions in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 and the powers applicable to England and Wales contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 Act and the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.
  These new clauses introduce very strict measures for the seizure and disclosure of material to the court as part of an investigation into whether somebody has benefited from an offence. Those measures are tempered by the requirement that for material to be seized or disclosed under the new provisions, it must be of substantial value to the investigation.
  A requirement for the material to be only of relevance, as proposed by the amendments, would substantially widen the seizure and disclosure powers beyond the existing provisions in both Scotland and England. I am satisfied that those powers are sufficient for the investigation into the proceeds of general crime and I see no reason why they should be wider than the existing powers in the drug trafficking legislation or the equivalent powers in England and Wales. I hope with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. On this side of your Lordships' House, we have no desire to impede the investigation into drug trafficking offences and the profits coming from that. I tabled the amendment in order to prevent a policeman from entering a house and taking everything from it, whether or not it is of relevance. However, I shall read with interest what the Minister said and beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 82A.
  Amendment No. 82A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 82, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  83 After Clause 76, insert the following clause:
  Disclosure of information held by government departments
  ' .—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, the Court of Session may on an application by the Lord Advocate order any material mentioned in subsection (3) below which is in the possession of an authorised government department to be produced to the Court within such period as the Court may specify.
  (2) The power to make an order under subsection (1) above is exercisable if—

  (a) the powers conferred on the Court by section 91(1) (a) of this Act are exercisable by virtue of section 92(2) of this Act; or

  (b) those powers are exercisable by virtue of section 92(3) of this Act and the Court has made a restraint order which has not been recalled.

  (3) The material referred to in subsection (1) above is any material which—

  (a) has been submitted to an officer of an authorised government department by a person who holds, or has at any time held, realisable property;

  1181

  (b) has been made by an officer of an authorised government department in relation to such a person; or

  (c) is correspondence which passed between an officer of an authorised government department and such a person;

  and an order under that subsection may require the production of all such material or of a particular description of such material, being material in the possession of the department concerned.
  (4) An order under subsection (1) above shall not require the production of any material unless it appears to the Court of Session that the material is likely to contain information that would facilitate the exercise of the powers conferred on the Court by section 91(1) (a) of or paragraph 1 or 12 of Schedule 3 to this Act or on an administrator appointed under paragraph 1(1) of that Schedule.
  (5) The Court may by order authorise the disclosure to such an administrator of any material produced under subsection (1) above or any part of such material; but the Court shall not make an order under this subsection unless a reasonable opportunity has been given for an officer of the department to make representations to the Court.
  (6) Material disclosed in pursuance of an order under subsection (5) above may, subject to any conditions contained in the order, be further disclosed for the purposes of the functions under Part II of this Act of the administrator or the High Court.
  (7) The Court of Session may by order authorise the disclosure to a person mentioned in subsection (8) below of any material produced under subsection (1) above or any part of such material; but the Court shall not make an order under this subsection unless—

  (a) a reasonable opportunity has been given for an officer of the department to make representations to the Court; and

  (b) it appears to the Court that the material is likely to be of substantial value in exercising functions relating to the investigation of crime.

  (8) The persons referred to in subsection (7) above are—

  (a) a constable;

  (b) the Lord Advocate or any procurator fiscal; and

  (c) an officer within the meaning of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

  (9) Material disclosed in pursuance of an order under subsection (7) above may, subject to any conditions contained in the order, be further disclosed for the purposes of functions relating to the investigation of crime or whether any person has benefited from the commission of an offence to which this Chapter applies or the amount of that benefit.
  (10) Material may be produced or disclosed in pursuance of this section notwithstanding any obligation as to secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information imposed by statute or otherwise.
  (11) An order under subsection (1) above and, in the case of material in the possession of an authorised government department, an order under section (Order to make material available) (2) of this Act may require any officer of the department (whether named in the order or not) who may for the time being be in possession of the material concerned to comply with such order; and any such order shall be served as if the proceedings were civil proceedings against the department.
  (12) Where any requirement is included in any order by virtue of subsection (11) above, the person on whom the order is served—

  (a) shall take all reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the officer concerned; and

  (b) if the order is not brought to that officer's attention within the period referred to in subsection (1) above, shall report the reasons for the failure to the Court of Session,

  1182
  and it shall also be the duty of any other officer of the department in receipt of the order to take such steps as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above.
  (13) In this section "authorised government department" means a government department which is an authorised department for the purposes of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947; and subsection (10) of section (Order to make material available) of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.'.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 83—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)

  AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 83
  83 A After Clause 76, in subsection (5), leave out ("an officer or).
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 83A as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 83. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 83B. The reason for leaving out the words "an officer of and linking the evidence to the department is that there is no control over the people who can give evidence. I should like to see the matter more restricted than it is at present. As it stands, it is rather vague. It refers to "an officer of the department". What is an officer of the department? Does that mean a civil servant, the office boy or a higher executive officer? By providing for the department to be able to make representations to the court, the department will then decide who should represent it at court; otherwise, anybody can walk into court and make representations. I beg to move.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the amendments to which the noble Lord has spoken would replace the reference to an officer of the department with a reference to the department. While I understand that he is concerned that an appropriate person should deal with these matters, I do not understand what practical difference the amendments make in legal or in practical terms.
  A government department can act only through its officers. Where representations are to be made on behalf of the department, they can be presented only through an officer or a solicitor instructed by the department.
  The anxiety which may have prompted the amendment is that there may be doubt as to whether the current reference in the provisions to an officer of the department means that the department cannot be represented in court by an advocate or solicitor. There is no doubt that an officer making representations could be so represented by a lawyer. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that his anxieties, which I understand, are misplaced.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 83A, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 83, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 83B and 83C not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  84 Clause 77, page 69, line 4, at end insert:
  '() Where, in disposing of an appeal, the High Court makes an order the effect of which is to release from liability to forfeiture any heritable property in Scotland in respect of which a suspended forfeiture order was made, the prosecutor shall, as soon as may be after the appeal has been disposed of, cause a certified copy of the order of the court to be recorded in the General Register of Sasines or, as the case may be, registered in the Land Register of Scotland.'.
  85 Clause 81, page 71, line 28, leave out 'recall' and insert 'make an order (a "recalling order") recalling'.
  86 Page 72, line 4, leave out from 'Where' to end of line and insert 'a recalling'.
  87 Page 72, line 6, leave out 'the recalling order has been made, cause' and insert:

  '(a) the expiry of the period within which the prosecutor may appeal under section 83(1) (b) of this Act against the making of the order without such an appeal being lodged; or

  (b) where such an appeal is lodged within that period, the determination of the appeal in favour of the recalling order,
  cause'.

  88 Clause 83, page 74, line 13, at end insert 'to make'.
  89 Page 74, line 14, leave out from second 'the' to second 'or in line 15 and insert:
  'making of,
  an order under section 81(1) or 82(2)'.
  90 Clause 94, page 82, line 6, leave out 'prosecutor, the court' and insert 'Lord Advocate, the Court of Session'.
  91 Page 82, line 12, leave out 'prosecutor' and insert 'Lord Advocate'.
  92 Page 82, line 21, leave out 'prosecutor shall apply to the court' and insert 'Lord Advocate shall apply to the Court of Session'.
  93 Page 82, leave out lines 29 to 33.
  94 Clause 102, page 88, line 27, leave out '(7)' and insert '(4)'.
  95 Clause 108, page 90, line 35, leave out subsection (8).
  96 Before Schedule 1, insert the following Schedule—
  'SCHEDULE
  Certificates as to Proof of Certain Matters
  1. Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 (which makes provision as regards the sufficiency of evidence by certificate in certain routine matters) shall be amended as follows.
  2. Before the entry relating to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 there shall be inserted—
  "THE PARKS REGULATION ACTS 1872 to 1974 An officer authorised to do so by the Secretary of State. That, on a date specified in the certificate—(a) copies of regulations made under those Acts, prohibiting such activity as may be so specified, were displayed at a location so specified;(b) in so far as those regulations prohibited persons from carrying out a specified activity in the park without written permission, such permission had not been given to a person so specified.".
  3. After the entry relating to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 there shall be inserted—
  "THE BUILDING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1959 (c. 24)Section 6(1) (prohibition of construction, demolition or change of use of building without warrant). An officer of a local authority authorised to do so by the authority. In relation to a building specified in the certificate, that on a date so specified, there had not been obtained a warrant under section 6 of
  1184
  that Act for construction, demolition or, as the case may be, change of use. Section 9(5) (offence of occupying or using a building before certificate of completion issued). An officer of a local authority authorised to do so by the authority. That, on a date specified in the certificate—(a) a certificate of completion under section 9 of that Act had not been issued in respect of a building so specified; and (b) written permission for occupation or use of the building so specified, had not been granted under subsection (6) of that section by the local authority.".
  4. In the entry relating to the Firearms Act 1968, for the words in column 2 there shall be substituted "As respects the matters specified in paragraph (a) of column 3, a constable or a person employed by a police authority, if the constable or person is authorised to do so by the chief constable of the police force maintained for the authority's area; and as respects the matters specified in paragraph (b) of column 3, an officer authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.".
  5. After the entry relating to the Social Security Act 1975 there shall be inserted—
  "THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT 1975 (c. 21)Section 338(2) (offence of failure of accused to appear at diet after due notice). The clerk of court. That, on a date specified in the certificate, he gave a person so specified, in a manner so specified, notice of the time and place appointed for a diet so specified.".
  6. In the entry relating to the Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, for the words in column 3 there shall be substituted—
  "In relation to a person specified in the certificate, that—(a) an order granting bail under that Act was made on a date so specified by a court so specified;(b) the order or a condition of it so specified was in force on a date so specified;(c) notice of the time and place appointed for a diet so specified was given to him in a manner so specified;(d) as respects a diet so specified, he failed to appear.".
  7. After the entry relating to the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 there shall be inserted—
  "THE WILDLIFE AND COUNTRY-SIDE ACT 1981 (c. 69)Sections 1, 5, 6(1) to (3), 7, 8, 9(1), (2), (4) and (5), 11(1) and (2), 13(1) and (2) and 14 (certain offences relating to protection of wild animals or wild plants). An officer of the appropriate authority (within the meaning of section 16(9) of that Act) authorised to do so by the authority. In relation to a person specified in the certificate that, on a date so specified, he held, or as the case may be did not hold, a licence under section 16 of that Act and, where he held such a licence—(a) the purpose for which the licence was granted; and (b) the terms and conditions of the licence.".
  8. After the entry relating to the Video Recordings Act 1984 there shall be inserted the following entries—
  "THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 (c.52)Section 165(3) (offence of failure to give name and address and to produce vehicle documents when required by constable). A constable. In relation to a person specified in the certificate, that he failed, by such date as may be so specified, to produce such documents as may be so specified at a police station so specified. THE CONTROL OF POLLUTION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1989 (c.14)Section 1 (offence of transporting controlled waste without registering). An officer of a regulation authority within the meaning of that Act authorised to do so by the authority. In relation

  1185
  to a person specified in the certificate, that on a date so specified he was not a registered carrier of controlled waste within the meaning of that Act. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1990 (c.43)Section 33(1) (a) and (b) (prohibition on harmful depositing, treatment or disposal of waste). An officer of a waste regulation authority within the meaning of that Act authorised to do so by the authority. In relation to a person specified in the certificate that, on a date so specified, he held, or as the case may be he did not hold, a waste management licence. Section 34(1) (c) (duty of care as respects transfer of waste). An officer of a waste regulation authority within the meaning of that Act authorised to do so by the authority. In relation to a person specified in the certificate, that on a date so specified he was not an authorised person within the meaning of section 34(3) (b) or (d) of that Act.".
  9. After the entry relating to the Social Security Administration Act 1992 there shall be inserted—
  "THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994 (c. 33)Paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 (offence of making false statements to obtain certification as prisoner custody officer). An officer authorised to do so by the Secretary of State. That—(a) on a date specified in the certificate, an application for a certificate under section 114 of that Act was received from a person so specified;(b) the application contained a statement so specified;(c) a person so specified made, on a date so specified, a statement in writing in terms so specified.".'.
  97 Schedule 3, page 101, line 18, leave out '87' and insert '89'.
  98 Page 102, line 17, leave out '87' and insert '89'.
  99 Page 103, line 20, leave out '87' and insert '89'.
  100 Page 103, line 38, leave out 'section 1 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986' and insert 'section 2 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
  101 Page 104, line 32, leave out '87' and insert '89 and 91 to 94'.
  102 Page 106, line 32, leave out 'a probation order or'.
  103 Page 106, leave out lines 39 to 41.
  104 Page 106, leave out lines 48 to 50.
  105 Page 107, line 28, leave out from 'him;' to end of line 30.
  106 Page 108, line 34, after '(6)' insert 'Without prejudice to section 2(1) of this Act,'.
  107 age 108, line 36, leave out from 'the' to the end of line 48 and insert:
  'accused, or
  (b) the basis of the non-acceptance by the accused of any such allegation is challenged by the prosecutor,
  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.".'.
  108 Page 112, line 36, leave out '6A' and insert '2'.
  109 Page 113, line 53, at end insert:
  '(c) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(2A) Where a court, by virtue of subsection (1) above, orders the sum due under a confiscation order to be recovered by civil diligence under section 411 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, any arrestment executed by a prosecutor under subsection
  1186
  (2) of section 11A of this Act shall be deemed to have been executed by the court as if that subsection authorised such execution.".'.
  110 Page 114, line 13, after 'person's' insert 'interest in his'.
  111 Page 116, line 40, leave out 'paragraph (b) and'.
  112 Page 116, line 41, at end insert:
  '() in subsection (2), for the words "(1) (a)" there shall be substituted "(1)";'.
  113 Page 117, line 16, after 'effect;' insert:
  '() for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(2) Subsections (2) (a) and (7) (a) of section 8 of this Act shall apply in relation to an interdict under subsection (1) above as they apply in relation to a restraint order; and subsections (1), (2), (4) and (5) of section 9 thereof shall apply in relation to subsection (I) above as they apply in relation to subsection (1) of the said section 9.".'.
  114 Page 118, line 9, at end insert:
  '. In section 19 (effect of appointment under section 13 of that Act on diligence) for the words "section 11" there shall be substituted "sections 11 and 11A".'.
  115 Page 118, line 17, after '11' insert ', 11A'.
  116 Page 118, line 18, leave out from 'words' to first 'of in line 19 and insert 'from ", so far as" to the end there shall be substituted "be exercised with a view to realising no more than the value'.
  117 Page 118. line 24, leave out from 'words' to the end of line 25 and insert 'from "and" to "11(6)" there shall be substituted "28, 28A and 28B".'.
  118 Page 119, line 7, leave out '(except subsection (8) thereof)'.
  119 Page 119, leave out line 36 and insert:
  '(ii) for the word "11" there shall be substituted "9, 11, 11A".'.
  120 Page 119, line 47, leave out 'a gift caught by Part I of this Act' and insert 'an implicative gift'.
  121 Page 120, line 36, leave out 'section 8, 11 or 12 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986' and insert 'section 26, 29 or 30 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
  122 Page 120, line 53, leave out 'section 13 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986' and insert 'section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
  123 Page 121, line 1, leave out 'prosecutor, the court' and insert 'Lord Advocate, the Court of Session'.
  124 Page 121, line 9, leave out 'prosecutor' and insert 'Lord Advocate'.
  125 Page 121, line 14, leave out 'section 8, 11 or 12 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986' and insert 'section 26, 29 or 30 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
  126 Page 121, line 20, leave out 'prosecutor shall apply to the court' and insert 'Lord Advocate shall apply to the Court of Session'.
  127 Page 121, line 27, leave out 'section 13 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986' and insert 'section 31 of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.
  128 Page 121, leave out lines 28 to 34.
  129 Page 121, line 41, leave out from first 'section' to ', for' in line 42 and insert '32 (Orders in Council as regards taking action in designated country)—
  (a) in subsection (2)'.
  130 Page 121, line 43, at end insert '; and
  (b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(3) An Order in Council under this section may amend or apply, with or without modifications, any enactment.".'.
  131 Page 122, line 8, leave out 'and 28A' and insert ', 28A and 28B'.
  132 Page 122, line 26, leave out 'and 28A' and insert ', 28A and 28B'.
  133 Page 122, line 42, leave out 'and 28A' and insert ', 28A and 28B'.
  134 Page 123, line 24, leave out 'and 28A' and insert ', 28A and 28B'.
  135 Page 123, line 37 , at end insert:
  '. In section 41(2) (disclosure of information held by government departments)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for the words "paragraph (a) thereof' there shall be substituted "subsection (3) of that section";

  (b) in paragraph (b), for the words "paragraph (b) of subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsection (4)"; and

  (c) the words from the end of paragraph (b) to the end of the subsection shall cease to have effect.

  . In section 44(1) (offences relating to controlled drugs: fines), for the words "the proviso to subsection (1)" there shall be substituted "subsection (3) (a)".'.
  136 Schedule 5, page 124, line 11, at end insert:
  'The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 (c. 35)
  . Section 3 of and Schedules D (form of execution of citation of witnesses), E (form of execution of citation of jurors), N (form of notice of further diet) and 0 (form of notice of postponed second diet) to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 shall cease to have effect.
  The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 (c. 94)
  . Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 (forms of notices to accused in proceedings on indictment) shall cease to have effect.
  The Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 (c. 48)
  . Parts I and III to VI of Schedule 2 (forms of procedure) and Schedule 3 (table of fees) to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 shall cease to have effect.
  The Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 (c.45)
  . In section 8(1) (b) of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 (rules of court), for the words "457(a)" there shall be substituted "457ZA".'.'.
  137 Page 124, line 25, at end insert:
  '. Sections 14(3) and 323(3) (warrant to search for or remove any person accused of an offence in respect of a child) shall cease to have effect.
  . After section 15 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Warrants for search and apprehension to be signed by judge.
  15A. Any warrant for search or apprehension granted under this Part of this Act shall be signed by the judge granting it, and execution upon any such warrant may proceed either upon the warrant itself or upon an extract of the warrant issued and signed by the clerk of court.".
  . In section 18(3) (penalty for breach of undertaking to appear), for the words "£200" there shall be substituted "level 3 on the standard scale".
  . In section 19(1) (a) (intimation to a solicitor), for the words from "of' to the end there shall be substituted—

  "(i) of the place where the person is being detained;

  (ii) whether the person is to be liberated; and

  (iii) if the person is not to be liberated, the date on which he is to be taken to court and the court to which he is to be taken;".'.

  138 Page 124, line 34, at end insert:
  '. In each of sections 23 and 329 (remand and committal of persons under 21)—

  (a) in paragraph (a) of subsection (I), for the words from "commit" to the end there shall be substituted ", instead of committing him to prison, commit him to the local authority in whose area the court is situated to be detained—

  (i) where the court so requires, in secure accommodation within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; and

  (ii) in any other case, in a suitable place of safety chosen by the authority;"; and

  (b) in subsection (4), for the words from "and" in the second place where it occurs to the end there shall be substituted "to be detained—

  (a) where the court so requires, in secure accommodation within the meaning of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968; and

  (b) in any other case, in a suitable place of safety chosen by the authority.".'.

  139 Page 124, line 39, at end insert:
  '. In section 31 (appeal in respect of bail), after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(4A) Where an applicant in an appeal under this section is under 21 years of age, section 23 of this Act shall apply to the High Court or, as the case may be, the Lord Commissioner of Justiciary when disposing of the appeal as it applies to a court when remanding or committing a person of the applicant's age for trial or sentence.".
  . In section 33 (liberation of applicant when appeal by public prosecutor)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words from ", or where" to "ninety-six hours,"; and

  (b) in subsection (2), the words "by telegraph", shall cease to have effect.'.

  140 Page 125, line 23, at end insert:
  '. After section 48 there shall be inserted the following sections—
  "Common law and statutory offences in same indictment.
  48A. It shall be competent to include in one indictment both common law and statutory charges.
  Description of offence in words of statute or order.
  48B. In an indictment the description of any offence in the words of the statute or order contravened, or in similar words, shall be sufficient.".'.
  141 Page 125, line 38, at end insert:
  '. After section 60 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Proceedings under the Merchant Shipping Acts.
  60A. In any proceedings under the Merchant Shipping Acts it shall not be necessary to produce the official register of the ship referred to in the proceedings in order to prove the nationality of the ship, but the nationality of the ship as stated in the indictment shall, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be presumed.
  . Sections 62 and 313 (mode of charging certain offences committed against two or more children under 17) shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 68 (notice of previous convictions), in each of subsections (2) and (4), the words "of Form No. 1 of Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 or in the form" shall cease to have effect.'.
  142 Page 125, line 40, after '(1);' insert:
  '() in that subsection—

  (i) after the words "accused persons" there shall be inserted ", witnesses or jurors";

  1189

  (ii) the words from "and" in the third place where it occurs to "Act" in the fourth place where it occurs shall cease to have effect; and

  (iii) the words from "The executions" to the end shall cease to have effect;'.

  143 Page 125, line 48, at end insert:
  . In section 72 (citation of jurors and witnesses)—

  (a) the existing provision shall become subsection (1);

  (b) in that subsection, after the word "shall" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted ", subject to subsection (2) below,"; and

  (c) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(2) A court shall not issue a warrant to apprehend a witness who fails to appear at a diet to which he has been duly cited unless the court is satisfied that the witness received the citation or that its contents came to his knowledge.".'.
  144 Page 126, line 47, at end insert:
  '. In section 103(1) (pleas of guilty), after the word "he" where it first occurs there shall be inserted "shall do so in open court and".'.
  145 Page 127, line 2, at end insert:
  '. Section 110 (where sentence delayed, original warrant of commitment stands) shall cease to have effect.
  . After section 114 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Transfer of sheriff court solemn proceedings.
  114A.—(1) Where an accused person has been cited to attend a sitting of the sheriff court the prosecutor may, at any time before the commencement of his trial, apply to the sheriff to transfer the case to a sheriff court in any other district in that sheriffdom.
  (2) On an application under subsection (1) above the sheriff may—

  (a) after giving the accused or his counsel or solicitor an opportunity to be heard; or

  (b) on the joint application of the parties, make an order for the transfer of the case.".

  . In section 124 (plea of guilty at trial diet), the proviso shall cease to have effect.'.
  146 Page 127, line 15, after 'diet.";' insert:
  '() in subsection (2), the words "Schedule N to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 or in" shall cease to have effect;'.
  147 Page 127, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert 'for the words from "which" to the end there shall be substituted "in such manner as shall be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, and the persons so chosen shall be the jury to try the accused, and their names shall be recorded in the minutes of the proceedings.".'.
  148 Page 127, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert:
  '26. Section 132(2) (procedure in High Court trials where jurors chosen for one trial may continue to serve) shall cease to have effect.'.
  149 Page 128, leave out lines I and 2 and insert:
  '(4) Copies of a plea of special defence shall be provided for each member of the jury.".
  . In section 140A(1) (b) (no case to answer), the words "were the offence charged the only offence so charged" shall cease to have effect.'.
  150 Page 128, line 10, at end insert:
  '.In each of sections 148 and 340 (examination of witnesses)—

  (a) the existing provision shall become subsection (1); and

  (b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—

  1190
  "(2) The judge may, on the motion of either party, on cause shown order that the examination of a witness for that party ("the first witness") shall be interrupted to permit the examination of another witness for that party.
  (3) Where the judge makes an order under subsection (2) above he shall, after the examination of the other witness, permit the recall of the first witness.".'.
  151 Page 128, line 11, leave out paragraph 33 and insert:
  '33. In section 150 (admissions and agreements as to evidence in solemn proceedings)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words ", where the accused is legally represented," shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) in subsection (2), for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—

  "(a) in the case of an admission, by the party making the admission or, if that party is the accused and he is legally represented, his counsel or solicitor; and

  (b) in the case of an agreement, by the prosecutor and by the accused or, if he is legally represented, his counsel or solicitor".'.

  152 Page 128, line 23, leave out paragraph 36 and insert:
  '36. In section 156 (interruption of trial to give direction to jury in preceding trial)—

  (a) in subsection (1) (b), the words from ", as" to the end; and

  (b) subsections (4) and (5),

  shall cease to have effect.'.
  153 Page 128, line 25, leave out paragraph 37 and insert:
  '37. In section 157 (interruption of trial for plea or sentence in another cause)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words "through his counsel", "in which the panel has pleaded guilty under section 102 of this Act" and "(other than a trial for murder)"; and

  (b) subsection (2),

  shall cease to have effect.'.
  154 Page 128, line 34, at end insert:
  '. Section 163 (extract conviction to be issued by clerk having record copy of indictment) shall cease to have effect.
  . In each of sections 166 and 362 (power to clear court while child giving evidence), in subsection (1), for the words from "members" to the end there shall be substituted—

  "(a) members or officers of the court;

  (b) parties to the case before the court, their counsel or solicitors or persons otherwise directly concerned in the case;

  (c) bona fide representatives of news gathering or reporting organisations present for the purpose of the preparation of contemporaneous reports of the proceedings; or

  (d) such other persons as the court may specially authorise to be present,

  shall be excluded from the court during the taking of the evidence of that witness.".'.
  155 Page 129, line 10, at end insert:
  '. After section 182 there shall be inserted the following—
  "Caution
  Caution.
  182A. Where a person is convicted of an offence (other than an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law) the court may, instead of or in addition to imposing a fine or a period of imprisonment, ordain the accused to find caution for good behaviour for a period not exceeding 12 months and to such amount as the court considers appropriate.".'.
  156 Page 129, line 29, at end insert:
  '. In each of sections 192 and 393 (probation reports), the words from "(other than" to "Act)" and the proviso shall cease to have effect.
  . In each of sections 196(1) and 402 (fines, etc., may be enforced in another district), the proviso shall cease to have effect.
  . Sections 225 (interlocutors to be signed by clerk), 226 (record copies to be inserted in books of adjournal of High Court) and 227 (indictment to be inserted in record book in sheriff court) shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 235 (applications in connection with appeals may be made orally or in writing), the words from "but in regard" to the end shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 236A(3) (judge's report), for the words "and the parties" there shall be substituted ", the parties and, on such conditions as may be prescribed by 'Act of Adjournal, such other persons or classes of persons as may be so prescribed".
  . Section 236C (signing of appeal documents) shall cease to have effect.
  . Section 237 (note of proceedings) shall cease to have effect.'.
  157 Page 129, line 32, at end insert
  '.In section 239 (clerk to give notice of date of hearing)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words from "and" in the second place where it occurs to the end; and

  (b) subsection (2),

  shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 240 (appellant may be present at hearing), the words from "except" where it first occurs to the end shall cease to have effect.
  . Section 246 (sittings of the High Court to be arranged by Lord Justice General) shall cease to have effect.'.
  158 Page 129, line 42, at end insert:
  '. After section 254 there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Convictions not to be quashed on certain grounds.
  254A. No conviction, sentence, judgment, order of court or other proceeding whatsoever in or for the purposes of solemn proceedings under this Act—

  (a) shall be quashed for want of form; or

  (b) where the accused had legal assistance in his defence, shall be suspended or set aside in respect of any objections to—

  (i) the relevancy of the indictment, or the want of specification therein; or

  (ii) the competency or admission or rejection of evidence at the trial in the inferior court,

  unless such objections were timeously stated.".'.
  159 Page 129, line 44, at end insert:
  '. In section 257 (failure to appear at hearing), for the words from the beginning to "where" in the second place where it occurs there shall be substituted—
  "Where—

  (a) intimation of the diet appointed for the hearing of an appeal has been made to the appellant;

  (b) no appearance is made by or on behalf of the appellant at the diet; and

  (c)".

  . Section 259 (continuation of hearing) shall cease to have effect.'.
  160 Page 130, line 7, after 'etc.)' insert:

  '(a) in each of subsections (I) and (2), after the words "section 228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted ", (bb), (bc) or (bd)"; and

  (b)'..

  161 Page 130, line 13, after '228(1) (b)' insert ', (bb), (bc) or (bd)'.
  162 Page 130, line 21, at end insert:
  '. In section 265 (fines and caution)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the word "thereto" there shall be substituted "to the conviction or sentence"; and

  (b) subsections (3) and (5) shall cease to have effect.'.

  163 Page 130, line 29, at end insert:
  '. In section 269 (extract convictions), after the words "section 228(1) (b)" there shall be inserted ", (bb), (bc), or (bd)".'.
  164 Page 130, line 36, at end insert:
  '. Sections 272 (note to be kept of appeal) and 273 (register of appeals) shall cease to have effect.'.
  165 Page 130, line 38, at end insert:
  '. Section 276 (declaration administered to shorthand writer) shall cease to have effect.
  '. In section 277(2) (non-compliance with certain provisions may be waived), the words "section 236C". "section 237", "section 246", "section 259", "section 272" and "section 273" shall cease to have effect.
  '. Section 282 (power to make Acts of Adjournal: solemn procedure) shall cease to have effect.'.
  166 Page 131, line 2, at end insert:
  '. Section 289D(lA) (d) (power to alter sums specified in section 435(e) of that Act) shall cease to have effect.
  '. In section 296 (police liberation or detention of children arrested), in subsections (1) and (2), the words "sitting summarily" in each place where they occur shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 300 (appeal in respect of bail)—

  (a) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

  "(3A) Where an applicant in an appeal under this section is under 21 years of age, section 329 of this Act shall apply to the High Court or, as the case may be, the Lord Commissioner of Justiciary when disposing of the appeal as it applies to a court when remanding or committing a person of the applicant's age for trial or sentence."; and
  (b) in subsection (4)—

  (i) the words from ", or where" to "96 hours" shall cease to have effect; and

  (ii) for the word "periods" there shall be substituted "period".'.

  . For section 305 (intimation to a solicitor) there shall be substituted the following section—
  "Right of accused to have access to solicitor.
  305.—(1) Where any person has been arrested on any criminal charge, such person shall be entitled immediately upon such arrest—

  (a) to have intimation sent to a solicitor that his professional assistance is required by such a person and informing him—

  (i) of the place where the person is being detained;

  (ii) whether the person is to be liberated; and

  (iii) if the person is not to be liberated, the date on which he is to be taken to court and the court to which he is to be taken;

  (b) to be told what rights there are under paragraph (a) above and subsections (2) and (3) below.

  (2) Such solicitor shall be entitled to have a private interview with the person accused before he is examined on declaration, and to be present at such examination.
  (3) It shall be in the power of the sheriff or justice to delay such examination for a period not exceeding 48 hours from and after the time of such person's arrest, in order to allow time for the attendance of such solicitor.".
  In section 309(1) (forms of procedure in summary proceedings), the words "Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in" shall cease to have effect.
  In section 310 (incidental applications)—

  (a) the words "Part I of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in" shall cease to have effect.; and

  (b) after the word "open" there shall be inserted "shut and".'

  167 Page 131, line 3, leave out paragraph 59 and insert:
  '59. In section 311 (complaint)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words from "in" where it first occurs to the end shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) subsections (4) and (5) shall cease to have effect.'.

  168 Page 131, line 14, after 'complaint)' insert:

  '(a) in subsection (1) (d), the words "or interim order" shall cease to have effect; and

  (b)'. .

  169 Page 131, line 18, at end insert:
  In section 315(2) (citation), the words "Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in" shall cease to have effect.'.
  170 Page 131, line 28, at end insert:
  In section 318(2) (citation of offender), the words "Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 and the corresponding forms contained in" shall cease to have effect.'.
  171 Page 131, line 30, at end insert:
  In section 320 (apprehension of witness), after the word "may" where it first occurs there shall be inserted ", if it is satisfied that he received the citation or that its contents came to his knowledge,".'.
  172 Page 131, line 31, at end insert:
  '() in subsection (1), the words "Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in" shall cease to have effect;
  () in subsection (3), the words "either by way of trial or by way of remit to another court" shall cease to have effect;'.
  173 Page 131, line 45, at end insert:
  Section 336 (record of plea of guilty) shall cease to have effect.'.
  174 Page 131, line 48, at end insert:
  In section 339 (alibi), for the words "prior to the examination of the first witness for the prosecution" there shall be substituted "at any time before the first witness is sworn".
  . In section 344(1) (punishment of witness for contempt), the words "or to produce documents in his possession when required by the court," shall cease to have effect.
  . Section 345 (administration of oath to same witness in case at same diet) shall cease to have effect.'.
  175 Page 132, line 13, leave out '357(2) (proof of convictions) and insert '357 (proof of convictions)—

  (a) in subsection (1) (a), the words "Form No. 2 or 3 of Part III of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or of" shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) in subsection (2)-'.

  176 Page 132, line 16, at end insert '; and

  (c) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.'.

  177 Page 132, line 19, at end insert:
  '.Section 360 (proceedings written or printed) shall cease to have effect.
  .In section 360A (interruption of summary proceedings for verdict in earlier trial)—

  (a) in subsection (1) (b), the words from "as" to the end of the paragraph; and

  (b) subsection (2),

  shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 366 (procedure where sheriff sits summarily in respect of offence by child)—

  (a) in subsection (1) (c), for the words "newspapers or news agencies" there shall be substituted "news gathering or reporting organisations present for the purpose of contemporaneous reports of the proceedings"; and

  (b) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.

  . In section 375(3) (insanity in bar of trial), for the word "called" there shall be substituted "sworn".'.
  178 Page 132, line 41, at end insert:
  '.In section 396(7) (time for payment of fine), the words ", subject to any rules under this Part of this Act" shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 398(1) (restriction on imprisonment after fine or caution)—

  (a) after the word "fine" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, to find caution"; and

  (b) after the word "paid" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, caution has not been found".

  . In section 406 (substitution of custody for imprisonment where a child defaults on fine), the words "damages or expenses," shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 408 (discharge from imprisonment to be specified), for the words "for payment of a fine or for finding of" there shall be substituted "in default of payment of a fine or on failure to find".
  . In section 413(1) (detention of children in residential care)—

  (a) after the word "authority" in the first place where it occurs there shall be inserted "for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order"; and

  (b) the words from "and shall" to the end shall cease to have effect.'.

  179 Page 132, line 42, leave out 'For subsection (4) of section 430 (consecutive sentences)' and insert 'In section 430 (consecutive sentences)—

  (a) in subsection (1), the words "Part V of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in" shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) for subsection (4)'.

  180 Page 133, line 2, at end insert:
  '.Section 435 (expenses) shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 440 (extract sufficient warrant for imprisonment), the words "Part V of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in" shall cease to have effect.
  .In section 441 (provision for court comprising more than one judge), the words from ", although" to "place," shall cease to have effect.'.
  181 Page 133, line 25, leave out 'and'.
  182 Page 133, line 29, at end insert '; and
  (c) after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(6) The court shall not make an order under subsection (5) above to the effect that the sentence or, as the case may be, unexpired portion of the sentence shall run other than concurrently with the subsequently

  1195
  imposed term of imprisonment without first notifying the appellant of its intention to do so and considering any representations made by him or on his behalf.".'.
  183 Page 134, line 8, at end insert:
  '. In section 453B (appeals against sentence only), after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(4A) Subject to subsection (4) above, the report mentioned in subsection (3) (b) above shall be available only to the High Court, the parties and, on such conditions as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, such other persons or classes of persons as may be so prescribed.".'.
  184 Page 134, line 18, at end insert:
  '. In section 454(1) (convictions not to be quashed on certain grounds), the words "at the trial by the solicitor of the accused" shall cease to have effect.
  . Section 457 (power to make Acts of Adjournal: summary procedure) shall cease to have effect.
  . Before section 457A there shall be inserted the following section—
  "Acts of Adjournal.
  457ZA.— (1) The High Court may by Act of Adjournal—

  (a) regulate the practice and procedure in relation to criminal procedure; and

  (b) make such rules and regulations as may be necessary or expedient to carry out the purposes and accomplish the objects of any enactment (including an enactment in this Act) in so far as it relates to criminal procedure,

  provided that no rule, regulation or provision which affects the governor or any other officer of a prison shall be made by any such Act of Adjournal except with the consent of the Secretary of State.
  (2) The High Court may by Act of Adjournal modify, amend or repeal any enactment (including an enactment in this Act) in so far as that enactment relates to matters with respect to which an Act of Adjournal may be made under subsection (1) above.'.
  185 Page 134, leave out line 19 and insert:
  '84.— (1) Section 462 (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)-'.
  186 Page 134, line 38, at end insert '; and
  () in the definition of "prosecutor", the words "private prosecutor," in the second place where they occur shall cease to have effect.
  (3) In subsection (6), for the words "Great Britain" there shall be substituted "the United Kingdom".
  (4) Subsection (10) shall cease to have effect.
  . In Schedule 5 (discharge and amendment of probation orders), in paragraph 4—

  (a) after the word "practitioner" where it first occurs there shall be inserted "or chartered psychologist"; and

  (b) after the word "practitioner" where it second occurs there shall be inserted "or psychologist".

  The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 (c. 67)
  . In section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 (unlawful sexual intercourse with girl between 13 and 16)—

  (a) in the proviso to subsection (1), the words "on indictment" shall cease to have effect; and

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

  "(3) For the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) above, a prosecution shall be deemed to commence on the date on which a warrant to apprehend or to cite the accused is granted, if such warrant is executed without undue delay.".'.
  187 Page 135, line 14, at end insert:
  'The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36)
  . The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.
  . In section 67(1) (application of sections 63 to 66 to certain persons treated as restricted patients)—

  (a) paragraph (a) (ii) and the preceding "or"; and

  (b) the words from "or the order" to the end,

  shall cease to have effect.
  . In section 69(3) (persons ordered to be kept in custody during Her Majesty's pleasure), for the words from "an order" to the end there shall be substituted "a hospital order together with a restriction order".
  . In section 71(7) (a) (removal to hospital of persons serving sentences of imprisonment etc.), for the words "or 255" there shall be substituted ", 174ZC, 254, 375, 375ZC or 453D".
  . In section 73(1) (transfer order to cease to have effect where proceedings dropped or case disposed of)—

  (a) after the word "section" in the third place where it occurs there shall be inserted "174ZC"; and

  (b) after "178," there shall be inserted "375ZC,".

  . In section 125(4) interpretation)—

  (a) after "174," there shall be inserted "174ZC,"; and

  (b) after "375," there shall be inserted "375ZC".'.

  188 Page 136, line 30, at end insert:
  The Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53)
  . In Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (reciprocal enforcement of certain orders), in paragraph 6(5) (a) (i), for the words "evidence on oath" there shall be substituted "information".'.
  189 Page 136, line 33, at end insert:
  '() In section 11(3) (b) (duration of licence), for the words from "the" in the second place where it occurs to the end there shall be substituted—
  "there has elapsed

  (i) a period (reckoned from the date on which he was ordered to be returned to prison under or by virtue of subsection (2) (a) of that section) equal in length to the period between the date on which the new offence was committed and the date on which he would (but for his release) have served the original sentence in full; or

  (ii) subject to subsection (4) below, a total period equal in length to the period for which he was so ordered to be returned to prison together with, so far as not concurrent with that period, any term of imprisonment to which he was sentenced in respect of the new offence,

  whichever results in the later date.
  (4) In subsection (3) (b) above, "the original sentence" and "the new offence" have the same meanings as in section 16 of this Act.".
  () For section 16(7) (application of early release provisions where further offence committed by released prisoner) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(7) Where an order under subsection (2) or (4) above is made in respect of a person released on licence—

  (a) the making of the order shall have the effect of revoking the licence; and

  (b) if the sentence comprising

  (i) the period for which the person is ordered to be returned to prison; and

  (ii) so far as not concurrent with that period, any term of imprisonment to which he is sentenced in respect of the new offence,

  1197
  is six months or more but less than four years, section 1(1) of this Act shall apply in respect of that sentence as if for the word "unconditionally" there were substituted the words "on licence".".'.
  190 Page 137, line 2, at end insert:
  '(6) In Schedule 3 (documentary evidence in criminal proceedings), in paragraph 6(4), for the words "after the close of that party's evidence and" there shall be substituted "at any time".'.
  191 Page 138, line 3, leave out from 'by' to 'or' in line 5 and insert 'section 2(9) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994" there shall be substituted the words "by section 2(9) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.".'.
  192 Page 138, line 8, leave out from 'by' to 'or' in line 9 and insert 'section 2(9) of the said Act of 1994" there shall be substituted the words "by section 2(9) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994'.'.
  193 Page 138, leave out lines 11 to 28.
  194 Page 138, line 31, leave out from 'property)' to 'Chapter' in line 33 and insert 'after the word "property)" there shall be inserted the words "or'.
  195 Page 139, line 41, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.
  196 Page 139, line 43, leave out 'section' and insert 'subsection'.
  197 Page 139, line 45, leave out from '(a)' to 'which' in line 46 and insert 'to an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988'.
  198 Page 139, line 48, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.
  199 Page 139, line 52, at end insert:
  '() Where—

  (a) the court is satisfied, on an application under this subsection by the prosecutor—

  (i) that proceedings have been, or are likely to be, instituted against a person in Scotland for an offence to which subsection (1) above applies allegedly committed in the manner specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of that subsection; and

  (ii) that there is reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle specified in the application is to be found in a place or in premises so specified; and

  (b) it appears to the court that there are reasonable grounds for thinking that in the event of the person being convicted of the offence an order under subsection (1) above might be made in relation to the vehicle,

  the court may grant a warrant authorising a person named therein to enter and search the place or premises and seize the vehicle.'.
  200 Page 140, line 1, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1) above'.
  201 Page 140, line 3, leave out 'information' and insert 'evidence'.
  202 Page 140, line 15, at end insert:
  '() This section extends to Scotland only.'.
  203 Page 140, line 42, at end insert:
  '(4) In paragraph 19 (enforcement in Scotland of orders made elsewhere in the British Isles)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (5), for the words "and 16" there shall be substituted ', 16 and (subject to sub-paragraph (5A) below) 16A"; and

  (b) after sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—

  "(5A) In its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) above paragraph 16A above shall have effect with the following modifications—
  1198

  (a) for the references to the prosecutor there shall be substituted references to the Lord Advocate; and

  (b) for the references to the court there shall be substituted references to the Court of Session.".'.

  204 Page 140, line 49, at end insert:
  '() In section 15(3) of that Act (interest on sums unpaid under confiscation orders), for the words "applicable to an award of damages in" there shall be substituted "payable under a decree of'.'.
  205 Page 141, line 10, at end insert:
  'The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 (c. 37)
  .— (1) The Drug Trafficking Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 4(7) (assessing the proceeds of drug trafficking), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
  ";Or
  (c) Part II of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995.".
  (3) In section 6(3) (meaning of realisable property), after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(e) Chapter II of Part II of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 (suspended forfeiture orders);".
  (4) In section 18(2) (b) (ii) (compensation), for the words from "11" to "28" there shall be substituted "27, 28, 28A or 28B".
  (5) In section 26(10) (restraint orders), after the words "1987" there shall be inserted "or Part II of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995".'.
  206 Schedule 6, page 141, line 15, at end insert:
  '1887 c. 35. The Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887. Section 3.Schedule D.Schedule E.Schedule N.Schedule 0.1949 c. 94. The Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949. Schedule 7. 1954 c. 48. The Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954. In Schedule 2, Parts I and III to VI.Schedule 3.'. .
  207 Page 141, line 19, column 3, at beginning insert:
  'Section 14(3).'. .
  208 Page 141, line 24, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 33, in subsection (1), the words from "or where" to "application,"; and in subsection (2), the words "by telegraph" Section 62.In section 68, in each of subsections (2) and (4), the words "of Form No.1 of Schedule 7 to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 or in the form" In section 69, the words from "and" in the third place where it occurs to "Act" in the fourth place where it occurs, and the words from "The executions" to the end.'.
  209 Page 141, line 26, column 3, at end insert:
  'Section 110.In section 124, the proviso.In section 127(2), the words "Schedule N to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1887 or in".'. .
  210 Page 141, column 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.
  211 Page 141, line 30, column 3, at end insert:
  'Section 132(2).In section 140A(1) (b), the words "were the offence charged the only offence so charged".'. .
  212 Page 141, column 3, leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert:
  'In section 156, in subsection (1) (b), the words from ", as" to the end; and subsections (4) and (5).In section 157, in subsection (1), the words "through his counsel", "in which the panel has pleaded guilty under section 102 of this Act" and "(other than a trial for murder)"; and subsection (2).'. .
  213 Page 141, line 47, column 3, at end insert: 'Section 163.'. .
  214 Page 142, line 20, column 3, at end insert:

  'In section 192, the words from "(other than" to "Act)" and the proviso.

  In section 196(1), the proviso.

  Section 225. Section 226. Section 227.

  In section 235, the words from "but in regard" to the end.

  Section 236C. Section 237.'.

  215 Page 142, line 26, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 239, in subsection (1), the words from "and" in the second place where it occurs to the end; and subsection (2).In section 240, the words from "except" where it first occurs to the end.Section 246.'.
  216 Page 142, line 27, column 3, at end insert:
  'Section 259.Section 265(3) and (5).'. .
  217 Page 142, line 40, column 3, at end insert:
  'Section 272.Section 273.Section 276.In section 277, in subsection (2), the words "section 236C", "section 237", "section 246", "section 259", "section 272" and "section 273".Section 282.Section 289D(IA) (d).In section 296, in subsections (1) and (2), the words "sitting summarily" in each place where they occur.In section 300(4), the words from ", or where" to "96 hours,".'. .
  218 Page 142, column 3, leave out line 41 and insert:
  'In section 309(1), the words "Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in" In section 310, the words "Part I of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in". In section 311, in subsection (1), the words from "in" where it first occurs to the end; and subsections (4) and (5).Section 313.In section 314(1) (d), the words "or interim order".In section 315(2), the words "Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in".In section 318(2), the words "Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 and the corresponding forms contained
  in".'. .
  219 Page 142, line 43, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 321, in subsection (1), the words "Part IV of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in"; and in subsection (3), the words "either by way of trial or by way of remit to another court".Section 323(3).'. .
  220 Page 142, line 46, column 3, at end insert:
  'Section 336.'. .
  221 Page 142, line 49, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 344(1), the words "or to produce documents in his possession when required by the court,".Section 345.'. .
  222 Page 142, line 52, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 357, in subsection (1) (a), the words "Form No. 2 or 3 of Part III of Schedule 2to
  1200
  the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or of"; and subsection (4).Section 360.'.
  223 Page 142, leave out line 53 and insert:
  'In section 360A, in subsection (1) (b), the words from "as" to the end; and subsection (2).Section 366(2).'. .
  224 Page 143, line 9, leave out from 'occurs,' to '; in' in line 11.
  225 Page 143, line 28, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 393, the words from "(other than" to "Act)" and the proviso.In section 396(7), the words ", subject to any rules under this Part of this Act".In section 402, the proviso.In section 406, the words "damages or expenses,".In section 413(1), the words from "and shall" to the end.In section 430(1), the words "Part V of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in".'. .
  226 Page 143, line 31, column 3, at end insert:
  'Section 435.In section 440, the words "Part V of Schedule 2 to the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 or in".In section 441, the words from ", although" to "place,".'.
  227 Page 143, line 33, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 454(1), the words "at the trial by the solicitor of the accused".Section 457.In section 462, in the definition of "prosecutor", the words "private prosecutor," in the second place where they occur; and subsection (10).'. .
  228 Page 143, line 34, at end insert:
  '1976 c.67. The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976. In section 4(1), in the proviso, the words "on indictment".'.
  229 Page 143, line 44, column 3, at end insert:
  'In Schedule 4, paragraph 20.'. .
  230 Page 143, line 44, at end insert:
  '1984 c.36. The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. In section 67(1), paragraph (a) (ii) and the preceding "or", and the words from "or the order" to the end.'. .
  231 Page 144, line 14, column 3, at end insert '(26) and (28)'.
  232 Page 144, line 37, column 3, leave out 'paragraph (b) and,'.
  233 Page 145, line 23, column 3, at end insert:
  'In section 41(2), the words from the end of paragraph (b) to the end of the subsection.'. .
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 to 233 en bloc.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84 to 233.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Children (Scotland) Bill
  7.59 p.m.
  Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
  Clause 56 [Child protection orders]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 75:
  Page 41, line 20, at end insert:
  (" () is engaged in conduct which has caused or is likely to cause significant harm to himself; or").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment hopes to extend child protection orders to include children who seem to be engaging in self harm. At present a child protection order is available for a child being harmed or likely to be harmed by someone else. However, I am concerned that there is no protective provision for a child who is harming himself or who is likely to do so. For example, he might be acting suicidally, glue sniffing to excess, taking drugs or persistently playing "chicken" on roads or railway lines. I hope that the Minister can assure me that such a child situation has been considered. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I recognise the intention behind the noble Earl's amendment and sympathise with it. However, I would suggest to the noble Earl that it is not necessary. The ground set out in Clause 56(1) (a) (ii) provides for a child protection order to be granted where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child will suffer significant harm if he is not removed to and kept in a place of safety. The harm in such circumstances need not be inflicted by another party; it may be self-harm. With that assurance, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response. I am reassured and, therefore, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 76:
  Page 41, line 43, leave out ("regulations made under section 61") and insert ("rules made by virtue of section 88").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment allows rules of court rather than the Secretary of State to impose additional requirements on matters to be covered in applications for a child protection order. Such an arrangement is far more appropriate. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 78:
  Page 42, line 21, leave out subsection (6).
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to the above amendment when moving Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 58 [Initial hearing of case of child subject to child protection order]:
  [Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 81:
  Page 44, line 4, after ("order") insert ("and any direction given under section 57 of this Act (whether with or without variation of the order or, as the case may be, the direction)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 82, 83, 84, 86 and 88. The amendments make three worthwhile changes to the child protection provisions set out in the Bill. They empower
  1202
  a children's hearing to vary or continue conditions attached to a child protection order when the child's case comes before it on the second working day.
  Secondly, where a child has been detained in a place of safety under a child protection order but the principal reporter decides that it is not appropriate in the circumstances to bring grounds for referral before the eighth working day hearing, there is no provision for the child protection order to cease to have effect before that hearing. It would clearly not be in the child's interests for him to be kept away from home where no further action was to be taken on his case. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 59 [Duration, recall or variation of child protection order]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
  Page 44, line 25, leave out (; or") and insert ("a child protection order;").
  Page 44, line 26, at end insert ("such an order: or
  (c) subject to any term or condition contained in such an order or a direction given under section 57 of this Act").
  Page 44, line 27, leave out ("a child protection order").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 86:
  Page 44, line 32, after ("satisfied") insert ("or that the term, condition or direction is no longer appropriate").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to the above amendment when moving Amendment No. 81. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 88:
  Page 45, line 3, after ("below;") insert:
  ("() on the person who implemented the order receiving notice from the Principal Reporter that he has decided not to refer the case of a child who is subject to the order to a children's hearing arranged in accordance with section 63(2) of this Act;
  () on the Principal Reporter giving notice in accordance with subsection (3) above in relation to the order that he considers that the conditions for the making of it are no longer satisfied;").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 89 and 90:
  Page 45, line 15, leave out from ("rules") to ("; or").
  Page 45, line 38, leave out subsection (11).
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 60 [Emergency protection of children where child protection order not available]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 91:
  Page 47, line 30, at end insert:
  ("(9) Subsection (10) below shall apply in relation to a local authority area for which no district court has been established under

  1203
  the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975 or in which such a court has ceased to exist.
  (10) In relation to an area to which this subsection applies the Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that—

  (a) there is no sheriff habitually resident in that area, or there is a likelihood that the sheriff who is so resident will be frequently absent from the area; and

  (b) there is a possibility of delays in travelling to the area by sea or air by scheduled services,

  by order provide that this section shall take effect subject to the following variations—

  (i) an authorisation under subsection (1) and (2) may be granted only by an honorary sheriff serving in that area;

  (ii) an authorisation shall lapse under subsection (4) (b) (i) when seventy-two hours have expired since it was given; and

  (iii) the Scottish Courts Administration shall provide such training as the Secretary of State thinks fit for honorary sheriffs serving in that area.").

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the tabling of the above amendment stems from concern about the operation of applications for child protection orders in remote areas. The amendment was given some consideration in another place but was not conclusively discussed. The circumstance with which the amendment deals is the fact that there is no district court in the island councils' areas. Justices of the peace in the area have no experience of sitting on the Bench.
  It would seem to be better if an honorary sheriff received training to deal with child protection order applications. That would be operable in the event of a sheriff not being available. By way of example, perhaps I should point out that the sheriff for Orkney and Shetland lives in Shetland, but bad flying conditions could easily prevent him reaching the islands in a reasonably short time. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the amendment would introduce special procedures to be followed in emergency protection cases where there is no district court in the area. I can quickly reassure the noble Earl that honorary sheriffs are already empowered to grant child protection orders. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am certainly reassured. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 92:
  After Clause 61, insert the following new clause:
  ("Children arrested by the police Review of case of child arrested by police
  .—(1) Where the Principal Reporter has been informed by a constable, in accordance with section 296(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, that charges are not to be proceeded with against a child who has been detained in a place of safety in accordance with that section, the Principal Reporter shall, unless he considers that compulsory measures of supervision are not required in relation to the child, arrange a children's hearing to which he shall refer the case.
  (2) A children's hearing arranged under subsection (1) above shall begin not later than the third day after the Principal Reporter received the information mentioned in that subsection.
  (3) Where the Principal Reporter considers that a child of whose detention he has been informed does not require compulsory
  1204
  measures of supervision, he shall direct that the child shall no longer be kept in the place of safety.
  (4) Subject to subsection (3) above, a child who has been detained in a place of safety may continue to be kept at that place until the commencement of a children's hearing arranged under subsection (1) above.
  (5) Subject to subsection (6) below, a children's hearing arranged under subsection (1) above may—

  (a) if they are satisfied that the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of section 64 of this Act are satisfied, grant a warrant to keep the child in a place of safety; and

  (b) direct the Principal Reporter to arrange a children's hearing for the purposes of section 63(1) of this Act,

  and subsections (3) to (8) of the said section 63 shall apply to a warrant granted under this subsection as they apply to a warrant granted under subsection (1) of the said section 64.
  (6) A child shall not be kept in a place of safety in accordance with a warrant granted under subsection (5) above where the Principal Reporter, having regard to the welfare of the child, considers that, whether as a result of a change in the circumstances of the case or of further information relating to the case having been received by the Principal Reporter—

  (a) the conditions mentioned in section 64(2) of this Act are no longer satisfied in relation to the child; or

  (b) the child is not in need of compulsory measures of supervision,

  and where he does so consider he shall give notice to that effect to the person who is keeping the child in that place in accordance with the warrant.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 228, 229 and 242. Under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, where a child has been detained in accordance with Section 296(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, the reporter is obliged to bring the child's case before a children's hearing on the first lawful day. The amendments reintroduce a similar worthwhile provision in the Bill and, therefore, ensure that children who have been arrested do not remain longer than is necessary in a place of safety.
  I should also add that it may be appropriate to make further minor changes on Third Reading in relation to children who on being referred to a children's hearing—whether or not after arrest—are already subject to a supervision requirement. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 64 [Warrant to keep child where children's hearing unable to dispose of case]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 93:
  Page 49, line 36, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to any other power enjoyed by them under this Part of this Act and").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have great sympathy with Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and which relate to this group of amendments, headed by Amendment No. 93 on the groupings list. However, the government amendments introduce a number of small but important improvements to the provisions which apply to children being kept in places of safety. Therefore, I believe that the government amendments essentially secure the same purposes as those which the noble Lord is seeking to achieve. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will not move his amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 94:
  Page 49, line 37, leave out from ("under") to end of line 39 and insert ("this Part").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 96:
  Page 50, line 7, leave out ("keep the child in a place of safety") and insert ("find the child, remove him to a place of safety and keep him there").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 would certainly be more explicit than the present wording as regards what is required when dealing with warrants. I beg to move.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I certainly recognise the purpose behind these two amendments. In prompting the noble Earl in a discreet fashion, I wanted to indicate to him that I would wish to consider the possibility of bringing forward a government amendment which would meet just his intentions but at the same time maintain a consistency with other similar provisions in the Bill. With that assurance I hope that the noble Earl will now withdraw the amendments.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am greatly reassured by what the noble and learned Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 98 and 99:
  Page 50, line 10, at end insert:
  ("(3A) A warrant under subsection (1) above may contain such conditions as appear to the children's hearing to be necessary or expedient, and without prejudice to that generality may—

  (a) subject to section 87 of this Act require the child to submit to any medical or other examination or treatment; and

  (b) regulate the contact with the child of any specified person or class of persons.").

  Page 50, line 14, after ("force") insert (", whether with or without variation of any condition imposed by virtue of subsection (3A) above,").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 100 not moved.]
  Clause 64 [Warrant to keep child where children's hearing unable to dispose of case]:
  [Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 102 and 103:
  Page 50, line 16, leave out from ("hearing") to ("are") in line 19.
  Page 50, line 21, leave out from ("the") to (", the") in line 22 and insert ("disposal of his case").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 93. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
  Page 50, line 35, leave out subsection (8).
  After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
  Warrant for further detention of child
  (".—(1) Where a child is being kept in a place of safety by virtue of a warrant granted under section 64 of this Act or under this subsection, the Principal Reporter at any time prior to the expiry of that warrant may apply to the sheriff for a warrant to keep the child in that place after the warrant granted under the said section 64 or, as the case may be, this subsection has expired.
  (2) A warrant under subsection (1) above shall only be granted on cause shown and—

  (a) shall specify the date on which it will expire; and

  (b) may contain any such requirement or condition as may be contained in a warrant granted under the said section 64.

  (3) Where the sheriff grants a warrant under subsection (1) above, he may also make an order under this subsection in such terms as are mentioned in subsection (5) or (6) of the said section 64; and any order under this subsection shall cease to have effect when the warrant expires.
  (4) An application under subsection (1) above may be made at the same time as, or during the hearing of, an application which the Principal Reporter has been directed by a children's hearing to make under section 63(6) or (8) of this Act.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 93. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Application to sheriff to establish grounds of referral]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 109 to 112:
  Page 51, line 6, after ("shall") insert ("—

  (a) have the right to attend the hearing of an application; and

  (b)")

  Page 51, line 7, leave out ("the hearing of an application") and insert ("such hearing").
  Page 51, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("is") in line 13 and insert ("Without prejudice to subsection (4) (a) above, the sheriff may dispense with the obligation imposed by subsection (4) (b) above where he").
  Page 51, line 21, leave out ("attendance") and insert ("obligation to attend").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 109, 110, 111 and 112 in speaking to Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 113 and 114:
  Page 52, line 2, leave out ("is satisfied") and insert ("finds").
  Page 52, line 15, at end insert:
  ("() An order issued under subsection (10) above may, if the sheriff is satisfied that either of the criteria mentioned in section 67(10) of this Act is fulfilled, provide that the child shall be liable to be placed and kept in secure accommodation within a residential establishment at such times as the person in charge of the establishment, with the agreement of the chief social work officer of the relevant local authority, considers necessary.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 66 [Continuation or disposal of referral by children's hearing]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 115 to 118:
  Page 52, line 24, after ("section 65") insert ("or section 82").
  Page 53, line 27, at end insert:
  ("(8A) A warrant under subsection (4) or (7) above may contain such conditions as appear to the children's hearing to be necessary or expedient, and without prejudice to that generality may—

  (a) subject to section 87 of this Act require the child to submit to any medical or other examination or treatment;

  (b) regulate the contact with the child of any specified person or class of persons.").

  Page 53, line 29, after ("section") insert ("or is to attend, or reside at, any place in accordance with a requirement made under subsection (3) above").
  Page 53, line 31, at end insert:
  ("(9A) Where a child is to reside in a residential establishment by virtue of a requirement made or warrant granted under this section, the children's hearing may, if satisfied that either of the criteria mentioned in section 67(10) of this Act is fulfilled, order that while the requirement or warrant remains in effect he shall be liable to be placed in secure accommodation within that establishment at such times as the person in charge of the establishment, with the agreement of the chief social worker of the relevant local authority, considers necessary.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 113 when moving Amendment No. 49 and I spoke to Amendments Nos. 114 and 116 to 118 when moving Amendment No. 93. I spoke to Amendment No. 115 when moving Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 67 [Disposal of referral by children's hearing: supervision requirements, including residence in secure accommodation]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 119 to 121:
  Page 54, line 9, at beginning insert ("subject to section 87 of this Act,").
  Page 54, line 15, after ("the") insert ("supervision").
  Page 54, line 15, leave out ("named person") and insert ("person specified in the requirement under this subsection").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 119 to 121 when moving Amendment No. 49. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 122:
  Page 54, line 39, leave out subsection (11).
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 122 when moving Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Duties of local authority with respect to supervision requirements]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 123:
  Page 54, line 41, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 42 and insert (", as respects a child subject to a supervision requirement, give effect to the requirement.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No.123 makes it clear that the obligation on a local authority to give effect to a supervision requirement is as respects a child subject to that requirement. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 124:
  Page 55, line 10, leave out from ("child") to end of line 13.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 69 [Transfer of child subject to supervision requirement in case of necessity]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 55, line 25, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 124 and 125 when moving Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 70 [Duration and review of supervision requirement]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 56, line 2, at end insert:
  ("(4A) Where the relevant local authority are aware that an application has been made and is pending, or is about to be made, under section 12 of the said Act of 1978 for an adoption order in respect of a child who is subject to a supervision requirement, they shall forthwith refer his case to the Principal Reporter.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this group of amendments includes Amendments Nos. 129, 134, 135, 138, 174, 178 and 179. They represent a useful addition to the legislation governing both adoption and supervision of children who have been before a children's hearing. Social work practitioners in the field of child care may see from time to time differences of opinion arise between the local authority and the children's hearing as to the arrangements which should be made for the future of the child. The local authority, for example, may be considering a permanent placement by pursuing the possibility of adoption while the hearing may consider that, with further assistance, the child could be reunited with his original family.
  Clearly it is desirable that all parties involved should have a clear and unambiguous understanding of what is best for the child. However, in the event of disagreement the welfare of the child would be best served through speedy resolution. These amendments address this situation. It may be that the circumstances which these amendments address will arise only occasionally, but they represent important safeguards for children and as such I hope that your Lordships will welcome them. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to refer to Amendment No. 138. When we come to reprint the Bill at the end of these procedures could I suggest the wording:
  "Under Section 12 or 18 of the said Act of 1978".
  Section 12 should, I think, come before Section 18 and not after it; otherwise, I am perfectly happy with these amendments. I refer to what is really a small printing correction.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, that is a suggestion that we shall certainly want to look at. I am grateful to my noble friend.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 127 and 128:
  Page 56, line 3, leave out subsection (5).
  Page 56, line 16, at end insert ("and to the relevant local authority").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, both Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 were spoken to when moving Amendment No. 20. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 129:
  Page 56, line 20, at end insert ("or (4A)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have just spoken to Amendment No. 129 when moving Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 130:
  Page 56, line 32, at end insert:
  ("(aa) where they are satisfied that in order to complete the review of the supervision requirement it is necessary to have a further investigation of the child's case, continue the review to a subsequent hearing;").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 130 and 132 are minor amendments which would introduce flexibility into Clause 70 to ensure that it works effectively. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 131:
  Page 56, line 34, leave out from ("requirement") to end of line 35.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a minor but important amendment. Amendment No. 166 defines a supervision requirement as including any condition contained in such a requirement or related to it. This makes it clear that any variation of the terms of a supervision requirement will also embrace the variation of any conditions attached to that requirement. Amendment No. 131 which I am moving and Amendments Nos. 133 and 155 are consequential to Amendment No. 166. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 132:
  Page 56, line 39, at end insert:
  ("(9A) Subsections (3) to (9) of section 66 of this Act shall apply to a continuation under paragraph (aa) of subsection (8) above of a review of a supervision requirement as they apply to the continuation of a case under subsection (1) (a) of that section.").
  The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 130. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 135:
  Page 56, line 40, leave out ("or condition").
  Page 57, line 5, after ("(4) (c)") insert ("or (4A)").
  Page 57, line 9, after ("adoption") insert ("or the application, or prospective application, under section 12 of that Act").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 133 when moving Amendment No. 131. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 when moving Amendment No. 126. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 136:
  Page 57, line 9, leave out ("make") and insert ("require to come to a decision").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 136, 137 and 139 are essentially of a technical nature. They require the court to consider the report before making a decision on an application and not merely therefore when making a determination following an application. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 137 to 139:
  Page 57, line 10, leave out ("a determination").
  Page 57, line 13, after ("18") insert ("or 12").
  Page 57, line 15, leave out ("making a determination") and insert ("coming to a decision").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 137 and 139 when moving the previous amendment. I spoke to Amendment No. 138 when moving Amendment No. 126. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 72 [Powers of Secretary of State with respect to secure accommodation]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 140:
  Page 58, line 25, leave out ("the parents of") and insert ("any person with parental responsibilities in relation to").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment is a sensible and necessary improvement to the drafting of subsection (6) (c). I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 73 [Exclusion orders]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 141:
  Page 59, line 2, leave out ("and sections 74 to 77") and insert (", sections 74 to 76 and section 88(2A) (f)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment when moving Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 143 and 144:
  Page 59, line 9, leave out from ("served") to ("of") in line 10 and insert ("in accordance with rules making such provision as is mentioned in section 88(2A) (d)").
  Page 59, line 19, leave out ("77(2) (c)") and insert ("88(2A) (e)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 when moving Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 145:
  Page 59, line 20, leave out from ("subsection") to ("within") in line 22.
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 145 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 147. The amendments effect a necessary technical rationalisation of the provisions in relation to interim exclusion orders. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 146:
  Page 59, line 23, leave out (77(2) (c)") and insert ("88(2A) (e)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 147:
  Page 59, line 29, leave out ("before finally determining") and insert ("at any point prior to the final determination of").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 148:
  Page 59, line 32, at end insert:
  ("(7A) Where—

  (a) an application is made under subsection (1) above; and

  (b) the sheriff considers that the conditions for making a child protection order under section 56 of this Act are satisfied,

  he may make an order under that section as if the application had been duly made by the local authority under that rather than under this section.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides useful flexibility for the sheriff when he is considering an application for an exclusion order. As presently drafted, the Bill provides power for the sheriff to refuse the application, make the order or make an interim order.
  In most cases the local authority, in full knowledge of all the appropriate family circumstances, can be expected to apply for the appropriate order. However, it is conceivable that circumstances might change. New information might come to light or other factors come into play which would make a child protection order rather than an exclusion order the better option. The aim is simply to ensure that the sheriff should have at his disposal an express statutory power to be satisfied that the order that he makes will be appropriate for the protection of the child. If he should be in any doubt about an exclusion order providing that protection he will have that power to make a child protection order and the child could be suitably removed to a place of safety. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Powers of arrest etc. in relation to exclusion order]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 149:
  Page 62, line 3, after ("arrest") insert ("is served").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 75 is a necessary clarification. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 150:
  Page 63, line 13, at end insert ("above").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment ensures that the reference to subsection (6) which is contained in subsection (13) (a) (i) relates to subsection (6) of Clause 75. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Duration, variation and recall of exclusion order]:
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 151:
  Page 64, line 9, at end insert ("provided that the Sheriff may, on cause shown, extend an exclusion order for a further period or periods, with no such period to exceed six months.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the extension of exclusion orders beyond the six-month limit within the Bill in Clause 76(1).
  I am not sure whether the amendment is necessary, but it has been put down for clarification. In Clause 76(3) a power is given to the sheriff to vary or recall an exclusion order. I am not sure whether that power allows him to extend the exclusion order.
  Having created a bit of a fuss about exclusion orders in the early stages of the Bill, I would be the last person to suggest that anybody should be excluded from his or her own home unnecessarily. However, the problem is that if the authorities do not get on with a prosecution, if there is to be a prosecution, then in the interests of the child and perhaps the community it may be necessary to keep the person concerned away from that particular area.
  The effect of the amendment is to some extent to erode civil liberties, but in the field we are dealing with, namely child abuse, it is important that there should be some continuity in dealing with the offender and the allegedly abused child. As indicated in the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government have, to their credit, gone a long way to balance the interests of the allegedly abused child and the alleged abuser. I would not like it to be thought that from this side of your Lordships' House we are suggesting that people should be excluded from their homes unnecessarily. That is why the determining words in the amendment are "on cause shown". One would hope that we can rely on sheriffs to make sure that it will not be as a result of incompetence on the part of the authorities but on the basis of real cause shown to the sheriff that extension of the exclusion order is allowed.
  I move the amendment with some reluctance. The Minister said during the Committee stage that if the authorities cannot deal with these matters within six months then, unless the person is in custody, there is something wrong with the process of justice. This is an enabling amendment to take account of extraordinary circumstances. As I said, the determining phrase is "on cause shown". I hope that the courts will interpret that as real cause to show that the exclusion order should be continued for a period, with an upper time limit of six months. I beg to move.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated clearly his concerns. They are proper ones. We wish to ensure that children who might be subject to abuse are protected for as long as is necessary. As he remarked, I indicated during the Committee stage that I have my concerns about introducing open-ended exclusion orders. It would be quite inappropriate for public intervention of this type to continue without any focus. Indeed, such intervention might ultimately exacerbate the problems being faced by a family.

  1213
  Our exclusion provisions are accordingly focused on assisting the non-abusing parent to make the first positive step in stopping that abuse. The exclusion order provision therefore allows public intervention from a very early stage and for a period of some six months thereafter.
  I believe that a period of six months should give adequate time for the non-abusing parent to receive the necessary counselling and support to resolve the situation by her own hand.
  Where the "named person", as he or she is described, continues to be a threat, the remaining parent or partner could apply for an order under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 where the named person was the spouse or cohabitant. I realise that it is a difficult area. However, on balance I believe that the six month period is both reasonable and adequate. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I agree entirely with him that six months is quite enough for the child or children involved, and for the parents. That is why the words "on cause shown", subject to the jurisdiction of the court, were put into the amendment. However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 152:
  Page 64, line 26, leave out ("man") and insert ("husband").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships agree that persons who are living together as though they were "husband and wife" is better than "man and wife". I beg to move.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, such is the power of my noble friend's argument that I accept the amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Exclusion orders: supplementary provisions]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 153 and 154:
  Page 64, line 27, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
  Page 64, line 47, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 153, 154, 156 and 157 when moving Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 82 [Application for review of establishment of grounds of referral]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 155:
  Page 68, line 10, leave out from ("requirement") to second ("of') in line 11.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 131. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 84 [Further provision as respects parental responsibilities orders]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 156 and 157:
  Page 69, line 45, leave out ("under this Part").
  Page 70, line 10, leave out ("act of sederunt") and insert ("such rules").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 85 [Parental contact]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 158:
  Page 70, line 41, leave out ("named person") and insert ("person specified in the order").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment represents an important clarification. The reference in Clause 85(3) to a named person could be confused with the named person defined in the terms of exclusion orders. The intention is that the sheriff should have power when making a parental responsibilities order in favour of a local authority to decide upon what contact the child should have with various individuals. Any such person would be specified in the order and the amendment removes any risk of confusion. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 87 [Consent of child to certain procedures]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved moved Amendment No. 159:
  Page 71, line 24, leave out from ("of') to end and insert ("—

  (a) section 64(3A) (a), section (Warrant for further detention of child) (2) or section 66(8A) (a) of this Act, in a warrant; or

  (b) section 67(5) (a) of this Act, in a supervision requirement, requires").

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 93. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 88 [Procedural rules in relation to certain applications etc.]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 160:
  Page 71, line 35, at end insert:
  ("(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of the said section 32, rules may make provision as to—

  (a) the functions of a person appointed by the sheriff under section 40(1) of this Act and any right of that person to information relating to the proceedings;

  (b) the circumstances in which any person who has been given notice in accordance with such rules of an application for a child assessment order, or any other person specified in the rules, may apply to the court to have that order varied or discharged;

  (c) the persons to whom notice of the making of a child protection order shall be given by the applicant for that order, and without prejudice to that generality may in making such provision require such notice to be given to either or both of the child and any relevant person in relation to that child;

  (d) the persons to whom notice of an application for an exclusion order or, under section 76(3) of this Act, for the recall or variation of such an order or of anything done under section 74(2) of this Act shall be given;

  (e) the period within which a hearing shall be held under subsection (5) of section 73 of this Act after the granting of an order under subsection (4) of that section;

  1215

  (f) the service of any exclusion order on the named person and the appropriate person within such period as may he specified in the rules.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 89 [Legal aid in respect of certain proceedings]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 161 to 163:
  Page 73, line 45, leave out ("to the Court of Session").
  Page 74, line 11, leave out ("granted") and insert ("made available").
  Page 74, line 38, leave out ("spouse or").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these three amendments apply to the revised Section 29 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 which is incorporated in Clause 89. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 90 [Interpretation of Part II]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 164 to 166:
  Page 74, line 44, at end insert:
  (""chief social work officer" means an officer appointed under section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;").
  Page 75, line 39, at end insert:
  (""relevant local authority", in relation to a child who is subject to a warrant granted under this Part of this Act or to a supervision requirement, means the local authority for whose area the children's panel from which the Children's Hearing which imposed the supervision requirement was formed;").
  Page 76, line 18, after ("Act") insert (", and includes any condition contained in such a requirement or related to it").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 164 when moving Amendment No. 93, Amendment No. 165 when moving Amendment No. 20, and Amendment No. 166 when moving Amendment No. 131. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 167:
  Page 76, line 18, after ("Act;") insert (""voluntary organisation" means a body (other than a public or local authority) whose activities are not carried on for profit;").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a self-explanatory amendment which adds a necessary definition of voluntary organisation to the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 92 [Welfare of child paramount consideration]:
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 168:
  Page 78, line 34, at end insert:
  ("() In reaching any decision relating to the adoption of a child, a court or an adoption agency shall determine the matter without unreasonable delay.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the procedure for the adoption of children. At first flush it may appear an unnecessary admonition, if
  1216
  I may so put it, to those involved (whether it be the court or adoption agency) to get a move on. The amendment provides:
  "In reaching any decision relating to the adoption of a child, a court or an adoption agency shall determine the matter without unreasonable delay".
  I do not know how to describe that provision; it may be rhetoric. However, the amendment sends a warning to people dealing with adoptions to get on with them. I am advised by some people involved in the adoption business (if I may so phrase it) that even unopposed adoptions have taken four months to be ratified in the courts. There is no excuse or justification for that length of time to be taken in what is an extremely sensitive area. It is sensitive for the adoptive parents; it is sensitive for the child if the child is old enough to understand what is going on.
  I hope that the Government will consider the amendment not as a piece of punitive legislation against the courts or adoption agencies, but to give people the right to come to court to ask why the adoption is not taking place as rapidly as it should, in particular where it is unopposed. The situation is entirely different where there is opposition.
  The amendment provides a general warning to those involved in these sensitive matters to get on with them, so that people do not go through an unnecessary period of suffering in the broad sense of the word. I beg to move.
  Baroness Seear: My Lords, as a miserable Sassenach, I hesitate greatly to intervene; and I do not claim to have any direct knowledge of the subject. The term "unreasonable delay" is extremely elastic. It could mean almost anything. However, I well recall that a close friend of mine who was concerned with adoptions found that it was often wise to monitor what was happening for quite a time before the adoption was confirmed. What on the face of it may look an extremely suitable adoption, in fact not infrequently turns out not to be so. It is only when the child has been in the home, sometimes for quite a long time, that it is safe to conclude that that adoption is suitable.
  "Unreasonable delay" is, I agree, such a vague term that it could be interpreted in any way. But I should be extremely unhappy if adoptions were hurried in any way. On certain occasions it is extremely important that there should be time to see what is happening.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the aims underlying the noble Lord's amendment, as indeed I do with the comments made by the noble Baroness.
  What I can say to the noble Lord—it is not for the first time—is that the amendment is unnecessary. The matter has been raised before. I remain of the view that the Bill adequately protects the interests of children for whom adoption might be under consideration.
  Clause 92 inserts a new Section 6 into the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. The new section already makes quite clear that, in reaching any decision relating to the adoption of a child, the court or adoption agency must

  1217
  regard the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his lifetime as the paramount consideration.
  There can be no denying that this is a serious requirement and it will require courts and adoption agencies to discharge their duties in an effective and efficient way. Clearly, any unreasonable delay would not be in the interests of the child and the court or the adoption agency would be failing to meet the standards set down.
  I am sure that this is the kind of matter which would be better addressed in terms of specific guidance or court rules, if necessary, but it is not something which is required on the face of the Bill. With the assurance that we shall bring forward guidance, if it should prove to be necessary, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I was interested in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who described herself as "a miserable Sassenach". I have called Sassenachs a few things but I have never called them miserable. I remember that an Englishman bought me a drink one night! Seriously, the noble Baroness raised an important point that the amendment should not be seen to be a hammer to rush the adoption procedure. I would not like it to be seen to have that objective and that is why I said at the beginning that we all know that it is a sensitive area of human relationships. I quite agree with what the noble Baroness said.
  I listened with interest to what the Minister said. As always, I accept his assurances and look forward to seeing the rules in due course. On that basis, and with my thanks to the Minister for his clear explanation of how the Government approach the legislation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 97 [Inquiries into matters affecting children]:
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 169:
  Page 80, line 43, at end insert:
  ("() A child or parent of a child may request a local authority to hold an inquiry into their functions in relation to that child, in terms of subsection (1) above, and if the local authority refuse to hold such an inquiry, they shall give written reasons for such a refusal.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment would give parents and children the specific right to ask for an inquiry into their case. I wish to ascertain from the noble Earl what the Government propose to put into guidance about that. In particular, I wonder whether such inquiries will be easy to request. Will the local authorities be required to justify a refusal? Who will pay for the inquiry? Alternatively, will it automatically have to be paid for by the person requesting it? An inquiry may be helpful, but it seems strange to limit it to those who can afford to pay for it. I hope that I have misunderstood the provisions of the Bill in that respect. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, before my noble friend replies I wish to make a short appeal. I have often been interested in hearing the replies given by my noble friends on the Front Bench to the noble Lord, Lord
  1218
  Macaulay, that something will be put into the guidelines, regulations or whatever comes after the Bill is enacted. I make the appeal that there should not be too great a delay after the Bill comes into force before the regulations appear.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, first I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on some of the points he raised. There may be some details which I cannot cover tonight, but I shall be able to write to him about them.
  Local authorities should always, in the spirit of the Citizen's Charter, clearly explain their decisions when called upon to do so. This is an important part of their accountability. In addition, all authorities now have in place formal complaints machinery. In cases of maladministration, individuals can have recourse to the local authorities ombudsman. I do not think, therefore, that we need in the Bill a prescription on the local authority to intimate a negative decision in a particular way, which would be one of the consequences of the amendment as drafted.
  I can also reassure my noble friend Lord Balfour that it is our intention to minimise any delay or time-lag between the Bill coming into force and regulations which are required for it. With those assurances to both noble Earls, I hope that the amendment can be withdrawn.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.45 p.m.
  Clause 98 [Panel for curators ad litem, reporting officers and safeguarders]:
  [Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 171:
  Page 81, line 29, at end insert:
  ("(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) above may provide, without prejudice to the generality of that subsection—

  (a) for the appointment, qualifications and training of persons who may be appointed to that panel; and

  (b) for the management and organisation of persons available for appointment from that panel.").

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical and consequential amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 102 [Extent, short title, minor and consequential amendments, repeals and commencement]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 172:
  Page 82, line 20, at end insert:
  ("() The transitional provisions and savings contained in Schedule (Transitional Provisions and Savings) to this Act shall have effect but are without prejudice to sections 16 and 17 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (effect of repeals).").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment to Clause 102 introduces transitional provisions. They are set out in detail in the new schedule. I should also mention in relation to Clause 102 that some minor adjustments might be appropriate at Third Reading in relation to the Bill's extent. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Amendments of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 173:
  Page 86, line 9, at end insert:
  ("Section 8 (direction where adoption society inactive or defunct) shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 173 simply seeks to delete a provision which is no longer required. The addition to Schedule 4 of Section 8 at page 118, line 33, merely notes the repeal. It is covered in Amendment No. 244. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 174:
  Page 86, line 32, leave out from ("which,") to end of line 34 and insert ("if no application has been made for an adoption order in relation to the child, application for an order under section 18(1) shall require to be made in relation to him.".").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 175:
  Page 87, leave out line 13 and insert:
  ("(a) in subsection (1), the words "Subject to section 53(1) of the Children Act 1975 (which provides for the making of a custody order instead of an adoption order in certain cases)" shall cease to have effect; and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 176 and it refers to the deletion of Section 53(1) of the Children Act 1975. I am advised that the amendment might be acceptable to the Government. It is technical and is a tidying-up process which follows on Amendment No. 168. Perhaps the matter could be considered to see whether the amendment is technically correct. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 seek to delete references to Section 53(1) of the Children Act 1975 from Sections 14 and 15 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. I agree that for practical purposes the Section 53 provisions, which allow a court to consider custody rather than adoption, are in effect spent because of the improvements brought about through the Bill.
  Clause 93 of the Bill makes clear that an adoption agency should consider alternatives to adoption and should not proceed with adoption if a better option is available. Similarly, paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 amends Section 24 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act to the effect that a court must not make an adoption order unless it considers that this would be better for the child than if it did not make the order. Clause 11 of the Bill provides scope for various orders and arrangements.
  I am sure that the provisions in the Bill and in the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, as amended by the Bill, cover all the necessary ground as regards alternative orders. It may be, therefore, that Section 53 of the 1975 Act could be repealed. The noble Lord's amendments, however, only delete other references to it. I should like to consider whether it would be possible to bring
  1220
  forward a minor amendment to meet the noble Lord's wishes. With the assurance that I will consider the matter further, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment, which would only achieve part of his desired aim.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am glad that the amendments have highlighted the issue and am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for taking on board the revision of the legislation. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 177:
  Page 88, line 10, leave out ("he would not be granted") and insert ("it is likely that he would be refused").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment makes a modification to the way in which the court should consider the position of a father who is not married to the mother of a child when an application has been made for a freeing order. Essentially, it provides a sensible degree of flexibility. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 178 and 179:
  Page 90, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("placing") in line 4.
  Page 90, line 16, leave out ("(4) (c) (ii) or") and insert ("(4) (c)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 when moving Amendment No. 126. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 180:
  Page 91, line 18, at end insert:
  ("In section 28 (restriction on removal of child from care and possession of applicant for adoption order etc.)—

  (a) in subsection (4), for the words from ", in terms of" to the end substitute "under or by virtue of Chapter 2 or 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

  (b) in subsection (5), the words "or of a voluntary organisation" and "or the organisation" shall cease to have effect.")

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the approval of the House, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 245. These are essentially consequential amendments which follow from other changes being brought about by the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 181 and 182:
  Page 91, line 24, after ("words '"') insert ("vesting in him the parental").
  Page 91, line 25, after ("substitute "") insert ("transferring to him the parental")
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 181 and 182 are designed to make consequential amendments to Section 49 of the 1978 Act. The section deals with the adoption of children abroad but the changes are essentially about terminology. Rather than retaining an inappropriate reference to parental rights

  1221
  and duties being vested in someone, the amendment substitutes the new terminology of transferring to the person the parental responsibilities and parental rights in relation to the child.
  Amendment No. 184 follows on changes brought about by the Bill. Sections 32 to 37 of the 1978 Act deal with protected children and have been repealed by the Bill. Therefore the reference to them in Section 59 is no longer relevant and the amendment seeks to remove it. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 183:
  Page 92, line 19, after ("in") insert ("drawing up, in").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the face of it, this is a fairly minor amendment in connection with the regulations that the Secretary of State can make in relation to adoptions. I believe that there was a mistake either in the formulation of the amendment or in the printing of it; it does not make sense as it stands. The words are, "drawing up, in". The wording already contains "in". I believe that it should refer to "drawing up, and" making alterations to, or revoking or replacing an adoption allowances scheme. The general theme is that there is a difference in making alterations to a scheme and drawing them up. The broad import of this amendment is that if the words "drawing up" are used, it means that there is scope for consultation. In other words, the scheme is not imposed upon the people involved. I understood that this amendment was not unfavourably regarded by the Government. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, however much the noble Lord doubts his own draftsmanship, the Government like it. We will accept this amendment.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 184:
  Page 92, line 40, at end insert:
  (". In section 59(4) (disapplication of provisions regarding rules), for the words ", 11 and 32 to 37" substitute "and 11".").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 181. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 185 to 195:
  Page 92, line 43, leave out ("65(1)") and insert ("(65)").
  Page 92, line 44, after ("(a)") insert ("in subsection (1)— (i)")
  Page 92, line 44, leave out from ("order"") to end of line 47 and insert (", in each of paragraphs (b) and (c), for the words "and 30 to 32" substitute "30 and 31";").
  Page 92, line 48, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(ii)").
  Page 93, line 1, leave out ("(c") and insert ("(iii)").
  Page 93, line 1, leave out ("sub-paragraph") and insert ("paragraph").
  Page 93, line 2, at end insert ("(iv) in the definition of "local authority", the words ", 35(1)" shall cease to have effect;").
  Page 93, line 3, leave out ("(d)") and insert ("(v)").
  Page 93, line 14, leave out ("(e)") and insert ("(vi)").
  Page 93, line 18, leave out ("(f)") and insert ("(vii)").
  Page 93, line 20, at end insert (";

  (b) in subsection (3), for the words "44 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "67 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

  (c) after subsection (5) add—

  "(6) Any reference in this Act to a child being in, received into or kept in, care (whether or not such care is expressed as being the care of a local authority and except where the context otherwise requires) shall be taken to be a reference to his being looked after by a local authority and shall be construed in accordance with section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995; and any reference to the authority in whose care a child is, shall be construed accordingly.".").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving these amendments, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 246 and 247. All of them deal with amendments to Section 65 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Many of these amendments to the Bill are simply numerical changes which are consequent on the restructuring of paragraph 26.
  The substantive changes to which I should draw the attention of the House relate to the deletion of a reference to Section 32 of the 1978 Act which is contained within the definition of adoption order. Section 32 provided the meaning of a protected child and the section is to be repealed by the Bill, along with other provisions relating to protected children. Similarly, the reference to Section 35(1), which also comes within the group of provisions to be repealed, also requires to be deleted.
  The amendment to subsection (3) is a self-explanatory update of a reference to the making of the supervision requirement which would previously have been made under the 1968 Act and will in future be made under Clause 67 of the Bill.
  The new subsection (6) ensures that the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 is adapted in accordance with the terminology and underlying philosophy of the Children (Scotland) Bill. I suggest that these amendments and the associated repeals in Schedule 4 are all helpful and sensible in adapting the 1978 Act. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 196:
  After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:
  ("SCHEDULE
  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
  1. Where, immediately before the day appointed for the coming into force of section 24 of this Act, a child is by virtue of section 15 of the 1968 Act (duty of local authority to provide for orphans, deserted children etc.) in the care of a local authority, the child shall on and after that day be treated as if he had been provided with accommodation under (and within the meaning of) subsection (1) of the said section 24.
  2. Sections 28 and 29 of this Act shall apply in respect of a person who, at the time when he ceased to be of school age (as defined in section 31 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980) or at any subsequent time, was—

  (a) in the care of a local authority by virtue of the said section 15 or of section 16 of the 1968 Act (assumption of parental rights and powers); or

  (b) subject to a supervision requirement (within the meaning of section 44(1) of the 1968 Act),

  as they apply in respect of a person who at such time was looked after (within the meaning of Part II of this Act) by a local authority.
  3. Where the parental rights in respect of a child have, by a resolution under the said section 16 or under section 16A of the 1968 Act (duty of local authority in cases of necessity to assume parental rights and powers vested in a voluntary organisation), vested in a local authority and immediately before the day appointed for the coining into force of section 83 of this Act those rights remain so vested, the resolution shall on and after that day have effect as if it were a parental responsibilities order transferring the appropriate parental rights and responsibilities (as defined in subsection (3) of the said section 83) relating to the child to the authority; and any access order made under section 17B of the 1968 Act in relation to the child (with any order made under section 17C of that Act as respects the access order) being (in either case) an order which immediately before that day remains undischarged, shall on and after that day have effect as if it were an order made under section 85(3) of this Act as respects the child.
  4. Where the parental rights in respect of a child have, by a resolution under the said section 16, vested in a voluntary organisation (as defined in section 90 of this Act) and immediately before the day mentioned in paragraph 3 above those rights remain so vested, the resolution shall, notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of the said section 16, continue to have effect until one of the following occurs—

  (a) the child attains the age of eighteen years;

  (b) the resolution is rescinded by the local authority because it appears to them that their doing so would promote the child's welfare;

  (c) the period of six months commencing with that day expires;

  (d) an order is made by virtue of section 11(2) (b), or under section 83(1), of this Act in relation to the child;

  (e) an order is made under section 12 (adoption order) or 18 (order freeing for adoption) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 in relation to the child.

  5. Where the circumstance by virtue of which a resolution under the said section 16 ceases to have effect is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 4 above, the appropriate parental rights and responsibilities (defined as mentioned in paragraph 3 above) in relation to the child shall transfer forthwith to the local authority in whose area he resides; and for the purposes of sections 83(6) and 84 to 86 of this Act the transfer shall be deemed effected by a parental responsibilities order applied for by that authority.
  6. While a resolution continues to have effect by virtue of paragraph 4 above, sections 17(3A) and (6) to (10), 17A, 17B, 17D, 17E and 20(3) of the 1968 Act (together with the code of practice last published under subsection (5) of the said section 17E) shall continue to have effect in relation to the child in question notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of those sections.
  7. Where an order made under—

  (a) section 10 (power of court in actions of divorce etc. to commit care of child to local authority) or 12 (power of court to provide for supervision of child) of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958;

  (b) section 11 of the Guardianship Act 1973 (orders relating to care and custody of children); or

  (c) section 26 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (provision for supervision or care where adoption order refused),

  committed the care of the child to, or as the case may be placed the child under the supervision of, a local authority and immediately before the repeal by this Act of the section in question (the "relevant repeal") that order remained undischarged, the order shall continue to have effect notwithstanding the relevant repeal until one of the following occurs—

  (i) the period of six months commencing with the date of the relevant repeal expires;

  (ii) the Court of Session direct, or the sheriff directs, that the order be discharged; or

  (iii) there is an event in consequence of which, but for the provisions (apart from this paragraph) of this Act, the order would have fallen to be discharged.

  8.—(1) Where relevant proceedings in relation to a child have been commenced and on the relevant date have not been concluded, the provisions of Part III of the 1968 Act shall continue to apply to those proceedings until the proceedings are concluded, notwithstanding the repeal of any of those provisions by this Act.
  (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, "relevant proceedings" means any proceedings at a children's hearing under Part III of the 1968 Act, any application to the sheriff under that Part for a warrant or under section 42(2) (c) of that Act to establish any ground of referral, and any appeal under section 49 or 50 of that Act; and a reference to the commencement, or to the conclusion, of such proceedings shall be construed in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) or, as the case may be, (4) below.
  (3) Relevant proceedings are commenced when one of the following occurs—

  (a) a children's hearing is arranged under section 37(4) or section 39(3) of the 1968 Act;

  (b) an application under section 42(2) (c) of that Act is lodged;

  (c) an appeal to the sheriff under section 49 of that Act is lodged;

  (d) an application under section 50(2) of that Act is made.

  (4) Relevant proceedings are concluded when one of the following occurs—

  (a) the sheriff discharges the referral under section 42(5) of the 1968 Act;

  (b) a children's hearing discharge the referral under section 43(2) of that Act;

  (c) the period of three weeks after a children's hearing make a supervision requirement under section 44 of that Act or on remission to them under section 49(5) of that Act, expires provided that no appeal has been lodged within that period against that decision under section 49 of that Act;

  (d) subject, as respects a decision under section 49(5) (b) of that Act, to head (c) above, the period of twenty eight days after the sheriff has disposed of an appeal under section 49(4), (5) or (6) of that Act expires provided that no application has been made within that period to him to state a case under section 50(2) of that Act;

  (e) the period of twenty eight days after the sheriff has disposed of a case remitted to him under section 50(3) expires provided that no further application under the said section 50(2) has been made.

  9. Where a child has been taken to a place of safety, or is being detained in such a place, in accordance with section 37(2) of the 1968 Act before the relevant date, and the first lawful day for the purposes of subsection (4) of that section is on or after that date, the child's case shall be proceeded with as if that day had been before the relevant date.
  10.—(1) Where on the relevant date a child is subject to a supervision requirement imposed under section 44 of the 1968 Act, he shall be treated as if the requirement had been imposed under section 67 of this Act; and in calculating any period of time for the purposes of section 70 of this Act, that requirement shall be deemed to have been imposed on the day on which the requirement was imposed under the said section 44 or, as the case may be, was last reviewed or varied under the said Act of 1968.
  (2) Where any relevant proceedings are concluded as mentioned in paragraph 8(3) (c) above, a supervision requirement imposed under section 44 of the 1968 Act shall have effect as if it were made under section 67 of this Act.
  (3) Where before the relevant date, or in any relevant proceedings, the sheriff has in relation to a supervision requirement made an order under section 49(6) of the 1968 Act, that order shall have effect in relation to the supervision requirement deemed to have been made under section 67 of this Act as it would have had effect in relation to the supervision requirement made under section 44 of the 1968 Act.
  11. In this Schedule—
  "the 1968 Act" means the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;
  "the relevant date" means the date on which the repeal of Part III of the 1968 Act by this Act takes effect; and
  "relevant proceedings" shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 8(2) above.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a schedule of transition provisions and savings which covers the six circumstances where statutory mechanisms are needed to ensure that children will receive the full protection afforded by the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 197 to 199:
  Page 95, line 44, after ("(interpretation)") insert:
  ("—

  (a) the first paragraph shall cease to have effect; and

  (b)") .

  Page 96, line 1, after ("(interpretation)") insert:
  ("—(a)").
  Page 96, line 6, at end insert:

  ("(b) for the definition of "Place of Safety", substitute ""place of safety" has the meaning given by section 90(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;";

  (c) for the definition of "Residential establishment" substitute ""residential establishment" has the meaning given by the said section 90(1);".").

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments are interrelated. They make necessary amendments to the definitions in the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 as a result of the changes introduced by the Bill. I should mention that, although we have a considerable number of consequential amendments to consider today, I anticipate that I may have to bring further purely consequential amendments forward at Third Reading. It may be that these will not all be confined to Schedule 3 but may be for insertion in the main text of the Bill. This will be because some sections of Acts which require consequential amendments may be beneficially moved into the Bill itself. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 197 to 199 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 200:
  Page 98, line 5, leave out ("Parts II and III") and insert ("Part II").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 202 to 204 and 207 to 213. They simply delete unnecessary references to Part III of the Bill. Many of these are consequential drafting changes to the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 201:
  Page 98, line 7, leave out ("section 3") and insert ("section 4").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects a reference to Section 3 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which should have been to Section 4. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 202 to 204:
  Page 98, line 8, leave out ("or III").
  Page 98, line 12, leave out ("Parts II and III") and insert ("Part II").
  Page 98, line 18, leave out ("Parts II and III") and insert ("Part II").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 200. I beg to move them en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 205 and 206:
  Page 98, line 18, leave out second ("and").
  Page 98, line 20, at end insert ("; and
  () for subsection (3) substitute—
  "(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, regulations under this section may make such provision as is mentioned in subsection (4) of this section as regards—

  (a) the boarding out of persons other than children by local authorities and voluntary organisations, whether under any enactment or otherwise; and

  (b) the placing of children under paragraph (a), or the making of arrangements in respect of children under paragraph (c), of section 25(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, by local authorities.

  (4) The provision referred to in subsection (3) of this section is—

  (a) for the recording—

  (i) by local authorities and voluntary organisations, of information relating to those with whom persons are so boarded out, or who are willing to have persons so boarded out with them; and

  (ii) by local authorities, of information relating to those with whom children are so placed or with whom such arrangements are made or who are willing to have children so placed with them or to enter into such arrangements;

  (b) for securing that—

  (i) persons are not so boarded out in any household unless it is for the time being approved by such local authority or voluntary organisation as may be prescribed by the regulations; and

  (ii) children are not so placed or, in accordance with such arrangements, provided with accommodation, in any household unless it is for the time being approved by the local authority placing the child or as the case may be making the arrangements;

  (c) for securing that, where possible, the person with whom a child is so placed or with whom such arrangements are made is either of the same religious persuasion as the child or gives an undertaking that the child shall be brought up in that persuasion;

  (d) for securing

  (i) that a person who is, and the place in which he is, so boarded out by a local authority or voluntary organisation is supervised and inspected by that authority or organisation; and

  (ii) that a child who is, and the place in which he is, so placed or, in accordance with such arrangements, provided with accommodation, by a local authority is supervised and inspected by that authority,

  and that he shall be removed from the place in question if his welfare appears to require it.
  (5) In subsections (3) and (4) of this section, "child" has the same meaning as in Chapters 2 and 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 206 appears to be a lengthy amendment. However, it is simply a consequential amendment arising from the fact

  1227
  that we have taken children's services out of the 1968 Act and put them into the Bill. On that basis, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 207 to 213:
  Page 98, line 28, leave out ("6(1)") and insert ("6").
  Page 98, line 30, at beginning insert ("in subsection (1)—
  (i)")
  Page 98, line 30, leave out ("or III").
  Page 98, line 31, leave out from ("1995";") to ("in") in line 32 and insert ("(ii)").
  Page 98, line 32, at end insert:
  ("(iii) in paragraph (c), after the word "person" insert ", other than a child,"; and
  (iv) after paragraph (c) add—
  "(cc) any place where a child is for the time being accommodated under paragraph (a) of, or by virtue of paragraph (c) of, section 25(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995."; and
  (b) in subsection (2), after the words "1984" insert "or Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").
  Page 99, line 2, leave out ("or III").
  Page 99, line 8, leave out ("or III").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when moving Amendment No. 200. I beg to move them en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 214 to 220:
  Page 99, line 15, at end insert:
  ("() In section 28 (burial or cremation)—

  (a) in subsection (1), after the word "from," insert "or was a child being looked after by,"; and

  (b) after subsection (2) add—

  "(3) In subsection (1) of this section, the reference to a child being looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act I995.".").
  Page 99, line 15, at end insert:
  ("() In section 29 (power of local authority to defray expenses of parents etc. visiting persons accommodated by a local authority or attending certain funerals)—
  (a) in subsection (1)
  —(i) for the words from "a person" to "respect" substitute—
  "—

  (a) a person, other than a child, in the care of the authority or receiving assistance from the authority; or

  (b) a child who is being looked after by the authority, in respect";

  (ii) after the words "visiting the person" insert "or child"; and

  (iii) for the words "the person", where they occur for the second time, substitute "him".

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words from "a person" to "for" substitute—

  "—

  (a) a person, other than a child, who had been in the care of the authority or receiving assistance from the authority; or

  1228

  (b) a child who had been looked after by the authority, for"; and

  (c) after subsection (2), add—

  "(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above, references to a child looked after by a local authority shall be construed as is mentioned in subsection (3) of section 28 of this Act.".").
  Page 99, line 19, at end insert:
  ("() In section 68 (visiting of persons in establishments)—

  (a) in subsection (2), for the words "in the care or under the supervision of the authority under Part II or Part III of this Act" substitute "being looked after by the authority"; and

  (b) after subsection (3) add—

  "(4) In subsection (2) of this section, the reference to children being looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".").
  Page 99, line 21, after ("etc.)") insert:
  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) for the words "has been received into care under Part II of this Act" substitute "is being looked after by a local authority"; and

  (ii) in paragraph (a), for the words "his father and mother" substitute "any natural person who has parental responsibilities (within the meaning of section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) in relation to him"; and

  (b)") .
  Page 99, leave out lines 22 to 28 and insert:
  ("(2) This Part of this Act applies to any supervision requirement which, under paragraph (a) of section 67(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, requires the child concerned to reside in a place or places other than his own home.".").
  Page 99, line 30, leave out from ("words") to end of line 31 and insert:
  (""in their care or under their supervision" substitute "looked after by them".").
  Page 99, line 31, at end insert:
  ("() In section 79 (recipients of contributions)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "in the care or under the supervision of substitute "looked after by"; and

  (b) in subsection (2), for the words "having the care or supervision of substitute "looking after".

  () In section 80 (enforcement of duty to make contributions)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "received" to "requirement" substitute "looked after by a local authority";

  (b) in subsection (4), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute "throughout the period during which he is looked after by a local authority";

  (c) in subsection (5), for the words "is the maintainable child's father or mother" substitute ", being a natural person, has parental responsibilities (within the meaning of section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) in relation to the maintainable child"; and

  (d) in subsection (7), for the words "having the care or supervision of substitute "looking after".

  () In section 82(1) (recovery of arrears of contributions), for the words "having the care or supervision of substitute "looking after".
  () In section 83(2) (variation of trusts where person in whose care a child has been residing is for the time being residing in England, Wales or Northern Ireland), for the words "having the care or supervision of substitute "looking after".
  () After section 83 insert—
  "References in this Part of this Act to child being looked after.
  83A. In this Part of this Act, references to a child being looked after by a local authority shall be construed in accordance with section 17(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".
  () In section 86 (adjustments between local authorities as regards certain expenditure)—

  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) in paragraph (a), after the word "Act" insert ", or under section 24 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,"; and

  (ii) in paragraph (b), for the words from "of services" to "Act", where it occurs for the second time, substitute ", or under or by virtue of Part II of the said Act of 1995, of services and facilities for a person ordinarily so resident (including, in the case of a child, any expenses incurred after he has ceased to be a child, and, in the event of another local authority taking over, under section 24(4) of that Act, the provision of accommodation for him,"; and

  (b) in subsection (3), after the words "1989" insert "or provided with accommodation under paragraph (a) of, or by virtue of paragraph (c) of, section 25(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".

  () In section 87 (charges which may be made for services and accommodation), in each of subsections (1) and (1A), after the words "1984" there shall be inserted "or under or by virtue of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".
  () Section 88 (duty of parents to notify change of address) shall cease to have effect.
  () In section 90(1) (power to make regulations, orders or rules), the words ("(other than orders under section 52 and 58 and Part V of this Act)") shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the main thread running through this group of amendments is the change in terminology that we require to make in the 1968 Act to reflect the fact that under the Bill children will no longer be taken into the care of a local authority but will be looked after by the local authority. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  9 p.m.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 221:
  Page 99, line 32, leave out from ("interpretation)") to end of line 35 and insert:

  ("(a) the definition of "children's panel" and of "children's hearing" shall cease to have effect;

  (b) the definition of "compulsory measures of care" shall cease to have effect;

  (c) in the definition of "establishment" after the word "Act," insert "or of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995,";

  (d) the definition of "guardian" shall cease to have effect;

  (e) for the definition of "parent" substitute—

  ""parent" means either parent or both parents, except that where the child was born out of wedlock and the parents have not subsequently married each other it means the natural mother but not the natural father;";

  (f) the definition of "place of safety" shall cease to have effect;

  (g) in the definition of "prescribed"—

  (i) in paragraph (a), for the words "sections 3 and 36" substitute "section 3"; and

  (ii) paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect;

  (h) in the definition of "residential establishment", after the word "Act" insert "or of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995";

  (i) the definition of "school age" shall cease to have effect; and

  (j) in the definition of "supervision requirement", for the words "section 44(1) of this Act" substitute "section 67(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment amends the interpretation section of the 1968 Act in light of changes in the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 222 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 223 to 225:
  Page 99, line 37, after ("Wales)") insert:
  ("—
  (a) in subsection (1),").
  Page 99, line 37, after ("(1A)'"') insert (", "section 58" and "Part V"").
  Page 99, line 38, at end insert ("; and
  (b) subsections (2) and (3) shall cease to have effect.
  () In Schedule 2 (general adaptations of Part IV of Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937), for paragraph 1 substitute—
  "1. Any reference to a child or to a young person shall be construed as a reference to a child as defined in section 90(2) (b) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.".").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 223 to 225 en bloc. In doing so, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 230, 238, 239 and 240, which are in respect of Schedules 3 and 4. They make a number of relevant consequential changes in respect of the extension of provisions of the 1968 Act to England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 226:
  Page 100, line 10, at beginning insert:
  (—(1) The Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
  (2) In section 32(1) (power of Court of Session to regulate civil procedure in the sheriff court), after paragraph (i) insert—
  "(j) permitting a person who is not an advocate or solicitor and is not represented by an advocate or solicitor to transmit, whether orally or in writing, the views of a child to the sheriff for the purposes of any enactment which makes provision (however expressed) for the sheriff to have regard to those views.
  (3)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 226, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 227 and 235.
  The procedure for the court to take the views of the child concerned in the proceedings under Part I of this Bill has been discussed at a previous stage of the Bill. In another place amendments were proposed to set out such a mechanism on the face of the Bill. We thought it better that it should be left to the rules of court which would be more flexible and be able to take into account the many different types of case that may arise.
  We have looked at the Bill carefully to ensure that the courts have all the necessary powers. Again, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his helpful suggestion which will allow the courts to avoid significant practical difficulties. It would be very clumsy if, after the court had appointed a person—for example, a curator ad litem—to obtain the views of the child, the person could not report direct to the court but had to be represented by a solicitor or advocate. The amendment makes clear that any person appointed to convey the views of the child to

  1231
  the court can do so in person, even if he is not an advocate or solicitor. It is an amendment against interest. I beg to move.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may make a passing comment on Amendments Nos. 226 and 235. When we were discussing the question of the people now known as solicitor advocates, there were rules set out regarding the training and the code of conduct which they had to undergo before they were allowed to represent anyone in the court.
  As the amendment stands, it means that anyone—and I mean anyone—can come in and purport to represent the views of the child. It seems to me, in the way it is drafted, that a granny, an uncle or anybody, could come in and express the views of the child. When we are dealing in this area, it is important that the views of the child are given to the court on some sort of structured basis. I wonder whether Amendments Nos. 226 and 235 are perhaps rather widely framed and whether there should be some inbuilt protection for the child as to who can represent the child.
  I know that this is a difficult area but it seems to be a bit too wide in that anyone can come in and purport to represent the views of the child. I should like to hear what the Minister says in that regard.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if what the noble Lord understood was what the clause in fact does, I would readily recognise his anxieties. We are looking at a circumstance where the court will have appointed someone to determine the views of the child. In those circumstances, as the noble Lord can probably recall from his own experience in court, it would be desirable for that person to tell the court directly what those views are rather than having to convey them to the court through the medium of a solicitor or advocate.
  That is all that the amendment seeks to achieve. It was a point that the Lord President of the Court of Session indicated would be a change of practical value. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, is reassured that the amendment is not as wide as he thought.
  Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may say that my contribution was not a special pleading on behalf of advocates and solicitors.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 227:
  Page 100, line 10, leave out ("of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 228 and 229:
  Page 102, line 26, leave out from ("(3),") to ("; and") in line 28 and insert ("the words from "and the child" to the end shall cease to have effect").
  Page 102, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert:
  ("(b) subsection (4) shall cease to have effect.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 228 and 229 en bloc. They were spoken to with Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 230 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 231:
  Page 106, line 41, leave out from ("1983,") to ("shall") in line 43 and insert ("paragraphs 4 to 6 and 8 (which amend provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 repealed by this Act)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 231, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 248. They are consequential or technical amendments which previously remove from the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Act 1983 references to provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 which have been removed by the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 232 and 233:
  Page 107, line 2, at beginning insert:
  ("—(1) The Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
  (2) In section 10(1) (application of provisions relating to certain patients suffering from mental disorder)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (i), and the word "or" immediately following that sub-paragraph, shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) after paragraph (a) insert—

  "(aa) a child or young person in relation to whom parental rights and responsibilities have been transferred to a local authority by virtue of section 83(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".
  (3) In section 54 (local authority to be deemed nearest relative of certain children and young persons), for paragraph (a) substitute—
  "(a) the parental rights and responsibilities in relation to a patient who is a child or young person have been transferred to a local authority by virtue of section 83(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".
  (4)").
  Page 107, line 2, leave out ("of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 232 and 233 en bloc. They are consequential amendments necessary because of the repeal of Sections 16 and 17 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and to provide for a new reference in the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 drawing on Clause 83 of the Bill which provides a "parental responsibilities order". I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 234:
  Page 109, line 29, leave out ("of') and insert ("or").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2341 shall speak also to Amendment No. 236. These are simple technical amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 235:
  Page 111, line 24, at end insert:
  ("Court of Session Act 1988 (c. 36)
  . In Section 5 of the Court of Session Act 1988 (power to regulate procedure etc. by act of sederunt), after paragraph (e) insert—
  "(ee) to permit a person who is not an advocate or solicitor and is not represented by an advocate or solicitor to transmit, whether orally or in writing, the views of a child to the Court for the purposes of any enactment which makes provision (however expressed) for the Court to have regard to those views;".").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 226 I spoke also to Amendment No. 235. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 236:
  Page 115, line 23, at end insert:
  ("Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.6)
  . In section 2 of the Civil Evidence (Family Mediation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (which provides for exceptions to the general inadmissibility of evidence concerning family mediation), in paragraph (d) (ii)—
  (a) for the words "Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Chapter 2 or 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and
  (b) after the word "hearing" insert—
  ", before a sheriff or before a justice of the peace;
  (iia) on any appeal arising from such proceedings as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) above".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 237:
  Page 116, line 41, column 3, at beginning insert ("Section 5(2C).").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 237 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 250. As Clause 11 in effect confers jurisdiction upon the sheriff court to make orders under that clause the existing provision for applications to the sheriff court for parental rights is unnecessary and may be repealed by these amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 238 to 240:
  Page 117, line 19, column 3, at end insert:
  ("In section 90(1), the words "(other than orders under sections 52 and 58 and Part V of this Act)".
  In section 94(1), the definition of "children's panel" and of "children's hearing"; the definitions of "compulsory measures of care", "guardian" and "place of safety"; in the definition of "prescribed", paragraph (b); and the definition of "school age".") .
  Page 117, line 20, column 3, leave out ("97(1)") and insert ("97, in subsection (1)").
  Page 117, line 22, column 3, at end insert (", "section 58" and "part V"; and subsections (2) and (3)").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 238, 239 and 240 when moving Amendment No. 223. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 241:
  Page 117, line 40, column 3, leave out ("168(a)") and insert ("168(c)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 241, perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No. 243. The amendments correct references to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 in Schedule 4 to the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 242:
  Page 117, line 46, at end insert:
  ("In section 296, in subsection (3), the words from "and the child" to the end; and subsection (4).") .
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 242 when moving Amendment No. 92. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 243:
  Page 117, line 48, column 3, leave out ("364(a)") and insert ("364(c)").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 241. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 244 and 245:
  Page 118, line 33, column 3, at end insert ("Section 8.").
  Page 118, line 43, column 3, at end insert (" In section 28(5), the words "or of a voluntary organisation" and "or the organisation".").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 244 when moving Amendment No. 173 and I spoke to Amendment No. 245 when moving Amendment No. 180. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 246 to 248:
  Page 118, line 49, column 3, leave out from ("65(1),") to end of line 52.
  Page 118, line 55, column 3, at end insert ("; and in the definition of "local authority", the words ", 35(1)".").
  Page 119, line 6, column 3, leave out ("4,5,7") and insert ("4 to 6").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 when moving Amendment No. 185 and I spoke to Amendment No. 248 when moving Amendment No. 231. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 249:
  Page 119, line 11, column 3, at beginning insert:
  ("In section 10(1) (a), sub-paragraph (i); and the word "or" immediately following that sub-paragraph.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 250:
  Page 119, line 31, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule I, paragraph 3.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 237 I spoke to Amendment No. 250. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at eleven minutes past nine o'clock.

  ABM Treaty: Presidents' Statement
  ABM Treaty: Presidents' Statement
  Conventional Arms Transfers
  Conventional Arms Transfers
  Newbury By-pass
  Newbury By-pass
  Crown Buildings in Scotland: Fire Certificates
  Crown Buildings in Scotland: Fire Certificates
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  Local Government Archive Services
  Local Government Archive Services
  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Defence R&D: Technology Transfer
  Defence R&D: Technology Transfer
  Saudi Arabia: Defence Collaboration
  Saudi Arabia: Defence Collaboration
  Local Authority Functions: Powers to Establish Joint Arrangements
  Local Authority Functions: Powers to Establish Joint Arrangements
  Drinking Water: Annual Report
  Drinking Water: Annual Report
  Environment Council, 22 and 23 June
  Environment Council, 22 and 23 June
  Agriculture Council, 19–22 June
  Agriculture Council, 19–22 June
  CAP Reform Proposals
  CAP Reform Proposals
  Heart Disease and Respiratory Diseases: Deaths
  Heart Disease and Respiratory Diseases: Deaths